Philosophy Now Forum

The Inglorious One wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Interestingly, there is genetic sexual attraction involved in between close relations who did not grow up together, whilst, for example, children who are raised together, yet unrelated, tend to seek adult relationships outside the group eg. On a kibbutz.

It is interesting.

When someone says something as asinine as "the only known motive for sexual behaviour in vertebrate biology is sexual gratification," you can rest assured any discussion about homosexuality in humans has degenerated into random thoughts being promulgated as deep insight. Whenever I see someone argue that homosexual behavior should be accepted as normal in human society because animals do it, I seriously have question their sanity. Should I be afraid that they might eat my kids? After all, it is not uncommon in the animal kingdom.

(Remember all the hoopla with the book And Tango Makes Three? That didn't turn out very well for the proponents of homosexuality -- which is why the ending went relatively unreported.)

What are you on about? First, Google what I actually said for its validity. Next, understand I was speaking about hetero relationships. Third, smack yourself on the head for not understanding anything I just said.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Interestingly, there is genetic sexual attraction involved in between close relations who did not grow up together, whilst, for example, children who are raised together, yet unrelated, tend to seek adult relationships outside the group eg. On a kibbutz.

It is interesting.

When someone says something as asinine as "the only known motive for sexual behaviour in vertebrate biology is sexual gratification," you can rest assured any discussion about homosexuality in humans has degenerated into random thoughts being promulgated as deep insight. Whenever I see someone argue that homosexual behavior should be accepted as normal in human society because animals do it, I seriously have question their sanity. Should I be afraid that they might eat my kids? After all, it is not uncommon in the animal kingdom.

(Remember all the hoopla with the book And Tango Makes Three? That didn't turn out very well for the proponents of homosexuality -- which is why the ending went relatively unreported.)

When a person mentions that homosexuality is present in all mammals this is an indication that such urges are natural. It is not meant as a license to behave like an animal in any other way.
I'm puzzled why you can't see the contradiction in your words. How about heterosexuality is perfectly natural - they do it in the animal kingdom - I don't think you should though, in case you eat your own children!!
Think it over.

The point is that homosexuality is not a choice like between a BMW or a Volvo. Nature chooses you sexual orientation. Maybe you will remember when you chose to be be obsessed with women around the age of 12? Was that a choice?
I think not.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: When a person mentions that homosexuality is present in all mammals this is an indication that such urges are natural. It is not meant as a license to behave like an animal in any other way.

I'm puzzled why you can't see the contradiction in your words. How about heterosexuality is perfectly natural - they do it in the animal kingdom - I don't think you should though, in case you eat your own children!!
Think it over.

Sexual urges are indeed natural, but a dog humping your leg does not mean that nature "chose" the dog's sexual orientation to prefer you leg over a bitch. Nature is indeterminate, but it is also relentlessly heterosexual: heterosexuality is the overriding determiner in biological and sociological evolution.

The point is that homosexuality is not a choice like between a BMW or a Volvo. Nature chooses you sexual orientation. Maybe you will remember when you chose to be be obsessed with women around the age of 12? Was that a choice?
I think not.

No one really knows why some humans tend towards homosexuality, but reason cannot overlook psychological and sociological conditioning as a major cause.

Rats confined in a large area with plenty of food and water get along fine until it becomes crowded. As the populations increases, so does violence and homosexual activity. The latter is not due to "orientation," but is a release of sexual tension.

In some societies, homosexuality is accepted, in others, it is frowned upon but tolerated, in yet others, it is a serious criminal offense, possibly punishable by death. Male homosexual behavior was expected in ancient Athens. Today, ritual male homosexuality plays an important role in some cultures in New Guinea. But in none of these cases did society go so far as to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. Marriage has always been limited to a male/female partnership.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: When a person mentions that homosexuality is present in all mammals this is an indication that such urges are natural. It is not meant as a license to behave like an animal in any other way.

I'm puzzled why you can't see the contradiction in your words. How about heterosexuality is perfectly natural - they do it in the animal kingdom - I don't think you should though, in case you eat your own children!!
Think it over.

Sexual urges are indeed natural, but a dog humping your leg does not mean that nature "chose" the dog's sexual orientation to prefer you leg over a bitch. Nature is indeterminate, but it is also relentlessly heterosexual: heterosexuality is the overriding determiner in biological and sociological evolution.

Exactly. SO why aren't you scared to have such sex if it means you might act like an animal?

The point is that homosexuality is not a choice like between a BMW or a Volvo. Nature chooses you sexual orientation. Maybe you will remember when you chose to be be obsessed with women around the age of 12? Was that a choice?
I think not.

No one really knows why some humans tend towards homosexuality, but reason cannot overlook psychological and sociological conditioning as a major cause.

Rats confined in a large area with plenty of food and water get along fine until it becomes crowded. As the populations increases, so does violence and homosexual activity. The latter is not due to "orientation," but is a release of sexual tension.

So why are you so homophobic? Why would you disapprove of people's behaviour. What gives you the right to think heterosexuality is okay? If the purpose of sex is to have children, then why have you not got as many children as times you have had sex?
The obvious point is that sex, like eating might have a practical function, but we don't just stick to 1900 calories of balanced protein, carbs and fats with minerals and trace elements - we enjoy a range of opulent and diverse cuisines from a around the world.

The increase in homosexuality has bugger all to do with population density, and every thing to do with Western liberal values enabling people to tell the truth about themselves. If your thesis were correct then answer me why there is not increase in homosexuality in Russian and the Islamic world?
In the West, population densities were higher in many instances 100-150 years ago, with no apparent gayness at all. That's because repressive values prevented gays from being honest with themselves and stayed in the closet. Homosexuality was illegal.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: So why are you so homophobic?

That's a cheap and easy way of shutting down any real discussion. It's not rational. It destroys your credibility and suggests you are afraid of losing in a genuine debate.

It reminds me of when John Stossel was conducting an interview on a college campus and was shouted down. When things were shutting down, one of the protesters gleefully shouted, "We won! We one!"

(Note: I edited my last post, adding another paragraph.)

Is Homosexuality a Choice? (Scientific American)

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: So why are you so homophobic?

That's a cheap and easy way of shutting down any real discussion. It's not rational. It destroys your credibility and suggests you are afraid of losing in a genuine debate.

It reminds me of when John Stossel was conducting an interview on a college campus and was shouted down. When things were shutting down, one of the protesters gleefully shouted, "We won! We one!"

(Note: I edited my last post, adding another paragraph.)

Is Homosexuality a Choice? (Scientific American)

I said a lot more besides that, and I think you picking on that point is your own way of avoiding the issues.
The only sentence you got right is "It's not rational". homophobia is not rational, true. So have you thought about why you are homophobic?

BTW, you link is dead. Try this one.
http://www.livescience.com/50058-being- ... hoice.html

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: So why are you so homophobic?

That's a cheap and easy way of shutting down any real discussion. It's not rational. It destroys your credibility and suggests you are afraid of losing in a genuine debate.

It reminds me of when John Stossel was conducting an interview on a college campus and was shouted down. When things were shutting down, one of the protesters gleefully shouted, "We won! We one!"

(Note: I edited my last post, adding another paragraph.)

Is Homosexuality a Choice? (Scientific American)

I said a lot more besides that, and I think you picking on that point is your own way of avoiding the issues.
The only sentence you got right is "It's not rational". homophobia is not rational, true. So have you thought about why you are homophobic?

BTW, you link is dead. Try this one.
http://www.livescience.com/50058-being- ... hoice.html

You sound like the the student yelling, "We won! We won!" without realizing that all you really did with your ad hominem comment is destroy your credibility -- and now you are trying to blame me.

Try this:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... -a-choice/

The articles are similar. There are possible tendencies, but nothing concrete. It is not nature vs. nurture, but nature + nurture with the former being much more malleable than proponents of gay marriage would like to believe. Like I said, nature is indeterminate even if it is relentlessly heterosexual. Human beings should think better of themelves than to think aping apes is "progressive."

inglorious, i think i asked this before but got no answer

you think that homosexuality / gay marriage are in some way wrong


yet you frequently masturbate while watching girl-girl porn

isn't that hypocrtical? How do you reconcile these things

The Inglorious One wrote: You sound like the the student yelling, "We won! We won!" without realizing that all you really did with your ad hominem comment is destroy your credibility -- and now you are trying to blame me."

No, I think this is an important question, which you have now avoided twice.
Let me put it another way.
What is your objection to people behaving as they wish with regard to their sexual preference?

At the end of the day, even if you think it is a choice, or innate you are still left with this question.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: You sound like the the student yelling, "We won! We won!" without realizing that all you really did with your ad hominem comment is destroy your credibility -- and now you are trying to blame me."

No, I think this is an important question, which you have now avoided twice.
Let me put it another way.
What is your objection to people behaving as they wish with regard to their sexual preference?

At the end of the day, even if you think it is a choice, or innate you are still left with this question.

My problem is with the lack of respect for the larger community.

Hitler came into power using the same tactics the "gay" community is using. Remember: Hitler came to power using legal means. At the end of the day, the important thing is to ask yourself whether the ultimate goal is instant gratification or to conform with the cosmos. Values should be allowed to evolve, not forced down the throats of the majority. The latter can end only in disaster.

Your attitude proves something I have believed for a long, long time: secularism is that ideal which, once having found a voice, must impose its values (or lack thereof) in order to attain its goals. Your willingness to excuse, propagandize (I.e., anyone who disagrees you is a "homophobe") and impose your ideas on the pre-existing order makes you different than ISIS and Hitler only in degree. Does this make me afraid? Yes. Not of change or homosexuality, but of the eventual consequences of human beings taking it upon themselves to challenge the cosmos.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: You sound like the the student yelling, "We won! We won!" without realizing that all you really did with your ad hominem comment is destroy your credibility -- and now you are trying to blame me."

No, I think this is an important question, which you have now avoided twice.
Let me put it another way.
What is your objection to people behaving as they wish with regard to their sexual preference?

At the end of the day, even if you think it is a choice, or innate you are still left with this question.

My problem is with the lack of respect for the larger community.

Hitler came into power using the same tactics the "gay" community is using..

Thanks for answering the question.

Clearly you are a fucking p****.

Face it bitch - you are concealing gay tendencies. Come Out; shut the fuck up; or piss of to Russia where pathetic little wankers like you are allow to get off on gay bashing.

Inglorious. Please answer this question.

If homosexuality is a lifestyle choice then why on earth would anybody choose it?

Just to clarify the above question. I am a strictly heterosexual man but I'm aware that one's sexual orientation is a spectrum phenomenon where being solely heterosexual or solely homosexual are the extremes of the spectrum. I have a number of gay friends who would define themselves as being solely homosexual and others who would say they swing both ways. When I was having my adolescent sexual fantasies about girls in my youth my solely gay male friends were having theirs about blokes and my bisexual friends were having theirs about both. Are you seriously suggesting that these fantasies were the consequence of conscious choices? If you are in fact making this claim what evidence can you offer in support of it?

Obvious Leo wrote:Inglorious. Please answer this question.

If homosexuality is a lifestyle choice then why on earth would anybody choose it?

It appears from his last answer that he thinks they chose it because they are Nazis.

The Inglorious One wrote:Not of change or homosexuality, but of the eventual consequences of human beings taking it upon themselves to challenge the cosmos.

lol

do you actually know any gay people especially ones with kids

we have enough trouble challenging the mess that the kitchen is most of the time, there is no energy left for challenging the cosmos