PDA

View Full Version : Mother nature's preference?



dancingqueen
05-09-2014, 07:02 PM
So as not to derail a thread in the religion section, the following claim was made by none other than The Berean:

Mother Nature dislike gays too.

I am interested how one can come to this conclusion.
This claim borders on hate speech, but more importantly is a guise used by religious people to say "It's okay to express disapproval about one's sexuality, after all it's not me, but some unknown entity that we can neither argue, nor discuss with that holds these views. I'm just the innocent messenger."

How does a faceless, nameless, bodyless force like or dislike someone or something?

The Berean
05-09-2014, 08:11 PM
You reach an interesting conclusion from very few facts.

I assume you recognize a metaphor?? The term "Mother Nature" is such a literary term. Furthermore, It was used instead of any reference to a deity.

The phrase simply means that the natural phenomenon known as survival of the fittest applies to those who do not or cannot reproduce.

If you consider a perfectly logical, non-religious statement to be hate speech, then I apologize.

dancingqueen
05-09-2014, 10:28 PM
You reach an interesting conclusion from very few facts.

I assume you recognize a metaphor?? The term "Mother Nature" is such a literary term. Furthermore, It was used instead of any reference to a deity.

The phrase simply means that the natural phenomenon known as survival of the fittest applies to those who do not or cannot reproduce.

If you consider a perfectly logical, non-religious statement to be hate speech, then I apologize.

I said it borders on hate speech, there is a difference. Now care to clarifying how you came to this conclusion rather than trying to back peddle your way out of it?

The Berean
05-09-2014, 10:49 PM
I said it borders on hate speech, there is a difference. Now care to clarifying how you came to this conclusion rather than trying to back peddle your way out of it?

Back pedal?? Why??

Homosexuals don't typically pass on their genes to their children. That's all.

dancingqueen
05-09-2014, 11:35 PM
Back pedal?? Why??

Homosexuals don't typically pass on their genes to their children. That's all.

Moving the goal posts.
Survival of the fittest is about more than just passing your genes on.

Passing one's genes is about evolution, to pass on your survivability to future generations, survival of the fittest becomes irrelevant when one dies.

So please, explain how it is that nature as a whole does not like the gays.

Aristotle
05-10-2014, 09:49 AM
Berean's comment was an embarrassment to most people, please do not, in any way, associate us with him

The Berean
05-10-2014, 10:30 AM
Berean's comment was an embarrassment to most people, please do not, in any way, associate us with him

Now THAT is funny!!!

Aristotle
05-10-2014, 10:34 AM
I'm afraid you have to lie in the bed you made, friend :) :) :)

The Berean
05-10-2014, 10:36 AM
Moving the goal posts.
Survival of the fittest is about more than just passing your genes on.

Passing one's genes is about evolution, to pass on your survivability to future generations, survival of the fittest becomes irrelevant when one dies.

So please, explain how it is that nature as a whole does not like the gays.

Sorry, you seem to be the one moving the goalposts. Survival of the fittest is indeed about passing on the best genes, those most likely to enable the species to continue to thrive and "evolve" and become stronger.

The intelligence and physical abilities of one who does not reproduce are lost to the species.

The Berean
05-10-2014, 10:37 AM
I'm afraid you have to lie in the bed you made, friend :)

Not a problem. :) :) :)

The Berean
05-10-2014, 11:25 AM
I have a son. He inherited the musical and vocal abilities of me, my parents, and those of his mother, and her parents, and on back through the generations..

He will pass his genes on to his children, and all those he and they come into contact with will benefit from those abilities, on into future generations.

When people have offspring, this is the normal state of affairs. When they do not, those abilities and gifts are lost to human kind. If there are any positive aspects to the genetic structure of a human being, those are not retained in the species if the person does not reproduce.

The Left Sock
05-10-2014, 01:27 PM
If you think about it in a perfectly logical sense, Mother Nature adores gay people.

Think about it. Gay people have little chance of reproducing, which goes completely against Darwin's Theory of Evolution. According to Darwin, homosexuality should have been extinct long ago. But yet, in every generation of humans, there is a stable percentage of gay people born. Natural Selection does not support such a truth, gay people have little hope of passing down their genes, so there should be no continuity or consistency with homosexuality among humans. Yet, they are still with us.

The only conclusion I can draw is that Mother Nature adores diversity. If someone has a better explanation for why gay people persevere in defiance of Evolution, I'm all ears.

(of course, Buddhists have a very plausible explanation for homosexuality, but I'll keep that on reserve).

The Berean
05-10-2014, 01:44 PM
If you think about it in a perfectly logical sense, Mother Nature adores gay people.

Think about it. Gay people have little chance of reproducing, which goes completely against Darwin's Theory of Evolution. According to Darwin, homosexuality should have been extinct long ago. But yet, in every generation of humans, there is a stable percentage of gay people born. Natural Selection does not support such a truth, gay people have little hope of passing down their genes, so there should be no continuity or consistency with homosexuality among humans. Yet, they are still with us.

The only conclusion I can draw is that Mother Nature adores diversity. If someone has a better explanation for why gay people persevere in defiance of Evolution, I'm all ears.

(of course, Buddhists have a very plausible explanation for homosexuality, but I'll keep that on reserve).

"But yet, in every generation of humans, there is a stable percentage of gay people born."

Can never prove that has been the case.

Why they are still appearing is another subject.

The Left Sock
05-10-2014, 01:58 PM
"Can never prove that has been the case."

A huge volume of scientific research into the subject tends to disagree with you.

The Left Sock
05-10-2014, 02:43 PM
Ancient Greece, ancient Rome, ancient Egypt.... homosexuality was widespread and common. Nothing has changed, except society's efforts to control or punish them.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that every generation since ancient Egypt has produced a stable population of gay people. All the persecution in the world does nothing to stop it. Even in countries that hand out the death penalty for homosexuals, they still exist.

So, Christianity has been around for roughly 2000 years. Gay people are still among us. Obviously, Christianity is not a 'cure' for homosexuality, so maybe it's time to spend a little more energy on understanding, and less on judgment? Just an idea.

The Berean
05-10-2014, 03:01 PM
Ancient Greece, ancient Rome, ancient Egypt.... homosexuality was widespread and common. Nothing has changed, except society's efforts to control or punish them.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that every generation since ancient Egypt has produced a stable population of gay people. All the persecution in the world does nothing to stop it. Even in countries that hand out the death penalty for homosexuals, they still exist.

So, Christianity has been around for roughly 2000 years. Gay people are still among us. Obviously, Christianity is not a 'cure' for homosexuality, so maybe it's time to spend a little more energy on understanding, and less on judgment? Just an idea.

i agree with all of this, but it has little to do with the original premise. Gays don't reproduce.

The Berean
05-10-2014, 03:03 PM
"Can never prove that has been the case."

A huge volume of scientific research into the subject tends to disagree with you.

I'll have fun with this on some other topic!!!

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 07:49 PM
Berean's comment was an embarrassment to most people, please do not, in any way, associate us with him

It is a shame that there are so few wise Christians. You and few others are exceptions to my general opinion of religion. It's a shame, but opinions do tend to be based off of the majority.

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 07:52 PM
Sorry, you seem to be the one moving the goalposts. Survival of the fittest is indeed about passing on the best genes, those most likely to enable the species to continue to thrive and "evolve" and become stronger.

The intelligence and physical abilities of one who does not reproduce are lost to the species.


Look at the original post.
Now look at this comment.
Then back at the original post.
Now back to this post.
Sadly, this post is unrelated to the original post,
but if you stopped moving the goalposts every time you got called on your B.S you may be able to expand your thinking.

The Berean
05-10-2014, 08:02 PM
Look at the original post.
Now look at this comment.
Then back at the original post.
Now back to this post.
Sadly, this post is unrelated to the original post,
but if you stopped moving the goalposts every time you got called on your B.S you may be able to expand your thinking.

I also clarified, without IMO, moving the goalposts, "The phrase simply means that the natural phenomenon known as survival of the fittest applies to those who do not or cannot reproduce."

You can CALL BS every time somebody disagrees with you, that's up to you.

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 08:03 PM
i agree with all of this, but it has little to do with the original premise. Gays don't reproduce.

Really? Care to substantiate that?
Is gay sperm some kind of anti-baby?
Do sperm donors not exist?


In addition, to be ON TOPIC (Berian gets uncomfortable when people call his B.S)
is reproduction all that nature cares about?
Since the structure of the argument is uncertain lets set out a key definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature
now I know you are a Christian, so as standard Christian rules go when in an un-winnable argument, begin making up what words mean so you can weasel yourself out of the eventual cognitive dissonance.
(sorry to Ari and other Christians who can actually think on their own, but your brethren do make this a general rule of thumb to go by)
lets just stick with technical definitions that have been tried and tested.

Without moving the goal posts, taking the definition provided by Webster, a universally understood dictionary, please explain how such a phenomenon can hate or not hate anyone or anything?

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 08:05 PM
I also clarified, without IMO, moving the goalposts, "The phrase simply means that the natural phenomenon known as survival of the fittest applies to those who do not or cannot reproduce."

You can CALL BS every time somebody disagrees with you, that's up to you.

So it is not NATURE that hates the gays, rather "survival of the fittest" that does.
So a coined saying now has the capacity to hate someone or someone's actions?

Accept it, you are trying to deflect your own personal feelings onto an occurrence to attempt to hide how you really feel yourself.

The Berean
05-10-2014, 08:05 PM
So you are saying the term "MOTHER nature" is unknown to you??

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 08:07 PM
I also notice how you conveniently ignore Sock's point. Typical Christian attitude. If it's doesn't concur with your own view, you simply ignore it. This is why religion has no place in our society, you reject valid information for the sake of your opinions.

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 08:08 PM
So you are saying the term "MOTHER nature" is unknown to you??

Obfuscation and goal post moving, try again.

The Berean
05-10-2014, 10:41 PM
Obfuscation and goal post moving, try again.

You misquoted me. Don't talk about goalpost moving when you don't recognize a metaphor.

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 11:14 PM
You misquoted me. Don't talk about goalpost moving when you don't recognize a metaphor.

I did recognize your metaphor and am discussing this within it's context.
I also recognize you are trying to back out of this discussion, you cannot substantiate your claim.

The Berean
05-11-2014, 02:39 AM
I did recognize your metaphor and am discussing this within it's context.
I also recognize you are trying to back out of this discussion, you cannot substantiate your claim.

In a way that will satisfy you?? No.

I have a son. You do not.

Thank you for the discussion.

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 02:40 AM
In a way that will satisfy you?? No.

I have a son. You do not.

Thank you for the discussion.

And I have gay sex and you don't....
What does either points have to do with this conversation?

The Berean
05-11-2014, 02:41 AM
Good morning!!

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 10:20 AM
Good morning!!

Good morning to you too, I am kind of curious how the fact that you can stick your ***** in a ****** and make an offspring has anything to do with this discussion.
The fact does nothing to show that survival of the fittest has any disdain towards the gays.
But as sock pointed out, if the gays are so hated by Darwinism, why is it still around?

Aristotle
05-11-2014, 10:41 AM
Good morning to you too, I am kind of curious how the fact that you can stick your ***** in a ****** and make an offspring has anything to do with this discussion.
The fact does nothing to show that survival of the fittest has any disdain towards the gays.
But as sock pointed out, if the gays are so hated by Darwinism, why is it still around?

Homosexuals still exist in spite of themselves, certainly not because of anything they do to propagate the species.

Not trying to me mean here, but just pointing out an obvious fact:the reason homosexuals are around has much more to do with heterosexuals than homosexuals

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 11:51 AM
Homosexuals still exist in spite of themselves, certainly not because of anything they do to propagate the species.

Not trying to me mean here, but just pointing out an obvious fact:the reason homosexuals are around has much more to do with heterosexuals than homosexuals

Of course it does. but Why? How?
Clearly there is more to "survival of the fittest" than procreation.

Aristotle
05-11-2014, 11:55 AM
Of course it does. but Why? How?
Clearly there is more to "survival of the fittest" than procreation.

But survival of the fittest cannot even exist without procreation. There may be more to procreation than SotF, but there is nothing more important

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 02:43 PM
But survival of the fittest cannot even exist without procreation. There may be more to procreation than SotF, but there is nothing more important

You are moving the goalposts.
No one said SOTF cannot exist without procreation, SOTF does take more aspects into consideration. All the pieces of the puzzle are important, unless you can explain how the gays continue to exist despite their tendency to not procreate.

Aristotle
05-11-2014, 03:31 PM
You are moving the goalposts.
No one said SOTF cannot exist without procreation, SOTF does take more aspects into consideration. All the pieces of the puzzle are important, unless you can explain how the gays continue to exist despite their tendency to not procreate.

No posts were moved, just addressing your issue.

Aristotle
05-11-2014, 03:32 PM
DQ, answer this for me: can the human race survive if all humans turn homosexual, and do not engage in any hetero sex whatsoever?

Yes or no?

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 04:26 PM
DQ, answer this for me: can the human race survive if all humans turn homosexual, and do not engage in any hetero sex whatsoever?

Yes or no?

No. Not if everyone turned homosexual.
I am interested in seeing where this point is going, unless you propose the nature of homosexuality is to make everyone into a homosexual, in which case you would be incorrect. As I see it, unless that is your point, your question is irrelevant and simply a diversion tactic. Please show me otherwise.

Aristotle
05-11-2014, 04:30 PM
No. Not if everyone turned homosexual

So it seems even nature deems homosexuality as 'wrong', at least in the sense is that it has no procreative qualities which can propagate a species.

I am interested in seeing where this point is going, unless you propose the nature of homosexuality is to make everyone into a homosexual, in which case you would be incorrect

You've accused me of that before, and I've no clue why. It wasn't my point, and it's never been a point of mine int he past. Is this a defensive mechanism for you?

As I see it, unless that is your point, your question is irrelevant and simply a diversion tactic. Please show me otherwise

It is absurd to talk about there being no connection between homosexuality and SotF when SotF could not even work in a homosexual world. So, the connection is that SotF cannot be used to prove anything about homosexuality

Aristotle
05-11-2014, 04:39 PM
DQ, let me ask another question: does the fact homosexuals have to depend totally on heterosexuals, or at the very least heterosexual sex, to exist (eg: birth) not say something about the disordered nature of homosexuality?

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 04:57 PM
No. Not if everyone turned homosexual

So it seems even nature deems homosexuality as 'wrong', at least in the sense is that it has no procreative qualities which can propagate a species.
Something being "wrong" is not deemed alone by whether they can procreate or not, perhaps an explanation of the quotation marks used could clear this up.


I am interested in seeing where this point is going, unless you propose the nature of homosexuality is to make everyone into a homosexual, in which case you would be incorrect

You've accused me of that before, and I've no clue why. It wasn't my point, and it's never been a point of mine int he past. Is this a defensive mechanism for you?
It is not a defense mechanism, as I have outlined, I simply do not understand why you use this point. this is not an "all or none" situation, you imply a false dichotomy.


As I see it, unless that is your point, your question is irrelevant and simply a diversion tactic. Please show me otherwise

It is absurd to talk about there being no connection between homosexuality and SotF when SotF could not even work in a homosexual world. So, the connection is that SotF cannot be used to prove anything about homosexuality
Interesting perspective. However, what about SotF through lack of procreation? As an example, families in third world countries going hungry because of too many mouths to feed and not enough food, what about the social issue we have created with over populated orphanages? does this world, and our society as a result need a growing population right now? What if SotF is now being tied into the social construct we have created?

Aristotle
05-11-2014, 04:59 PM
Interesting perspective. However, what about SotF through lack of procreation? As an example, families in third world countries going hungry because of too many mouths to feed and not enough food, what about the social issue we have created with over populated orphanages? does this world, and our society as a result need a growing population right now? What if SotF is now being tied into the social construct we have created?

Well, we can try to address the problem. What we can't do is adopt homosexuality as the answer, because we would cease to exist in about sixty years or so

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 06:47 PM
Interesting perspective. However, what about SotF through lack of procreation? As an example, families in third world countries going hungry because of too many mouths to feed and not enough food, what about the social issue we have created with over populated orphanages? does this world, and our society as a result need a growing population right now? What if SotF is now being tied into the social construct we have created?

Well, we can try to address the problem. What we can't do is adopt homosexuality as the answer, because we would cease to exist in about sixty years or so

I would be interested to know how a segment of the population being gay will contribute to the end of humanity in about 60 years.

The Berean
05-11-2014, 06:49 PM
DQ, you can't be that dense!!!

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 09:09 PM
DQ, you can't be that dense!!!

Please explain.

The Berean
05-11-2014, 11:11 PM
Please explain.

Go back and read what he actually said!!!

dancingqueen
05-12-2014, 06:19 AM
Go back and read what he actually said!!!

So you cannot explain.
That's fine, it is a difficult thing to explain, I can't say i have an answer, but don't go acting like you have one when you can't even explain it yourself.

The Berean
05-12-2014, 07:08 AM
He said:
"What we can't do is adopt homosexuality as the answer, because we would cease to exist in about sixty years or so "

You said:
"I would be interested to know how a segment of the population being gay will contribute to the end of humanity in about 60 years."

Can't you read???

dancingqueen
05-12-2014, 07:30 AM
He said:
"What we can't do is adopt homosexuality as the answer, because we would cease to exist in about sixty years or so "

You said:
"I would be interested to know how a segment of the population being gay will contribute to the end of humanity in about 60 years."

Can't you read???

Can't you?
How does a segment of the population being homosexual contribute to the end of humanity in the next 60 years?
If you need to pick up a dictionary that's cool, I gotta go to work anyways.

The Berean
05-12-2014, 07:39 AM
Can't you?
How does a segment of the population being homosexual contribute to the end of humanity in the next 60 years?
If you need to pick up a dictionary that's cool, I gotta go to work anyways.

Something must be wrong with my computer. The word "segment' won't show in his statement.

Have to get that fixed!!

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 08:34 AM
Maybe, just maybe, God plants a certain population of gay people into every generation, to give us the chance to look past gender, and treat all humans as equal.

After all, human history is riddled with inequality between men and women, much of under the guise of religious authority.

So maybe, once humanity masters the equal treatment of the sexes, God will stop producing gay people, because we won't have to learn the lesson of equality any more.

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 08:36 AM
Maybe, just maybe, God plants a certain population of gay people into every generation, to give us the chance to look past gender, and treat all humans as equal.

After all, human history is riddled with inequality between men and women, much of under the guise of religious authority.

So maybe, once humanity masters the equal treatment of the sexes, God will stop producing gay people, because we won't have to learn the lesson of equality any more.

That would be a theory that fails under the fact that gays are sometimes intolerant, and no better than heterosexuals when it comes to judging and acceptance.

So ...

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 08:39 AM
So nothing. It doesn't refute the basic fact that gay people in our midst causes us to perpetually examine the roles of gender in our society, which could be exactly why God keeps planting them among us.

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 08:40 AM
Can't you?
How does a segment of the population being homosexual contribute to the end of humanity in the next 60 years?
If you need to pick up a dictionary that's cool, I gotta go to work anyways.

I didn't say a "segment", I meant it is not an option for all of humanity to adopt homosexuality as an answer.

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 08:42 AM
So nothing. It doesn't refute the basic fact that gay people in our midst causes us to perpetually examine the roles of gender in our society, which could be exactly why God keeps planting them among us.

What does God want us to consider about gender? Isn't the Bible clear on what He wants us to think about it?

Proverbs 18:22
He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD.

Proverbs 19:14
Houses and wealth are inherited from parents, but a prudent wife is from the LORD.

Matthew 19:4-6
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Mark 10:6-9
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 08:45 AM
You conveniently left out the bits where women are basically chattel and the man is in charge.

But I get where you are trying to go with that selective selection!

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 08:47 AM
You conveniently left out the bits where women are basically chattel and the man is in charge.

But I get where you are trying to go with that selective selection!

Deflection...I guess we can call this one a 'wrap'!

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 09:00 AM
No, you gave partial information, and tried to pass it off like a conclusive argument.

You can grab a few snippets of biblical text to just about paint any picture you want. Doesn't make it realistic.

The Berean
05-12-2014, 09:08 AM
No, you gave partial information, and tried to pass it off like a conclusive argument.

You can grab a few snippets of biblical text to just about paint any picture you want. Doesn't make it realistic.

Once again you show your lack of bible reading. Proverbs 31

Unless you have chapter and verse on YOUR "selective" beliefs.

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 10:06 AM
That's right; I'm stupid, because I can't read the same book, with the same level of equality as you, because I'm not a 'believer'.

Doesn't it get old, falling back to that same old tired cliche over and over again?

I don't know what I'm talking about, because I'm just a heathen. But Christianity is not a basis for bigotry, right?

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 10:13 AM
That's right; I'm stupid, because I can't read the same book, with the same level of equality as you, because I'm not a 'believer'.

Doesn't it get old, falling back to that same old tired cliche over and over again?

I don't know what I'm talking about, because I'm just a heathen. But Christianity is not a basis for bigotry, right?

you're using inflammatory language to get your point across, all in an attempt to discredit what Berean said. But he said none of those things, but only pointed out you lack some very basic knowledge of that which you are talking about.

It's like you trying to talk about the scientific wonders of birth, and someone asking what is so scientific about a stork delivering a baby to a house, other than perhaps the mechanics of flight.

It is okay to point out when they other side is making basic errors. How could the argument continue if not?

The Berean
05-12-2014, 10:15 AM
That's right; I'm stupid, because I can't read the same book, with the same level of equality as you, because I'm not a 'believer'.

Doesn't it get old, falling back to that same old tired cliche over and over again?

I don't know what I'm talking about, because I'm just a heathen. But Christianity is not a basis for bigotry, right?

Not the problem. You tell us what it says, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IT SAYS!!!!

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 10:36 AM
You have no idea what my level of knowledge in this area is.

You are pre-judging everything I say, because I claim to be a non-Christian.

Either admit it, or don't - it doesn't tilt my canoe, either way. It's your hang-up, not mine.

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 10:38 AM
You have no idea what my level of knowledge in this area is.

Some type of judgment can be made, based on what you post here. And, sorry, but it's not even rudimentary in some cases.

You are pre-judging everything I say, because I claim to be a non-Christian.

Nope, that's just a defense mechanism of your's kicking in

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 10:39 AM
Wasn't talking to you.

The Berean
05-12-2014, 12:59 PM
Wasn't talking to you.

Doesn't matter, he's right. When you say something like, "..women are basically chattel and the man is in charge", you show you know little of the bible, and less about how Christ treated women.

Judging?? Sure. So read. I'll even tell where the bible TELLS you to judge and how!!

dancingqueen
05-12-2014, 05:08 PM
I didn't say a "segment", I meant it is not an option for all of humanity to adopt homosexuality as an answer.

Nowhere has anyone suggested that homosexuality ought to be adopted by everyone. Anyone that does suggest as much belongs in the same category as Barry belongs as he presents Christians.

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 05:31 PM
Nowhere has anyone suggested that homosexuality ought to be adopted by everyone. Anyone that does suggest as much belongs in the same category as Barry belongs as he presents Christians.

What I'm pointing out is the disordered nature of homosexuality. If mankind adopted it, we'd die off. Just that fact alone shows it goes against the laws of an ordered universe.

dancingqueen
05-12-2014, 06:04 PM
What I'm pointing out is the disordered nature of homosexuality. If mankind adopted it, we'd die off. Just that fact alone shows it goes against the laws of an ordered universe.

You are implying a false dichotomy, That homosexuality exists as an all or none phenomenon.
Can you accept that homosexuality as it stands (I believe the numbers are around 5% of the pop'n) is not harmful to the human race?

Aristotle
05-13-2014, 01:01 PM
You are implying a false dichotomy, That homosexuality exists as an all or none phenomenon.

No I am not. I said I was using it in the context of keeping the species alive. Homosexuality cannot do that. That, i'm afraid, shows it is disordered.

Can you accept that homosexuality as it stands (I believe the numbers are around 5% of the pop'n) is not harmful to the human race?

It's more like 2%, and that's probably high; but you are moving the goalposts. the question is not if it is harmful, but if it can provide the most basic of functions: keep the species alive. It cannot.

dancingqueen
05-13-2014, 06:20 PM
You are implying a false dichotomy, That homosexuality exists as an all or none phenomenon.

No I am not. I said I was using it in the context of keeping the species alive. Homosexuality cannot do that. That, i'm afraid, shows it is disordered.

Can you accept that homosexuality as it stands (I believe the numbers are around 5% of the pop'n) is not harmful to the human race?

It's more like 2%, and that's probably high; but you are moving the goalposts. the question is not if it is harmful, but if it can provide the most basic of functions: keep the species alive. It cannot.


Homosexuality must provide some generational benefits, otherwise it would have wiped itself out long ago. Until it can be explained how Darwinism has not wiped out homosexuality we cannot empirically state homosexuality is disordered, unless you can confidently show how Darwinism is flawed.

Aristotle
05-13-2014, 07:31 PM
Homosexuality must provide some generational benefits, otherwise it would have wiped itself out long ago

Homosexuality exists in spite of itself. It is totally reliant on heterosexuals, or at the least a heterosexual act (sperm fertilizing egg)

Until it can be explained how Darwinism has not wiped out homosexuality we cannot empirically state homosexuality is disordered, unless you can confidently show how Darwinism is flawed

Darwinism doesn't have to be flawed to prove that homosexuality is anti-nature. Homosexuals have to rely on heterosexual relations to survive, they cannot survive if the only sex they engage in is homosexual sex. If anything, this proves Darwinism in this case: one group (homosexuals) cannot survive left to their own sexual predilections,they must rely on another - heterosexuals. In Darwinian terms, the weak-homosexuals ( "weak" in this instance only meaning they cannot propagate) rely on another to survive (thus the stronger) - heterosexuals

dancingqueen
05-13-2014, 07:47 PM
Homosexuality must provide some generational benefits, otherwise it would have wiped itself out long ago

Homosexuality exists in spite of itself. It is totally reliant on heterosexuals, or at the least a heterosexual act (sperm fertilizing egg)

Until it can be explained how Darwinism has not wiped out homosexuality we cannot empirically state homosexuality is disordered, unless you can confidently show how Darwinism is flawed

Darwinism doesn't have to be flawed to prove that homosexuality is anti-nature. Homosexuals have to rely on heterosexual relations to survive, they cannot survive if the only sex they engage in is homosexual sex. If anything, this proves Darwinism in this case: one group (homosexuals) cannot survive left to their own sexual predilections,they must rely on another - heterosexuals. In Darwinian terms, the weak-homosexuals ( "weak" in this instance only meaning they cannot propagate) rely on another to survive (thus the stronger) - heterosexuals

So if only heterosexuals produce homosexuals, why have they not been wiped out? This is what Darwinism stands to show.

The Voice
05-13-2014, 08:37 PM
So if only heterosexuals produce homosexuals, why have they not been wiped out? This is what Darwinism stands to show.

Goes to my theory that homosexuals are made.

dancingqueen
05-14-2014, 05:35 AM
Goes to my theory that homosexuals are made.

Interesting theory, I'd like to hear more.

Aristotle
05-14-2014, 09:41 AM
So if only heterosexuals produce homosexuals, why have they not been wiped out? This is what Darwinism stands to show.

Because some people choose to be homosexual. That doesn't negate anything I've said.

dancingqueen
05-14-2014, 04:59 PM
Because some people choose to be homosexual. That doesn't negate anything I've said.

Some people may wonder how does one go about "choosing" what they are sexually attracted to?

Aristotle
05-14-2014, 05:32 PM
Some people may wonder how does one go about "choosing" what they are sexually attracted to?

I find it rather easy.

I choose to be attracted to Sofia Vergara. A goat, not so much.

dancingqueen
05-14-2014, 05:51 PM
I find it rather easy.

I choose to be attracted to Sofia Vergara. A goat, not so much.

But COULD you choose to be sexually attracted to a goat? or another man?

Aristotle
05-14-2014, 05:56 PM
But COULD you choose to be sexually attracted to a goat? or another man?

I would imagine. It's what we desire, and we control our desires, to an extent.

dancingqueen
05-14-2014, 06:02 PM
I would imagine. It's what we desire, and we control our desires, to an extent.

Well I can only speak for myself, and maybe a few others but When I was reaching sexual maturity I tried awfully hard to be sexually attracted to women, but no dice. Any suggestions I may have missed? Keeping in mind that conversion therapy has been declared by the APA to be harmful, and God wouldn't want us to knowingly harm our physical form.

Aristotle
05-14-2014, 06:19 PM
Well I can only speak for myself, and maybe a few others but When I was reaching sexual maturity I tried awfully hard to be sexually attracted to women, but no dice. Any suggestions I may have missed? Keeping in mind that conversion therapy has been declared by the APA to be harmful, and God wouldn't want us to knowingly harm our physical form.

The APA is generally made up of far-left whackos, so my first bit of advice is to do the opposite of what they say. They say conversion therapy is harmful? Then rest assured it's one of the most successful and effective therapies ever devised by man.

As for harming your physical form, I'd say that is done quite often in the homosexual community. AIDS wasn't a mirage.

Lastly, look at your sexual attraction to men like an unnatural attraction to any other thing that is not normal:

Liking beer is fine; craving beer 24/7 is unnatural.

Liking chocolate cake is fine; feeling you need to eat an entire chocolate cake every day is unnatural.

Liking sports is fine; having your favorite sports team be the be-all and end-all of your existence is unnatural.

dancingqueen
05-14-2014, 06:32 PM
The APA is generally made up of far-left whackos....
What can you show me that validates this claim?


As for harming your physical form, I'd say that is done quite often in the homosexual community. AIDS wasn't a mirage.
But AIDS wasn't spread by being homosexual, it was spread by unprotected sex. Furthermore, did AIDS spread because of homosexuality, or might there have been other factors shared by people that where homosexual that caused the disease to spread?


Lastly, look at your sexual attraction to men like an unnatural attraction to any other thing that is not normal:

Liking beer is fine; craving beer 24/7 is unnatural.

Liking chocolate cake is fine; feeling you need to eat an entire chocolate cake every day is unnatural.

Liking sports is fine; having your favorite sports team be the be-all and end-all of your existence is unnatural.

Liking men is fine as long as I don't have sex with men 24/7.
This is a hyperbole.

The Left Sock
05-14-2014, 06:39 PM
The APA is generally made up of far-left whackos, so my first bit of advice is to do the opposite of what they say. They say conversion therapy is harmful? Then rest assured it's one of the most successful and effective therapies ever devised by man.

As for harming your physical form, I'd say that is done quite often in the homosexual community. AIDS wasn't a mirage.

Lastly, look at your sexual attraction to men like an unnatural attraction to any other thing that is not normal:

Liking beer is fine; craving beer 24/7 is unnatural.

Liking chocolate cake is fine; feeling you need to eat an entire chocolate cake every day is unnatural.

Liking sports is fine; having your favorite sports team be the be-all and end-all of your existence is unnatural.

And all this time, I always thought Archie Bunker was just a fictional caricature of American ignorance. As it turns out, All In The Family was actually a docu-drama!

Aristotle
05-15-2014, 08:21 AM
And all this time, I always thought Archie Bunker was just a fictional caricature of American ignorance. As it turns out, All In The Family was actually a docu-drama!

No substantive rebuttal, simply an attack to demean the character of a person who is routinely taking him out to the intellectual woodshed.

I win, again.

You're on quite the losing streak! :)

Aristotle
05-15-2014, 08:24 AM
What can you show me that validates this claim?

The APA leans left – sometimes way left – to the exclusion of divergent viewpoints
http://ironshrink.com/2008/09/dear-apa-we-need-to-talk/

But AIDS wasn't spread by being homosexual, it was spread by unprotected sex. Furthermore, did AIDS spread because of homosexuality, or might there have been other factors shared by people that where homosexual that caused the disease to spread?

there were other factors, but it spread fastest throughout the gay community.

Liking men is fine as long as I don't have sex with men 24/7.
This is a hyperbole.

You need to look up the definition of "hyperbole"

dancingqueen
05-15-2014, 05:06 PM
What can you show me that validates this claim?

The APA leans left – sometimes way left – to the exclusion of divergent viewpoints
http://ironshrink.com/2008/09/dear-apa-we-need-to-talk/

So you determine the APA to be made up wakos based off of a blog? I expect better from you. I really do.
This particular seems to have certainly cherry picked his arguing points and manipulated what they where saying so the blogger could be angry with what they said.


But AIDS wasn't spread by being homosexual, it was spread by unprotected sex. Furthermore, did AIDS spread because of homosexuality, or might there have been other factors shared by people that where homosexual that caused the disease to spread?

there were other factors, but it spread fastest throughout the gay community.
Yes it did, but looking at it in different light we see other patterns, drug abusers, mentally unstable, homeless where among the top "contributors" It is not unexpected then to see that people that are homosexual hold the highest numbers in many of these social problems. Things simply are not as black and white as your argument suggests.


Liking men is fine as long as I don't have sex with men 24/7.
This is a hyperbole.

You need to look up the definition of "hyperbole"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole


exaggeration (as “mile-high ice-cream cones”)
or "feeling you need to eat an entire chocolate cake every day is unnatural."
There are people that are gay but do not need to have a ***** up their bum 24/7 which is what you appear to be implying.

Aristotle
05-15-2014, 05:45 PM
So you determine the APA to be made up wakos based off of a blog? I expect better from you. I really do.

Nope, that was just a source. I've felt this way for years. Having used APA numerous times when writing papers in both under-and post-graduate classes, I am very familiar with the association. I've had more than one professor talk about the left-leaning tendencies of the APA. One prof, who would hardly be considered a conservative (he basically thought Reagan was the anti-Christ) complained when social studies in higher ed switched from MLA to APA, due to the highly-politicized nature of the APA. I was given a heads-up as to the politicized nature of the APA, and through the years have seen nothing that contradicts what I've read and heard.


Yes it did, but looking at it in different light we see other patterns, drug abusers, mentally unstable, homeless where among the top "contributors" It is not unexpected then to see that people that are homosexual hold the highest numbers in many of these social problems. Things simply are not as black and white as your argument suggests.

I didn't try to portray anything as black or white. But when homosexuals are 2% of the population, yet make up a majority of AIDS victims it's kind of hard to sweep the message under the rug, and that message is this: a certain sexual lifestyle is much more conducive to getting the disease than others.


There are people that are gay but do not need to have a ***** up their bum 24/7 which is what you appear to be implying.

Not implying that at all. What I am implying is that certain appetites, be they physical or sexual, when taken to extremes, rarely produce anything 'normal'. The number one reason for sex is procreation; the fact it feels good, is enjoyable, etc, is great, but it is not its main purpose.

So, heterosexuals have sex first and foremost to procreate; the fact it is enjoyable and can be an expression of love is a bonus.

Homosexuals have sex because it feels good and to express love. But there it ends. It has no higher redeeming quality.

Both heterosexual and homosexual sex can be self-serving, and simply about 'me'. But, heterosexual sex can rise way above that, and create new life. Homosexual sex cannot. As such, it is incomplete, and in its incompleteness it is unnatural, because the basic,fundamental reason for sex is procreation.

dancingqueen
05-15-2014, 06:08 PM
So you determine the APA to be made up wakos based off of a blog? I expect better from you. I really do.

Nope, that was just a source. I've felt this way for years. Having used APA numerous times when writing papers in both under-and post-graduate classes, I am very familiar with the association. I've had more than one professor talk about the left-leaning tendencies of the APA. One prof, who would hardly be considered a conservative (he basically thought Reagan was the anti-Christ) complained when social studies in higher ed switched from MLA to APA, due to the highly-politicized nature of the APA. I was given a heads-up as to the politicized nature of the APA, and through the years have seen nothing that contradicts what I've read and heard.

Left leaning does not discredit them. They are the leaders in the way we establish and understand all aspects of psychology today. Just because you don't agree with them does not make them wrong. With all the other associations watching them and looking to them, if there was any bias don't you think it would have been discovered by now? To be honest, the only thing I see is that you have a bias against the APA because you don't like what they have to say, besides. The APA is not alone in their dismissal of conversion therapy as a viable remedy to homosexuality. We can get back on track in that regard (I am just as guilty of derailment)


[B]Yes it did, but looking at it in different light we see other patterns, drug abusers, mentally unstable, homeless where among the top "contributors" It is not unexpected then to see that people that are homosexual hold the highest numbers in many of these social problems. Things simply are not as black and white as your argument suggests.

I didn't try to portray anything as black or white. But when homosexuals are 2% of the population, yet make up a majority of AIDS victims it's kind of hard to sweep the message under the rug, and that message is this: a certain sexual lifestyle is much more conducive to getting the disease than others.
I do not deny there is a message, but your interpretation of the message lacks consideration of other contributing causal factors.


There are people that are gay but do not need to have a ***** up their bum 24/7 which is what you appear to be implying.

Not implying that at all. What I am implying is that certain appetites, be they physical or sexual, when taken to extremes, rarely produce anything 'normal'. The number one reason for sex is procreation; the fact it feels good, is enjoyable, etc, is great, but it is not its main purpose.

So, heterosexuals have sex first and foremost to procreate; the fact it is enjoyable and can be an expression of love is a bonus.

Homosexuals have sex because it feels good and to express love. But there it ends. It has no higher redeeming quality.

Both heterosexual and homosexual sex can be self-serving, and simply about 'me'. But, heterosexual sex can rise way above that, and create new life. Homosexual sex cannot. As such, it is incomplete, and in its incompleteness it is unnatural, because the basic,fundamental reason for sex is procreation.

What can you show me to support your claim that reproduction is the first and foremost reason for sex? I would suggest God would not have made it so enjoyable if it was only to be done as a necessity.

Aristotle
05-16-2014, 11:26 AM
Left leaning does not discredit them. They are the leaders in the way we establish and understand all aspects of psychology today. Just because you don't agree with them does not make them wrong.

you're correct. What makes them wrong is they let politics get in the way. They are not tolerant of other views.

With all the other associations watching them and looking to them, if there was any bias don't you think it would have been discovered by now? To

Tell me who these watchdog groups are.

be honest, the only thing I see is that you have a bias against the APA because you don't like what they have to say, besides.

so if the APA were highly-conservative, and dismissed most liberal views, you'd be all good with that?

I do not deny there is a message, but your interpretation of the message lacks consideration of other contributing causal factors.

such as ...

What can you show me to support your claim that reproduction is the first and foremost reason for sex? I would suggest God would not have made it so enjoyable if it was only to be done as a necessity.

What higher calling can something have but the creation of life?

In your view, sex is for the good feeling it produces, and, hey, if it also results in creating life once in a while, cool. That is probably what cavemen thought, too, not to mention it is a level of thinking just barely above animals.

Not trying to be mean, but think about it.

The Left Sock
05-16-2014, 11:52 AM
The two sides to the equation:

Religious nuts - want to persecute gay people, see them burn in Hell. For that matter, anyone who doesn't get on board with their beliefs are going to burn in hell, so you don't even have to be gay, to be handed a death sentence from them.

Gay people - just want to be left alone to live their lives in their own way. They don't want to force other people to be gay, and they don't tell you that you will burn in hell because you aren't like them.

If I was on a sinking ship, and there were two life boats left; one with religious nuts, and one with gay people, I am pretty comfortable in predicting I would find myself singing show-tunes while waiting for rescue, rather than hymns.

Aristotle
05-16-2014, 12:00 PM
Gay people - just want to be left alone to live their lives in their own way. .

LOL, yup, no homosexual radicals at all.

Sock, being totally pummeled in other threads, now goes for the character assassination route.

The route of the beaten, I might add :)

The Left Sock
05-16-2014, 01:01 PM
What planet are you operating from, exactly?

dancingqueen
05-16-2014, 05:53 PM
Left leaning does not discredit them. They are the leaders in the way we establish and understand all aspects of psychology today. Just because you don't agree with them does not make them wrong.

you're correct. What makes them wrong is they let politics get in the way. They are not tolerant of other views.

Can you show me where they do not tolerate different views?
Understand that I am not talking about facts that people have made into opinions, I mean void of any factual data how the APA show intolerance to other people's views.


With all the other associations watching them and looking to them, if there was any bias don't you think it would have been discovered by now? To

Tell me who these watchdog groups are.

The very nature of scientific research and testing methodologies are its own watchdogs.


be honest, the only thing I see is that you have a bias against the APA because you don't like what they have to say, besides.

so if the APA were highly-conservative, and dismissed most liberal views, you'd be all good with that?

I think we are mixing up "views" do you mean "views" as in opinions? or "views" as in statements made through research and observation?


I do not deny there is a message, but your interpretation of the message lacks consideration of other contributing causal factors.

such as ...

I already discussed some of the potential factors in the post before this, homelessness, drug addiction, socio-economic status etc...


What can you show me to support your claim that reproduction is the first and foremost reason for sex? I would suggest God would not have made it so enjoyable if it was only to be done as a necessity.

What higher calling can something have but the creation of life?

Saving a life, or many lives protecting a life, or many lives, protecting a way of life, preparing a life, teaching how to live...
We will all have different opinions of what is more fulfilling, and regardless of how fulfilling something is to you, does not make that thing the primary reason for something else. You mention selfishness in another thread mocking another poster about "He feels he does not understand it so it must not be true" well you just did the same thing here.


In your view, sex is for the good feeling it produces, and, hey, if it also results in creating life once in a while, cool. That is probably what cavemen thought, too, not to mention it is a level of thinking just barely above animals.

Sometimes we can learn from animals, provided we get off our ivory tower to take a look.


Not trying to be mean, but think about it.
No need to explain, I'm concerned that you don't realize just how thick my skin really is.

Aristotle
05-17-2014, 07:35 AM
The very nature of scientific research and testing methodologies are its own watchdogs.

So the watchdogs are also the people being watched. That must be very convenient. Wonder if a conservative organization would be allowed such leeway.

I think we are mixing up "views" do you mean "views" as in opinions? or "views" as in statements made through research and observation?

Opinions.

You mention selfishness in another thread mocking another poster about "He feels he does not understand it so it must not be true" well you just did the same thing here.

you say it, but don't back it up. I'll write this one off as an emotional reflexive response.

Sometimes we can learn from animals, provided we get off our ivory tower to take a look.

How to lick ourselves, perhaps. But we can learn from animals in morals?

I had a gerbil once. She gave birth and ate two of her babies. It never occurred to me I should have devoured my daughter. If I would have, she wouldn't have got in trouble drinking at a party in high school.

Gerbils 1 Me 0 :(

Aristotle
05-17-2014, 10:14 AM
What planet are you operating from, exactly?

Ur****. Why?

Bluesky
05-17-2014, 10:16 AM
Much of this discussion seems to assume as fact that homosexuals are born.. yet to my knowledge (and I have not researched this for awhile now so I could be wrong), there is still no science that definitively proves this. Point to the science first.

Yet there is abundant evidence to show in many cases (not all, mind you) that homosexual tendencies are developed .. which is a different nuance than saying they choose the tendency. It would be factual to say that some individuals CHOOSE their sexual preference. The reason I know this - because I myself as a young fellow had that capacity to choose. I won't share the details but it was a very real and conscious choice. Had further opportunities presented itself, I could easily have slidden into that lifestyle.

That is why I am convinced there are tons of guys out there, just like me, who did choose because of an experience in their adolescent or younger years.

But I still think it is a wasted exercise to debate whether the lifestyle is a choice or is genetic.
We are all born with certain tendencies that need to be tamed, changed, etc. So "I am born this way" does not necessarily predetermine behaviour. As has been said many times before, there are millions of men and women who choose to live in celibacy, even though they are born with all the sexual apparatus needed to have a healthy sex life.

Aristotle
05-17-2014, 10:18 AM
This entire discussion seems to assume as fact that homosexuals are born...

If you re-read my past postings I think you'll see I in fact said it was a chosen lifestyle. If it didn't come out that way then I did a poor job relating how I feel.

Bluesky
05-17-2014, 10:29 AM
The APA is a joke. This particular issue of the status of homosexuality was highly politicized, and was decided by a majority vote, not by science. Political Correctness, not science, determined the outcome of this one.

Bluesky
05-17-2014, 10:30 AM
If you re-read my past postings I think you'll see I in fact said it was a chosen lifestyle. If it didn't come out that way then I did a poor job relating how I feel.
I was actually referring to the other side of the argument. Should have said "much of this argument.."

dancingqueen
05-17-2014, 10:50 AM
The very nature of scientific research and testing methodologies are its own watchdogs.

So the watchdogs are also the people being watched. That must be very convenient. Wonder if a conservative organization would be allowed such leeway.

All scientists are not right or left winged, some go right, some go left, some are in between. Some have different religious beliefs, some have different cultural experiences, all come from many different back grounds and all keep the scientific community in check. Science is always trying to disprove it's own theories in order to help understand the things we want to understand. But frankly, it seems you do not know how scientific research is done, and most people don't, I have a very basic idea, but if you are going to argue scientific research methodologies, you should first get a basic understanding of how it is done.


I think we are mixing up "views" do you mean "views" as in opinions? or "views" as in statements made through research and observation?

Opinions.
I wouldn't like their opinions, but I would still look at what they had to say and consider them a legitimate source of information.
I may not like the truth, but that's the thing, Science doesn't care what you feel about it.

You mention selfishness in another thread mocking another poster about "He feels he does not understand it so it must not be true" well you just did the same thing here.

you say it, but don't back it up. I'll write this one off as an emotional reflexive response.

You stated that there is no higher calling to life than to create a life. I disagree with this statement and know as a fact that many people do as well. You just stated that because to you there is no higher calling in life then it must be so for everyone.


Sometimes we can learn from animals, provided we get off our ivory tower to take a look.

How to lick ourselves, perhaps. But we can learn from animals in morals?


To a degree. Morality is an emotional responses to behaviors that we preform, though it is not known for sure if animals are that complex in their thinking, we can see how a particular behavior or set of behaviors affect a community of animals and make judgments based off of that.
For example, the observed homosexual relationship between ducks have caused no ill effects to the population, or survival of ducks.
We see that ducks do not discriminate or ostracize homosexual duck couples, nor are other ducks aggressive towards homosexual ducks outside of the regular amount of aggression shown to other ducks regardless of orientation.
to top that off, there are no recordings of other ducks accusing aggressive ducks of being homophobic just because one of the ducks they attacked happened to be gay (ok that was to lighten the mood)

dancingqueen
05-17-2014, 10:51 AM
The APA is a joke. This particular issue of the status of homosexuality was highly politicized, and was decided by a majority vote, not by science. Political Correctness, not science, determined the outcome of this one.

Well for that I would need to demand you show some evidence of.

Aristotle
05-17-2014, 10:53 AM
You stated that there is no higher calling to life than to create a life. I disagree with this statement and know as a fact that many people do as well. You just stated that because to you there is no higher calling in life then it must be so for everyone.

It's so not because of the internal feelings of a group of people, it's true because there is nothing more fundamentally important than procreation. Without it, we cease to exist. Sorry, but the good feelings that come with sex are not the end of the story.

dancingqueen
05-17-2014, 10:54 AM
I was actually referring to the other side of the argument. Should have said "much of this argument.."

I'm not sure where in this argument anyone is saying homosexuals are born, I quite readily acknowledge (much to the chagrin of most gay activists) that homosexuality is not something we are born with. At the same time, it is not something we have a complete choice in, regardless of your anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

Aristotle
05-17-2014, 10:57 AM
I'm not sure where in this argument anyone is saying homosexuals are born, I quite readily acknowledge (much to the chagrin of most gay activists) that homosexuality is not something we are born with. At the same time, it is not something we have a complete choice in, regardless of your anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

If you are not born with it, yet cannot truly control it, then does it reason to say some men are governed by their pen**? I don't say that to be crass, but I can't see what else you may mean.

dancingqueen
05-17-2014, 10:57 AM
You stated that there is no higher calling to life than to create a life. I disagree with this statement and know as a fact that many people do as well. You just stated that because to you there is no higher calling in life then it must be so for everyone.

It's so not because of the internal feelings of a group of people, it's true because there is nothing more fundamentally important than procreation. Without it, we cease to exist. Sorry, but the good feelings that come with sex are not the end of the story.

There is a difference between importance, and calling in life. Yes, procreation is important, that has to happen. But not everyone needs to do it, and not everyone is fulfilled by doing it. Look at how many children are in orphanages. Each one of those parents where not fulfilled by creating a life.

dancingqueen
05-17-2014, 11:01 AM
If you are not born with it, yet cannot truly control it, then does it reason to say some men are governed by their pen**? I don't say that to be crass, but I can't see what else you may mean.

I mean that the Nature vs Nurture argument is a false dichotomy. Choices that we make based off of our feelings that are intrinsic to us account for many aspects of our lives, that is essentially nature and nurture coming together to create an aspect of us.

Aristotle
05-17-2014, 11:05 AM
There is a difference between importance, and calling in life. Yes, procreation is important, that has to happen. But not everyone needs to do it, and not everyone is fulfilled by doing it. Look at how many children are in orphanages. Each one of those parents where not fulfilled by creating a life.

But it's not the fulfillment of the parents that is important: it's the creation of new life.

again, you're looking at it in the 'what's in it for me' type of way, and that is selfish.

The most important things in life are about what we GIVE, not get.

And the two most important things: love, and life.

The person that goes around looking to see what love and life have to give them will forever be disappointed, because he will never feel satisfied. The person that goes around giving love and life is already fulfilled simply by the act of doing so; the act is 'payment' enough.

Bluesky
05-17-2014, 11:06 AM
Well for that I would need to demand you show some evidence of.
You demand. I obey.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-president-of-apa-says-organization-controlled-by-gay-rights-movement


who also introduced the motion to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1975,
Motion - indicating it went to a VOTE.


the organization’s problems began with the rejection of the Leona Tyler Principle, which rrequired that all public positions of the APA be supported by scientific evidence.

Now, don't get me wrong. I would probably be in favour of declassifying it as a mental illness as well.

But I still insist that psychiatry is a "soft" science, and therefore decisions like this are often subjective, and based more on political realities rather than true science.

http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2013/04/05/politicization-of-homosexuality/


In 1973, after several years of bitter dispute, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association decided to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders, its official list of mental diseases. Infuriated by that action, dissident psychiatrists charged the leadership of their association with an unseemly capitulation to the threats and pressures of Gay Liberation groups, and forced the board to submit its decision to a referendum of the full APA membership. And so America’s psychiatrists were called to vote upon the question of whether homosexuality ought to be considered a mental disease. The entire process, from the first confrontations organized by gay demonstrators at psychiatric conventions to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in a sober consideration of the data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The American Psychiatric Association had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American social life. A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times. - See more at: http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2013/04/05/politicization-of-homosexuality/#sthash.7vsqRXCb.dpuf

dancingqueen
05-17-2014, 11:27 AM
“It’s a difficult therapy, and it’s not huge in terms of numbers, but yes we have seen success, and this is why the stance that ‘you can never change’—Ronald Reagan said ‘never say never’—it’s absurd. All you have to do is find one exception and it knocks down the ‘never.’ But yes, I’ve experienced more than one exception,” said Cummings.

This is a flawed argument, he seems to be saying that because there has been some successes (He admits to there being few) that it justifies further exploration what he neglects to mention, however, is the significant psychological harm that came about to the people that it did not work on, this becomes an issue of ethics, and it is not ethical to support a form of treatment that harmed more people than it helped. No one denies (except maybe bias fanatics) that conversion therapy has been shown to work on some people. unfortunately things like ethics and cost/benefit ratios have to take precedence over statistical significance, if the amount of successful converters was even scientifically significant.

Besides, as I have mentioned before, the APA is not the only organisation that stands by the idea that conversion therapy is harmful.

The Berean
05-17-2014, 11:30 AM
No responses, lots of words, no proofs.

dancingqueen
05-17-2014, 11:52 AM
But it's not the fulfillment of the parents that is important: it's the creation of new life.

again, you're looking at it in the 'what's in it for me' type of way, and that is selfish.

The most important things in life are about what we GIVE, not get.

And the two most important things: love, and life.

The person that goes around looking to see what love and life have to give them will forever be disappointed, because he will never feel satisfied. The person that goes around giving love and life is already fulfilled simply by the act of doing so; the act is 'payment' enough.

I'm sorry, I got derailed. there's suddenly a lot of noise in here.
Creation of life is a very important part of our way of life. I agree, and people are doing that... Good!
I disagree that the most important things in life are what we give, it's what we get out of the giving that makes us continue to do so. If we got no positive feelings from giving, we simply wouldn't do it.
I fear we are teetering off topic though.
There are some tribal cultures (I can't recall where atm but I have laundry to do and I'm not gonna look it up right now) that depend on the "gays" of their village to look after the children and raise them because the parents are busy with the hunting and the gathering and whatnot, apparently, these gay villagers are revered for their part they play in the community, apparently, the people of many of these cultures feel they would not be able to survive without them. I'm not saying we should make all the gays into permanent day care providers, but for instance, as a gay man who is childless, I am able to focus more of my energy working with someone else's child that needs more than what can be provided at home. I would suspect God (meaning in the generic "all mighty" not necessarily the Christian God) has a role for homosexuality, otherwise, the parts of us that are intrinsic that contribute to homosexuality would have died out from the gene pool a long time ago.

dancingqueen
05-17-2014, 11:54 AM
No responses, lots of words, no proofs.

Your one to talk, If you don't wish to contribute, kindly.....
actually, just kindly stay out of this thread, you have nothing intelligent to contribute.... ever.

Just in case you didn't notice, this is a discussion, not all discussions need proof, there are few instances, but as you can see this conversation has been going quite respectfully without the need for constant proof.

Barry Morris
05-17-2014, 02:37 PM
Your one to talk, If you don't wish to contribute, kindly.....
actually, just kindly stay out of this thread, you have nothing intelligent to contribute.... ever.

Just in case you didn't notice, this is a discussion, not all discussions need proof, there are few instances, but as you can see this conversation has been going quite respectfully without the need for constant proof.
but this concept is most likely above you, so....
here's some nice colorful crayons, why don't you go play with these in the corner :)

I'm laughing at your non-response to Bluesky, and shall continue to do so.

You said:

"I disagree that the most important things in life are what we give, it's what we get out of the giving that makes us continue to do so.."

Self serving, AND giving to ones children is something you don't have any joy in. Too bad,

By the way, easy on the insults, please.

The Left Sock
05-17-2014, 03:02 PM
I'm laughing at your non-response to Bluesky, and shall continue to do so.

You said:

"I disagree that the most important things in life are what we give, it's what we get out of the giving that makes us continue to do so.."

Self serving, AND giving to ones children is something you don't have any joy in. Too bad,

By the way, easy on the insults, please.

Wow, you start off this post with an insult, continue with another insult, and then caution people about insults.

You have lost it. Again.

Aristotle
05-17-2014, 03:58 PM
I would suspect God (meaning in the generic "all mighty" not necessarily the Christian God) has a role for homosexuality, otherwise, the parts of us that are intrinsic that contribute to homosexuality would have died out from the gene pool a long time ago.

Hmmm, I don't know about that. I see what you're saying, but not sure it's the logical conclusion you feel it is.

You (as I, and Blue, and Barry, and Anapeg, etc,etc, etc) exist in spite of our sexual proclivities. We exist because God deems us worthy of existing*

What we do with our existence is where free will comes in to the picture.





* don't read into that statement that we are under the watchful eye of a wrathful God who arbitrarily brings us into or out of existence,depending on if He is having a good day or bad day. Instead, think about it this way: The Alpha and Omega, He to Whom all nature obeys and every knee in Heaven, Hell, and Earth bend, considers us special enough to share in His existence;so much so He'd love nothing more than to spend Eternity with us.

THAT is mind-boggling.

Barry Morris
05-17-2014, 05:21 PM
Wow, you start off this post with an insult, continue with another insult, and then caution people about insults.

You have lost it. Again.

Laughing is an insult.

Got it.

The Left Sock
05-17-2014, 06:21 PM
You threw multiple insults into one post, and then cautioned people about insults.

And you don't even realize you did it?

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Barry Morris
05-17-2014, 09:00 PM
You threw multiple insults into one post, and then cautioned people about insults.

And you don't even realize you did it?

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Laughing when somebody ignores a proof he asked for is an insult. Calling what one does for oneself self serving is an insult.

And now an insult about lunacy.

Let's just let it go, shall we??

dancingqueen
05-17-2014, 09:51 PM
And I'm done here, Mr. Ban-happy banned the only member here contributing, Feel good yet Barry?

Barry Morris
05-17-2014, 10:39 PM
And I'm done here, Mr. Ban-happy banned the only member here contributing, Feel good yet Barry?

I reviewed the last several days of posts from that guy, and found attack after attack. Just had enough. yes, he posts some good stuff, too bad the garbage buries it,

And I feel fine. Re Left Socks interpretations of above events, no insult meant to you whatsoever!!!

dancingqueen
05-17-2014, 10:41 PM
I reviewed the last several days of posts from that guy, and found attack after attack. Just had enough. yes, he posts some good stuff, too bad the garbage buries it,

And I feel fine. Re Left Socks interpretations of above events, no insult meant to you whatsoever!!!

But it's cool for you to make insults.
Gotcha.
ciao.

Barry Morris
05-17-2014, 10:48 PM
But it's cool for you to make insults.
Gotcha.
ciao.

Sorry you interpret disagreement that way.