zaragosa
Nov 2 2003, 03:10 PM
We'll have to define terms first. Homosexuality would seem to be obvious. What do you consider 'natural'?
Edward
Nov 2 2003, 03:20 PM
In a sense of the survival stratagy of the species. Hetrosexuality.
I am a proud "Breeder".
zaragosa
Nov 2 2003, 03:25 PM
Several mammalian species exhibit homosexuality and yet their species survive. Obviously the occurance of homosexuality isn't detrimental to a species' continued existance.
Homosexual couples, in for example bonobos, have specific social functions.
Homosexual intercourse is good for the heart (as is heterosexual intercourse, but nevertheless) and arteries.
Increased homosexuality can prevent or curb overpopulation.
...
Do you consider family planning 'deviant' as well?
Edward
Nov 2 2003, 03:26 PM
I do hve a question from the other thread.
Is your hate for the Judeo-Christian foundations of western civilization so deep that you cannot recognise facts when you see them?
zaragosa
Nov 2 2003, 03:28 PM
| QUOTE (Edward @ Nov 2 2003, 05:26 PM) |
| Is your hate for the Judeo-Christian foundations of western civilization so deep that you cannot recognise facts when you see them? |
No.
Edward
Nov 3 2003, 09:03 AM
I hate interruptions of the freaking net.
First good.
| QUOTE |
| Homosexual couples, in for example bonobos, have specific social functions. |
Please forgive my ignorance but WTF is a "bonobo"?
Edward
Nov 3 2003, 09:39 AM
All species on this planet must survive.
They must survive to procreate and prepare thier young to survive and then they can procreate. If this doesn't happen the species dies out and becomes another failed experement on this planet earth.
Human beings are unique in a very special way. We as a species are not dependant on a "heat season" (canines are an example) or a "rutting season" ( Deer are an example) for the females to be sexually attractive to the males.
What the Creator has done is make females sexually attractive to the males of our species year round. This of course has advantages, especially in the primitive world we once lived in.
Human children are in fact extraordinarilly helpless, almost unique in the Animal Kingdom for a very long time. We also have a extraordinairly long time from birth to sexual maturity. In fact there are very few "instiutional behaviors" in human beings and all hunting skills and other survival skills must be taught and mastered.
The vastly superior human brain is in fact a double edged sword.
So how does this survival stratagy manifest itself?
1st we have taken out of necessity Gender based roles. The woman with her unique equipment, and generally the smaller and and less physically able of the species has the role of nurturing the children, not because of her size but because it is in fact necessary for the species to survive.
The males of course became the hunters and the providers.
The woman trades sexual favors in these situations to protect herself and her children for security. A woman with child is an extraordianary liability in primitive conditions, yet men are "hard wired" to protect them.
The only natural way (the Creator designed it that way) for the human being to procreate is to insert tab P into slot V.
The equipment is designed to work this way to create babys, without babys the species would in fact die out.
This also dovetails into the institution of marraige.
The institution of marraige is almost instinctual, because there is an emotional bond between sexual partners that is enhanced, especially amongst the young during sexual acts. Women invest much emotionally wjen giving up themselves to a man.
Yet men I'm sorry to say are Dogs. We will, given the proper circumstances, stick our dick into any woman we find sexually attractive. A not so good in small societies by product of our hard wired sexual survival stratagy.
In the dawn of time it was realised by humans that for some reason stable family relationships are in fact desirable and helped us create the institution of marraige and that institution works best between one man and one woman to raise a family and insure the survival of our species.
The vast majority of men find it incomprehensable that a man can be sexually attracted to another man, and if the truth were told there is probably a hard wired repugnance to it.
There is also evidence that homosexual males run real risks from deseases (no I'm not talking about AIDS) that will in fact infect the sexual organs and remove them from the gene pool. I can only imagine the strange bacterial infections one could possibly pick up from some ones anus while giving your dick a shitty deal.
There also seems to be more emotional problems in the homosexual community on percentage basis than there is amongst us breedrs.
Ther is no way that a homosexual sex act can create a child. If it in fact cannot create a child, (the purpose of sexual intercourse) then how can it be called "natural"?
zaragosa
Nov 3 2003, 10:23 AM
| QUOTE (Edward @ Nov 3 2003, 11:03 AM) |
| Please forgive my ignorance but WTF is a "bonobo"? |
Pan paniscus, the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee. Our evolutionary next of kin. Lives in central Africa. Has very interesting social patterns. Fucks just about everything.
Will be back later for more reply.
zaragosa
Nov 3 2003, 10:44 AM
After scanning your post, I noticed that most of it was either false or irrelevant. The crux of your post seems to be this fallacy:
| QUOTE |
| Ther is no way that a homosexual sex act can create a child. If it in fact cannot create a child, (the purpose of sexual intercourse) then how can it be called "natural"? |
The definition of 'natural' is not connected to procreation. Posting on this forum is unlikely to provide me (or you) with offspring, yet it is not considered 'deviant'.
A few fallacies:
| QUOTE |
| Human beings are unique in a very special way. We as a species are not dependant on a "heat season" (canines are an example) or a "rutting season" ( Deer are an example) for the females to be sexually attractive to the males. |
Dolphins do this too.
| QUOTE |
| Human children are in fact extraordinarilly helpless, almost unique in the Animal Kingdom for a very long time. |
Kangaroos and sea horses have rather helpless children.
| QUOTE |
| The males of course became the hunters and the providers. |
In most 'primitive' cultures, women provide as well (collecting berries and such). Some of them are matriarchies, where the woman is boss. And then of course there are the Amazones.
| QUOTE |
| Women invest much emotionally wjen giving up themselves to a man. |
And men much less so. This makes sense, of course, since it is in the best interest of a male to impregnate as many women as possible in order to optimally spread their genetic material.
| QUOTE |
| the institution of marraige (...) works best between one man and one woman to raise a family and insure the survival of our species |
In other cultures, marriage is a group affair. It works just fine.
| QUOTE |
| The vast majority of men find it incomprehensable that a man can be sexually attracted to another man, and if the truth were told there is probably a hard wired repugnance to it. |
Rubbish. Homosexuality is perfectly accepted in many cultures. If homophobia were 'hardwired', that simply wouldn't be the case.
| QUOTE |
| If it in fact cannot create a child, (the purpose of sexual intercourse) |
Why do you think the purpose of sexual intercourse is to create a child? That may be one of the functions, but 'purpose' implies some kind of intent - something which you will be very hard pressed to demonstrate.
Edward
Nov 4 2003, 09:57 AM
zaragosa,
| QUOTE |
| The definition of 'natural' is not connected to procreation. Posting on this forum is unlikely to provide me (or you) with offspring, yet it is not considered 'deviant'. |
Neither is it a sexual act.
| QUOTE |
| Dolphins do this too. |
Really? I didn't know that assuming it to be true.
| QUOTE |
| Kangaroos and sea horses have rather helpless children. |
So are Crab larva. and puppies. Having said that look at the startaling differances in things such as the ability to walk or even hold ones' head up in the air without the support of outside help.
Colts are relatively helpless, compared to thier mares yet they get up and move rather quickly in a relative scale.
You should also look at things such as the years to sexual maturity in a general compareative sense.
| QUOTE |
| In most 'primitive' cultures, women provide as well (collecting berries and such). Some of them are matriarchies, where the woman is boss. And then of course there are the Amazones. |
And your point is? We know this it is part and parcle of the division of labour worked out in the survival stratagey. You will of course notice that those functions carryed out by the women seem to keep them tied to the home and nearby environs because of the need to care for the kids.
| QUOTE |
| And men much less so. This makes sense, of course, since it is in the best interest of a male to impregnate as many women as possible in order to optimally spread their genetic material. |
I have always said men are dogs. I readily admit that men would stick thier dick into as many women as they were allowed to if they could get away with it. The brake is the womans' behavior and our social norms.
| QUOTE |
| In other cultures, marriage is a group affair. It works just fine. |
Usually only if the man is quite wealthy or politically powerful. In most instances monogomy is in fact the norm. Face it most women really don't want to share.
| QUOTE |
| Rubbish. Homosexuality is perfectly accepted in many cultures. If homophobia were 'hardwired', that simply wouldn't be the case. |
I accept that there are homosexuals. It doesn't mean that I comprehend how one man could be sexually attracted to another man. Truth be told most of us breeders on the male side don't either.
It isn't homophopia. It 's revulsion and that is quite different.
| QUOTE |
| Why do you think the purpose of sexual intercourse is to create a child? That may be one of the functions, but 'purpose' implies some kind of intent - something which you will be very hard pressed to demonstrate. |
Hard to demonstrate? In a male orgasim there is an ejaculation of seminal fluid. This in my experiance is quite pleasurable. Remember your simple science classes? Seminal fluid contains sperm. In order to create a new life the sperm must join with the egg.
You see the Creator was in fact wiser than either of us. Sexual activity in humans is supposed to be pleasurable. If it wasn't why would a thinking animal such as us continue to yearn for the next orgasim? The more sexual activity the more children. The more children the greater the chances of the survival of the species, it really is as simple as that.
And yes the purpose of sexual intercourse is to create children. The fact is we can't stop fucking that is why we have invested so much time and effort to create birth control devices so we can fuck our brains our and not have families with 10 children like in the old days.
Just because we are able to apply our brains and technology to a so-called problem doesn't mean that by findig artificial ways to avoid pegnancy that sexual intercourse isn't ment to produce children.
Using a condom and foam, birth control pills, IUDs, and getting tubal litigations or vasectomies doesn't change the basic facts, all it does is change the out come.
zaragosa
Nov 4 2003, 11:10 AM
| QUOTE (Edward @ Nov 4 2003, 11:57 AM) |
| Neither is it a sexual act. |
Point taken.
Then again, there are sexual acts that don't lead to procreation either. In fact, only one does. Do you consider anal sex, oral sex, (aided) masturbation, geriatric sex, safe sex, foreplay etc. 'deviant', then?
I should point out that the aforementioned bonobos do all of these things (and a lot worse, actually).
| QUOTE |
| I readily admit that men would stick thier dick into as many women as they were allowed to if they could get away with it. The brake is the womans' behavior and our social norms. |
Our social norms. Not everyone's.
| QUOTE |
| Usually only if the man is quite wealthy or politically powerful. In most instances monogomy is in fact the norm. |
I wouldn't be so sure. Polygyny is acceptable in some places where you'd never expect it (I've done cultural research into gender roles myself in northern Scandinavia, and found many instances of accepted polygyny), and wealth of the man in question rarely had anything to do with it.
Perhaps some influence of the man's social status is obvious in the Persian harem-culture, but I was referring to several (small, tribal) cultures in Polynesia and Melanesia, where the minimal size of a family is three, and the sky is the limit (often, all the siblings of a given family will marry all the siblings of another in one group marriage; equally often, the eldest is the family chief, regardless of gender).
| QUOTE |
| Hard to demonstrate? In a male orgasim there is an ejaculation of seminal fluid. This in my experiance is quite pleasurable. |
Exactly. Attaining orgasm is what is pleasurable.
Of course, those orgasms have consequences (relaxation, bonding, procreation), but which one of those takes precedence is not for you or me to decide. Without the relaxing effects of sex, humans wouldn't live as long as they do (on average).
| QUOTE |
| Just because we are able to apply our brains and technology to a so-called problem doesn't mean that by findig artificial ways to avoid pegnancy that sexual intercourse isn't ment to produce children. |
Perhaps not, but there's still nothing that proves that sex was somehow created with the sole (or main) purpose of procreation. It has many other functions.
Take the easiest example: relaxation.
You're right, homosexuals will probably never procreate through sexual activity (but they do it anyway because they like it). But then again, there are many heterosexual couples for whom sex is no longer pleasurable (but they want to procreate). Both couples disregard one of the aspects of sex in order to satisfy a need. Why is the one 'deviant' and not the other?
Edward
Nov 5 2003, 10:49 AM
zaragosa,
| QUOTE |
| Then again, there are sexual acts that don't lead to procreation either. |
Of course there are in my day they were called foreplay.
| QUOTE |
| Our social norms. Not everyone's. |
I didn't say everyones', or at least didn't mean to imply. But facts are facts through out most of the world poligamy is not the norm.
| QUOTE |
| Exactly. Attaining orgasm is what is pleasurable. |
It is designed to be so. The more one gets' oneself into a posisition to get ones' rocks off the more potential to create off spring. After all the ejaculative force is designed to send the seminal fluid into the uterus , past the cervix so that the little sperm can begin thier quest to find a egg to fertilise.
| QUOTE |
| Of course, those orgasms have consequences (relaxation, bonding, procreation),. |
Biology 101.
The Creator intended this to create new life.
| QUOTE |
| but which one of those takes precedence is not for you or me to decide. Without the relaxing effects of sex, humans wouldn't live as long as they do (on average |
The reason we live longer isn't because we have sex, it is because we have been wise enough to change the equasion over the ages and have learned to fight desease.
But in truth what was to take precedence was in fact decided long ago when Homo Sapiens-Sapiens emerged.
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps not, but there's still nothing that proves that sex was somehow created with the sole (or main) purpose of procreation. It has many other functions. |
I think that I shall wait until you acknoweladge thae facts of Biology. You cannot dismiss facts and believe that people will listen to your arguments.
Got up late must get to work I'll awnser more tomorrow or perhaps later today.
zaragosa
Nov 5 2003, 11:08 AM
| QUOTE (Edward @ Nov 5 2003, 12:49 PM) |
| Of course there are in my day they were called foreplay. |
And are they 'deviant'? You haven't addressed that question though I've asked it thrice already.
| QUOTE |
| I didn't say everyones', or at least didn't mean to imply. But facts are facts through out most of the world poligamy is not the norm. |
I'm not sure. But anyway, can you imagine a sub-culture in the West where homosexuality is the norm?
| QUOTE |
Biology 101.
The Creator intended this to create new life. |
I sincerely hope that's not what they taught you in Biology 101.
And, regardless of what you think was intended or meant, what it does is quite a bit more than just procreate.
| QUOTE |
| The reason we live longer isn't because we have sex, it is because we have been wise enough to change the equasion over the ages and have learned to fight desease. |
Nope. Sex has a physical, measurable effect on humans. It reduces activity in the so-called HPA-axis and reduces cortisone levels in the blood, which in turn reduces wear and tear on the heart and arteries. Whether you're doing it with a woman, a man, a goat or a hole in the ground, it's healthy.
Edward
Nov 6 2003, 01:31 AM
It has been a long day and I was involved in a traffic accident on the way home. Nobody was hurt and I need to buy some parts for the bumper.
zaragosa
| QUOTE |
| Why is the one 'deviant' and not the other? |
The best numbers I have been able to acertain is that at best 8 out of 100 males are sexually attracted to other males.
I think that that number may be high, but it really doesn't matter for now.
If in fact 92 out of 100 males engage in sexual acts exclusivly with females, or hetrosexual sex if you prefer then one can surmise that hetrosexual sex is in fact the norm.
Then one could say in all honesty that the eight of that 100 that are engaging in homosexual sex have deviated from what would be considered normal.
Or deviant sex.
I thought that that would be clear as glass.
| QUOTE |
| And are they 'deviant'? |
As opposed to what? As opposed to homosexual sexual activity versus hetrosexual activity? Or as opposed to what most would consider normal hetrosexual foreplay?
| QUOTE |
| I'm not sure. But anyway, can you imagine a sub-culture in the West where homosexuality is the norm? |
One or a couple of tiny examples is in fact a red herring and we both know it.
| QUOTE |
I sincerely hope that's not what they taught you in Biology 101.
And, regardless of what you think was intended or meant, what it does is quite a bit more than just procreate. |
You had best hope they are still teaching the facts because if they are nit you should fear for your children and remove them from that school post haste.
But you continue to disregard the intent of the human sexual act from a biological view. It is in fact ment to procreate, no ammount of wordsmithing can get around it.
| QUOTE |
| Nope. Sex has a physical, measurable effect on humans. |
I never said it didn't, not only physical but emotional. That is part and parcel of the sexual survival stratagy of the species. But facts still are facts. We can live quite long lives without sex and have no ill effects from not having had sex, but we cannot live long lives with a ruptured appendix, uncontrolled diabeties, no teeth, unclean drinking water, pnemonia, asthma or any number of deseases with out medical (artificial) intervention wether we are having sex or not.
BTW I hope never to find out that part about the long life with out sex.
Is it? It is healthy to give your dick a "shitty deal"? Feces is good for the ureatha? You will excuse me if I find that hard to believe.
Tell me how pray tell can it be "healthy" to have a penis shoved into ones anus? As I remember the debates on the spread of AIDS the medical community was quite conserned that anal intrercourse tore tiny blood vessles that give the AIDS virus a way into the blood stream, I can only imagine that the same would be true of the harmful bacteria in fecal matter.
Or am I mistaken in this logic?
zaragosa
Nov 6 2003, 12:30 PM
| QUOTE (Edward @ Nov 6 2003, 03:31 AM) |
| The best numbers I have been able to acertain is that at best 8 out of 100 males are sexually attracted to other males. |
So? 3 in 100 males have hazel coloured eyes. Do we call them 'deviants'? (Or perverts?)
| QUOTE |
| Or as opposed to what most would consider normal hetrosexual foreplay? |
The question is simple. Do you consider foreplay, which is a sexual activity but does not lead to procreation, a sexually deviant (or perverted) activity?
Or does it depend on who's doing it?
| QUOTE |
| One or a couple of tiny examples is in fact a red herring and we both know it. |
No, one or a couple of examples is a falsification.
If your argument that a given behaviour is unacceptable because such is your subculture, then you have no business transferring that to another subculture.
| QUOTE |
| But you continue to disregard the intent of the human sexual act from a biological view. It is in fact ment to procreate, no ammount of wordsmithing can get around it. |
Saying that doesn't make it true. Demonstrate it.
| QUOTE |
| You will excuse me if I find that hard to believe. |
Decades of research on the immune system disagree with you.
Edward
Nov 6 2003, 11:47 PM
zaragosa,
| QUOTE |
| Do we call them 'deviants'? |
You could it would be a proper use of the word.
Hazel colored eyes are sexual in nature?
| QUOTE |
| The question is simple. Do you consider foreplay, which is a sexual activity but does not lead to procreation, a sexually deviant (or perverted) activity? |
Funny isn't it but foreplay by definition is the warming up process fpr the main event is it not? You know the insertion of tab P into slot V.
| QUOTE |
| Or does it depend on who's doing it? |
Let's see a small minority does something sexual that a fast majority finds repugnant and you don't consider this perverted in some way?
| QUOTE |
| If your argument that a given behaviour is unacceptable because such is your subculture, then you have no business transferring that to another subculture. |
I am also making the point, (that seems to elude you some some reason), that in the vast majority of the population of this world Homosexual behavior is in fact rather rare by percentage of the population. Also the vast majority of the population in the world is baffeled by this behavior and even finds it repugnant.
But if in fact you believe this to be a "subcluture" enjoy. That has nothing to do with imposisition of the values of the majority it has to do with what is and is not considered normal.
There is normal behavior and there is abnormal behavior. Normal behavior seems to me to be a relatively predictable behavior. One can in fact predict that at least 92 out of 100 males are going to be hetrosexual, probably more.
The perhaps 8 of the 100 males being sexually attracted to other males is in fact abnormal.
Also poligamy is abnormal for the majority of the worlds' familys. Most wives don't want to share, and get darned pissed when her husband spreads pollen in other women. Since the majority of the worlds' women behave this way, (the selfish lack of sharing) one would by definition consider that normal behavior.
There are those women that have no problem with sharing thier husbands but they are a very small minority indeed, if the behavior of the vast majority of wives is taken into account.
That isn't imposisition that is a observation of fact.
| QUOTE |
| Saying that doesn't make it true. Demonstrate it. |
You already seem to have demonstrated that you believe that the sexual act wasn't intended to create offspring, and that the Creator didn't design the equipment to be used in that fashion.
What can I say?
| QUOTE |
| Decades of research on the immune system disagree with you. |
It is healthy to stick your dick into another guys anus? There are no health consequences? Feces doesn't have harmful bacteria that would infect the uretha and give urinary tract infections? Blood vessels and or capalaries don't burst or rupture during anal intercourse and there is absolutely no chance of infection?
Why then were the AIDS advocates so conserned. Were these learned and capabile people all fools?
zaragosa
Nov 7 2003, 12:27 AM
| QUOTE (Edward @ Nov 7 2003, 01:47 AM) |
| You could it would be a proper use of the word. |
OK, so I can assume that you assign no moral value to 'deviance'? When you call people 'deviants', you're stating a matter of fact and not implicitly passing some kind of judgement?
| QUOTE |
| Hazel colored eyes are sexual in nature? |
No, they're eye deviants, which is just as bad, if not worse.
| QUOTE |
| Funny isn't it but foreplay by definition is the warming up process fpr the main event is it not? |
Excuses, excuses. I don't need half an hour of preparation to sink the dipper. Is it perverted or not?
| QUOTE |
I am also making the point, (that seems to elude you some some reason), that in the vast majority of the population (...)
That isn't imposisition that is a observation of fact. |
It is also five instances of the same fallacy (argument from popularity) intermixed with ethnocentrism. It is also irrelevant.
Anal sex isn't all gays do, and not only gays have anal sex.
Either way, sex is healthy, yes. It serves that function.
Sex is also a social affair.
In some cultures, sex is a monetary unit.
In other cultures, it is what motivates the males in a group marriage to listen to the matriarch.
Edward
Nov 7 2003, 10:49 AM
This is going to be short as I have to go to work and just noticed the time.
zaragosa,
| QUOTE |
| OK, so I can assume that you assign no moral value to 'deviance'? When you call people 'deviants', you're stating a matter of fact and not implicitly passing some kind of judgement? |
That is quite correct. normal and abmormal are also nonjudgemental terms when I use them.
Incomprehensible, curious, repellent and repugnent along with revolting are not ment to convey a "moral" judgement when I use them either.
zaragosa
Nov 7 2003, 01:00 PM
| QUOTE (Edward @ Nov 7 2003, 12:49 PM) |
| That is quite correct. normal and abmormal are also nonjudgemental terms when I use them. |
I see. Then I believe we can summarise the discussion into two questions:
- Are hazel-coloured eyes unnatural because they are deviant?
- Is (heterosexual) foreplay perverted because it is a sexual activity that does not (cannot) of itself lead to offspring?
Edward
Nov 8 2003, 09:42 AM
zaragosa,
| QUOTE |
| I see. Then I believe we can summarise the discussion into two questions: |
No we cannot.
| QUOTE |
| No, they're eye deviants, which is just as bad, if not worse. |
I thought we were discussing natural verses unnatural sex, vis-a-vis the intended function of sex not eye colour.
But yes they in the case you pointed out would be considered deviants of eye colour.
| QUOTE |
| Excuses, excuses. I don't need half an hour of preparation to sink the dipper. Is it perverted or not? |
I suppose some don't need extra foreplay, most men don't. But what of the Lady? Shouldn't you do what you can to enhance the experiance for her?
Trust me take your time, your partner will thank you for it.
As to perversion, I would hazzard a guess that the vast majority would consider some foreplay perverted. Take the example of the Man that finds it necessary to beat his partner for a period of time before he can get it up. I would consider that perverted in any case.
Consider the man that can only get it up with children, I would also consider that perverted.
But foreplay in and of itself a perversion, even if there is a premature ejaculation? No.
| QUOTE |
| It is also five instances of the same fallacy (argument from popularity) intermixed with ethnocentrism. It is also irrelevant. |
Once again you keep ignoring evedince that is before you eyes for some reason.
| QUOTE |
| Anal sex isn't all gays do, and not only gays have anal sex. |
I don't believe I said that, yet you contend that all sex is healthy and I contend that that isn't the case. There are some sex acts done without an attempt at precautions that could lead to complications that would in fact be quite harmful. You on the other hand seem to believe there is some magic shield that protects from the consequences. That is risky behavior indeed.
| QUOTE |
| Sex is also a social affair. |
In part I agree with you on that. We as humans have always found was to make little rituals for everything. The Nature of the species.
| QUOTE |
In some cultures, sex is a monetary unit.
In other cultures, it is what motivates the males in a group marriage to listen to the matriarch. |
In my house it helps me be more inclined to listen to the wife.
I remember a conversation between the wife and a friend of hers. It boiled down to this.
Men hope to get lucky on Saturday night. The woman alreadys knows wether the man will get lucky by Saturday afternoon!
| QUOTE |
| Are hazel-coloured eyes unnatural because they are deviant? |
They can be considered deviant but not unnatural.
| QUOTE |
| Is (heterosexual) foreplay perverted because it is a sexual activity that does not (cannot) of itself lead to offspring? |
Foreplay isn't unnatural as it normal intention is to get everyone ready for the main event, and to enhance the experiance. Since by definition foreplay is self descriptive, (playing before) it is not unnatural. Few women are ready like a bitch in heat.
If all of the women you have known in the Biblical sense are in fact ready like a bitch in heat you are a lucky man indeed.
When I use the term bitch it is the proper term for a female canine.
You see you miss the point all togeather. I believe I undestand why.
Human beings are the most sucsessful animal on the face of Gods' green earth. We have progressed so far beyond the begining of our species that it is easy to forget the simple design and the intent of that design. But to ignore the beginnings and the biological facts is either deliberate intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.
I believe also that there are some that would have all of us believe that abnormal behavior isn't in fact abnormal. (remember how I use the term and that it is applied to the species as a whole). While homosexual behavior may be quite "natural" for a homosexual, homosexual behavior in and of itself is a deviation from the normal behavior of the population as a whole.
For the first time for clarity I shall explain my use of the term "the Creator" to you as it seems that that also can be misunderstood for some reason.
I use that term both in the religious sense but also as short hand for the early mists of the dawn of time when Homo Sapiens Sapiens emerged on the face of this earth.
The Creator intended that our species survive and designed certian parts of the body for certian basic functions. Sperm for example serves no useful purpose except to fertilise eggs that grow into babies. The female uterus serves no useful purpose except to allow the unborn child to develop to a sufficient point that it can function through autonomic functions, breathing and such, out side the womb.
Perhaps it is a good thing that we as a Species have in fact progressed to the point that it isn't a day to day thing to survive, and that the survival of the Species isn't dependent upon what we do at this very time and place. (I would like to think so.)
But awnser this question for me. Why do some, like yourself strain to find abnormal behavior in small relatively isolated cultures that are a tiny minority of the population as a whole to justify other abnormal behaviors?
Why so some look so streniously to find rare abnormal behavior in the lessor animals to justify thier own abnormal behaviors?
And tell me something else. I have learned over the years that even though the Apes and man probably had a common ansestor, our branch of of that family diverged about 5 million years ago from the apes and went our seprate way as it were.
So how can you honestly say that with a divergence of at least 5 million years that the modern chimpanzee is a "close reletive"? Isn't that insulting to both species?
zaragosa
Nov 9 2003, 11:56 PM
| QUOTE (Edward @ Nov 8 2003, 11:42 AM) |
| But foreplay in and of itself a perversion, even if there is a premature ejaculation? No. |
So, sexual activity that does not lead to procreation isn't necessarily perverted. (Because at least one sexual activity can be identified that cannot lead to procreation and is still not perversion. (1))
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE | | Sex is also a social affair. |
In part I agree with you on that.
(...)
In my house it helps me be more inclined to listen to the wife. |
OK, sex doesn't have as its only function procreation. (Because it can also be a social affair or a means of acquiring obedience. (2))
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE | | Are hazel-coloured eyes unnatural because they are deviant? |
They can be considered deviant but not unnatural. |
So, if something is deviant, that doesn't mean it's unnatural. (Because at least one property can be identified that that is deviant, but not unnatural. (3))
| QUOTE |
| Why do some, like yourself strain to find abnormal behavior in small relatively isolated cultures that are a tiny minority of the population as a whole to justify other abnormal behaviors? |
Because it proves that your feelings towards gays are culture-specific and not particularly rational.
| QUOTE |
| Why so some look so streniously to find rare abnormal behavior in the lessor animals to justify thier own abnormal behaviors? |
Because it proves that this abnormal behaviour has biological, and not strictly cognitive roots.
| QUOTE |
| So how can you honestly say that with a divergence of at least 5 million years that the modern chimpanzee is a "close reletive"? Isn't that insulting to both species? |
The genetic similarity is often estimated over 99%. Draw your own conclusions, I would say.
_____________________________________________________
OK, so we've established three points that we sort of agree on:
- Sexual activity that does not lead to procreation isn't necessarily perverted.
- Sex can also be a social affair or a means of acquiring obedience.
- If something is deviant, that doesn't mean it's unnatural.
I've heard two main arguments from you. In no particular order:
- Sex is meant to procreate, and since gay sex doesn't, that's perversion.
- Most people are straight, therefor homosexuality is unnatural.
Now, your argument (a) seems to be based on a false premise (because of (2): if sex can have a social function, then it's not meant solely for procreation),
and the reasoning that because a sexual activity can't lead to procreation, it must be perversion, is also apparently not true (because of (1): some sexual acts do not lead directly to procreation, and in fact of themselves cannot lead to procreation, yet they are not perverted).
Also, your argument (b) is moot, if indeed (statistical) deviance doesn't necessarily imply unnaturalness (as in (3)).
Edward
Nov 11 2003, 11:01 AM
zaragosa,
| QUOTE |
Sexual activity that does not lead to procreation isn't necessarily perverted.
Sex can also be a social affair or a means of acquiring obedience.
If something is deviant, that doesn't mean it's unnatural. |
Sort of agree on is the operative word.
Again I think that we should clarify certian points of agreement.
I shall use the term "natural" in the sense that we have no medical or tecnological intervention that we both know is in fact a relatively recent.
The human sperm cell has no other biological function other than to fertilise or join with the human egg and the human sperm cell is found "naturally" only in the male of our species. Do we agree on that?
The human egg cell serves no other biological purpose except to join with or be fertilised by the human sperm and form a new life. The human egg cell is found "naturally" only in the human female. Do we agree on that?
The only "natural" way to get the sperm and egg togeather is through human hetrosexual intercourse. Do we agree on that?
Do we agree that all species have a biological imperative (for want of a better term) to survive and procreation of the species is part of that imperative? And do we agree that this seems to be a observable fact regardless wether it is a virus, Oak Tree or Homo Sapiens-Sapiens, or even fish or dogs?
Can we also agree that human beings once they reach sexual maturity are driven subconsciencely by our "biological imperative" to engage in sexual acts, and that this is for want of a better description normal behavior that is tied into our species survival stratagey?
Do we agree that Homo Sapiens-Sapiens and all other Homo type Species are or were in fact "social animals" from at least Homo Habilis through the present, that this being a "social animal" is part of the survival stratagey of our species, or normal species behavior for humans?
Can we also agree that as a natural consequense of being "social animals" that we have since the dawn of time and probably shall (at least until our species dies out) construct "rituals of behavior" ( for want of a better trem) just to live togeather?
zaragosa
Nov 11 2003, 12:27 PM
| QUOTE (Edward @ Nov 11 2003, 01:01 PM) |
| Sort of agree on is the operative word. |
Which one do you not agree with?
| QUOTE |
The human sperm cell has no other biological function other than to fertilise or join with the human egg and the human sperm cell is found "naturally" only in the male of our species. Do we agree on that?
The human egg cell serves no other biological purpose except to join with or be fertilised by the human sperm and form a new life. The human egg cell is found "naturally" only in the human female. Do we agree on that? |
In the way that the lacrimal gland has no biological function other than moisturise the eye, yes. (The lacrimal gland produces tear fluid.) And yet we also use it to cry, which is a social / communicative function.
| QUOTE |
The only "natural" way to get the sperm and egg togeather is through human hetrosexual intercourse. Do we agree on that?
Do we agree that all species have a biological imperative (for want of a better term) to survive and procreation of the species is part of that imperative? And do we agree that this seems to be a observable fact regardless wether it is a virus, Oak Tree or Homo Sapiens-Sapiens, or even fish or dogs? |
This may be true for a species as a whole, yes. But I sense an invalid specification (to individual members of a species) coming up.
| QUOTE |
| Can we also agree that human beings once they reach sexual maturity are driven subconsciencely by our "biological imperative" to engage in sexual acts, |
Most are. Not all.
The same can be said for many other species.
| QUOTE |
| and that this is for want of a better description normal behavior that is tied into our species survival stratagey? |
It makes sense that at least a portion of a mammalian population is interested in procreation. How large this portion should be is an open question, however. Some species, hive-dwelling insects, for example, sustain their race in quite a different way, with less than 1% of the population being responsible for procreation.
| QUOTE |
| Do we agree that Homo Sapiens-Sapiens and all other Homo type Species are or were in fact "social animals" from at least Homo Habilis through the present, that this being a "social animal" is part of the survival stratagey of our species, or normal species behavior for humans? |
Humans tend to be tribal, yes.
| QUOTE |
| Can we also agree that as a natural consequense of being "social animals" that we have since the dawn of time and probably shall (at least until our species dies out) construct "rituals of behavior" ( for want of a better trem) just to live together? |
Yes, they're called culture.
Just so you won't forget, though:
| QUOTE |
- Sexual activity that does not lead to procreation isn't necessarily perverted.
- Sex can also be a social affair or a means of acquiring obedience.
- If something is deviant, that doesn't mean it's unnatural.
|
Which one of these don't you agree to?
Edward
Nov 11 2003, 04:00 PM
zaragosa,
As I was looking for clarity in our areas of agreement sort of is as best as we get for now.
| QUOTE |
| In the way that the lacrimal gland has no biological function other than moisturise the eye, yes. |
The Lacrimal Gland also reacts when a foriegn object of sufficient size enters the eye in a natural effort to "flush" the foriegn object out.
If there is another biological function that the human sperm carries out I require enlightenment, the same goes for the human egg.
| QUOTE |
| This may be true for a species as a whole, yes. But I sense an invalid specification (to individual members of a species) coming up. |
This awnser confuses me. To which area of possible agreement does it apply?
| QUOTE |
Most are. Not all.
The same can be said for many other species. |
Yes I have had my Dogs nutered and my Bitches spayed so they no longer have a sex drive but may we safely say that in the vast majority of the human population that the basic biologic imperative applies?
| QUOTE |
| Some species, hive-dwelling insects, for example, sustain their race in quite a different way, with less than 1% of the population being responsible for procreation. |
Yet then again these hive dwelling insects do have a survival stratagey that fits them not humans.
| QUOTE |
| Humans tend to be tribal, yes. |
I think you missed the point, but came to the right conclusion. But if you missed the point here is the short version. Human beings seem to need to be togeather and stay in groups, in specific groups of hominids in "the Wild" as it were. I believe and if you match pure physical prowess of a human and a tiger every time you find the human wanting in a one on one match. Humans band togeather to compete for resources and for protection because we are more powerful as a group than we are as an individule. Later on of course this manifested itself in many ways from street gangs to the modern Nation State, but that is another debate all togeather.
| QUOTE |
| Yes, they're called culture. |
And does a cluture have modes of behavior that are considered proper and improper, or normal or abnormal?
| QUOTE |
| Which one do you not agree with? |
In a general sense I agree with all of the first three but then again I believe you to be ready to make some invalid assumptions also. Or should I say some intresting wordsmithing?
Really this is just for clarity as I have already discovered that it took way too long for you to grasp the usage of the word deviant. Or was it a cultural dislike for the word.
If there isn't common ground on some issues the arguments tend to be circular.
zaragosa
Nov 11 2003, 04:32 PM
| QUOTE (Edward @ Nov 11 2003, 06:00 PM) |
The Lacrimal Gland also reacts when a foriegn object of sufficient size enters the eye in a natural effort to "flush" the foriegn object out.
If there is another biological function that the human sperm carries out I require enlightenment, the same goes for the human egg. |
The lacrimal gland also responds to emotional stimuli, thereby wasting precious tear fluid, and foregoing the biological function of tears. Is that unnatural then?
| QUOTE |
| This awnser confuses me. To which area of possible agreement does it apply? |
It means that I agree that there is a logic to thinking that species should attempt to procreate. The same conclusion cannot be drawn further to include individuals.
| QUOTE |
| Yes I have had my Dogs nutered and my Bitches spayed so they no longer have a sex drive but may we safely say that in the vast majority of the human population that the basic biologic imperative applies? |
The majority, yes. But hadn't we already determined that statistical deviance doesn't carry moral weight?
| QUOTE |
| Yet then again these hive dwelling insects do have a survival stratagey that fits them not humans. |
Ohh, I don't know. Humans and other great apes as a species survive just fine (for the great apes, provided that humans don't destroy their natural habitats...), gay sex included.
| QUOTE |
| Later on of course this manifested itself in many ways from street gangs to the modern Nation State, but that is another debate all togeather. |
Street gangs and nationalist thugs are results of the same tribal instinct, yes.
| QUOTE |
| And does a cluture have modes of behavior that are considered proper and improper, or normal or abnormal? |
Of course. But that doesn't make it so. If I am to assume that your response to the original question is "Homosexuality is unnatural because lots of people say so," then I must say I'm deeply disappointed.
| QUOTE |
| In a general sense I agree with all of the first three |
Then why do you keep up the argument? All you've done in this post is deviate from the matter at hand and add another instance of the same fallacy I pointed out several posts ago.
To wit:
Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to Popularity): A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually superiour) sector of the population. Akin to the ancient belief that the Earth is flat.
Edward
Nov 16 2003, 12:28 PM
zaragosa
I honestly believe that we agree on more than we disagree on. Your biggest stumbling block seems to be the use of the terms 'natural" and "unnatural".
| QUOTE |
| The lacrimal gland also responds to emotional stimuli, thereby wasting precious tear fluid, and foregoing the biological function of tears. Is that unnatural then? |
As this seems to be a form of communication, much the same way as the use of spoken language how would it be considered a waste since this seems to be a across the board recognised form of communication that our species uses?
| QUOTE |
| It means that I agree that there is a logic to thinking that species should attempt to procreate. The same conclusion cannot be drawn further to include individuals. |
Does that imply that some individules are defective or different?
| QUOTE |
| The majority, yes. But hadn't we already determined that statistical deviance doesn't carry moral weight? |
Agreed
| QUOTE |
| Of course. But that doesn't make it so. If I am to assume that your response to the original question is "Homosexuality is unnatural because lots of people say so," then I must say I'm deeply disappointed. |
Actually no. Homosexuality would seem to be unnatural at face value considering the construction of the biological equipment.
Of course the rules and norms of societial behavior, (the need to get along and live togeather to survive being a species behavior of humans) would explain the creation of societial santions on certian behaviors would it not?
| QUOTE |
| Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to Popularity): A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually superiour) sector of the population. Akin to the ancient belief that the Earth is flat. |
Again you miss the points, and have in fact come to false assumptions.
Ancient peoples believed the world to be flat not because it was popular but because the evidence of thier own eyes gave that impression. They had not the knoweladge to accept other view points and those view points seemed to be false.
How many times does a boat full of loved ones lost at sea by unobserved storms have to happen before the community begins to believe that they (the seamen) did in fact fall off the "Edge of the Earth"? Especially if they have observed that the water just seems to end.
zaragosa
Nov 16 2003, 04:55 PM
| QUOTE (Edward @ Nov 16 2003, 02:28 PM) |
| I honestly believe that we agree on more than we disagree on. Your biggest stumbling block seems to be the use of the terms 'natural" and "unnatural". |
Well, the first thing I asked was your definition of natural. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be consistent.
| QUOTE |
| As this seems to be a form of communication, much the same way as the use of spoken language how would it be considered a waste since this seems to be a across the board recognised form of communication that our species uses? |
Communication is a social function. Are you now saying that a biological function can be used for other goals than the obvious one? If you are, why can't the same go for semen? Surely, it is wasted during recreational sex, but that serves a social function as well.
| QUOTE |
| Does that imply that some individules are defective or different? |
Devective, of course not. Different... well, we're all unique, eh?
| QUOTE |
| Actually no. Homosexuality would seem to be unnatural at face value considering the construction of the biological equipment. |
Same with crying.
| QUOTE |
| Ancient peoples believed the world to be flat not because it was popular but because the evidence of thier own eyes gave that impression. They had not the knoweladge to accept other view points and those view points seemed to be false. |
Not at all; Ancient Greeks knew that the Earth couldn't be flat (in fact, the curvature of the Earth can easily be observed by watching a ship sail beyond the horizon). Yet most people (in the Dark Ages) believed that the Earth was flat, because that's what most people thought. Of course, that doesn't make it true.
Either way, argument from popularity is a fallacy.
Edward
Nov 22 2003, 12:03 PM
zaragosa
| QUOTE |
| If you are, why can't the same go for semen? |
Show the other biological use for the sperm please.
| QUOTE |
| Surely, it is wasted during recreational sex, |
That term only comes about because of our tecnological advances not the nature of homo sapiens-sapiens.
Once again we both agree that sex is great fun, I have always argued that it was ment to be so as part of our nature, but birth control as we have applied it so one can engage in "recreational sex" (guilty! ) is a development ment to interfear with the natural consequences of the sex act or procreation as it were.
You can of course wordsmith it anyway you wish but I was alive when b/c pills came out and were first marketed. I am also a first hand observer (or benificeary if you prefer) of the consequences.
| QUOTE |
| Different... well, we're all unique, eh? |
Agreed. Also take careful note that I haven't been arguing about free will.
| QUOTE |
| Either way, argument from popularity is a fallacy. |
On the contrary you seem to ignore the fact that we have more information now than in the past.
Do you some how think that the species has changed since it appeared on this earth?
At one time it was common knoweladge that the Earth was the center of the universe. Through increased knoweladge we have learned different. This wasn't devine insight it was an accumulation of knoweladge over time.
One would, not having the demonstrated knoweladge that we have now, observe that our sun rises generally in the east and sets generally in the west. It does this every day. (Sunrise and sunset are in fact accepted terms though not scienticically accurate). With no other knoweladge of celistial mechanics if you observed that phenomona every day what would be your conclusion?
Also the "earth is flat" theroy was in fact hard to disprove because of observed phenomina. Go out side on you back porch and look around. Do you notice that buildings appear smaller at a distance? Now find a place that there is a long straight railway. Stand a safe distance from the tracks and for the love of God don't stand on them. (Modern trains are quiet and you can also be arrested for tresspass in many parts of the world.) Observe the train coming to you and wait until it passes. We both know the scale of a modern train yet when the train approaches it seems to get larger as it comes nearer does it not? And if the track is of sufficient length, assuming that you have no knoweladge of the curvature of the earth waht would be your conclusion?
On thing our species does better than anyother on this earth is solve complex problems. I grant that when we solve one problem we can and do in fact help create more complex problems to solve but heck what is life without a little challange from time to time?
zaragosa
Nov 22 2003, 12:38 PM
| QUOTE (Edward @ Nov 22 2003, 02:03 PM) |
| Show the other biological use for the sperm please. |
If you do the same for tear fluid.
Tear fluid has an obvious biological function (keep the cornea moist), but is ejected during a social function (crying).
Semen has an obvious biological function (procreation), but is ejected during a social function (sex).
| QUOTE |
| birth control as we have applied it so one can engage in "recreational sex" (guilty! ) is a development ment to interfear with the natural consequences of the sex act or procreation as it were. |
I'm pleased to see that you've abandoned the concept of 'biological purpose'.
Anyway, a natural consequence of crying is that your face gets wet, that doesn't mean we can't wipe our tears before they plunge down our cheeks.
| QUOTE |
| At one time it was common knoweladge that the Earth was the center of the universe. |
And that didn't make it true, that's why it's a fallacy to refer to popular belief.