|
On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice...
Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science.
|
On June 25 2013 01:09 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:04 Eufouria wrote:
Oh dear, I made the mistake of reading more posts in this thread. Gay propaganda lolwut.
Damn those conniving gays, sneaking into positions of power to push their gay agenda and now they've got into Team Liquid! What about us straight people, its only a matter of time before society as we know it collapses.
Seriously though I would hope the majority of team liquid believes in racial equality, it blows my mind that so many people can't see that their homophobic views are no different to racist views. I hope that in 100 years people can look back at now and say "I can't believe our laws used to be so prejudaced towards gay people" in the same way we do now towards old racist and sexist laws. Race and sexual preference are not the same. One is controllable. The other is not. I do not hate or vilify gays. I simply disagree with what they are doing. It goes against our biological design. It is a distortion. But I do not hate a person if they choose to do that. Like many other opinions, I simply disagree with them. I try not to let that color my interactions with that person or group. Part of being rational is learning to carry your opinions rather than dropping them on people with a sledgehammer. Many of the people here choking out anti-gay sentiments should learn to do the same.
Does it though? Doesn't marriage go against our biological design because we evolved to live in groups with dominant males? Shouldn't we all have a pride of women that we go around with? Again - it's also possible to have a relationship without sex. In fact - it's probably better, when entering into a long term relationship, to think "would I still want to be with this person if suddenly we couldn't have sex anymore" otherwise you have a pretty superficial relationship. I think a lot of a relationship is just being with the other person - not necessarily carnally.
|
On June 25 2013 01:36 Darkong wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:26 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:22 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:18 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:13 Shodaa wrote:On June 25 2013 01:09 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:04 Eufouria wrote:
Oh dear, I made the mistake of reading more posts in this thread. Gay propaganda lolwut.
Damn those conniving gays, sneaking into positions of power to push their gay agenda and now they've got into Team Liquid! What about us straight people, its only a matter of time before society as we know it collapses.
Seriously though I would hope the majority of team liquid believes in racial equality, it blows my mind that so many people can't see that their homophobic views are no different to racist views. I hope that in 100 years people can look back at now and say "I can't believe our laws used to be so prejudaced towards gay people" in the same way we do now towards old racist and sexist laws. Race and sexual preference are not the same. One is controllable. The other is not. I do not hate or vilify gays. I simply disagree with what they are doing. It goes against our biological design. It is a distortion. But I do not hate a person if they choose to do that. Like many other opinions, I simply disagree with them. I try not to let that color my interactions with that person or group. Part of being rational is learning to carry your opinions rather than dropping them on people with a sledgehammer. Many of the people here choking out anti-gay sentiments should learn to do the same. If you really think that sexual preference are controllable, then you might be bisexual or pansexual. I am heterosexual. I think sexual preference is controllable. I am open to being proven wrong. If not, then there is still the grounds of an evolutionary anomaly. I told you, I simply disagree with your viewpoint. I know that by expressing myself like this I am bound to come under fire. Go have sex with a man and enjoy it. If preference is controllable, decide to be gay for a day. And evolution doesn't have "anomalies." You really don't understand evolution if you think it just makes stuff bad at survival and then lets it keep living. I told you I was bound to come under fire. What exactly are you getting at here? Are you telling me that I have no grounds to think what I think? "You really don't understand evolution if you think it makes stuff bad at survival..." What? It doesn't matter whether or not I enjoy having sex with a man, I would still be choosing to do it. Is that a harsh viewpoint? Abso-fucking-lutely. Is it still the one I ascribe to? Yes. Psychologically, most behaviors are learned. But there are grounds to think either way. The idea that people have any concious control over their sexual orientation was debunked back in the 70s. Please go educate yourself before you spout more offensive drivel: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
Why don't you read that paragraph before you call me offensive. And why don't you learn to have a bit of dignity or respect? If you want to disagree with me, you can do so politely and I will have no problem with it.
|
[QUOTE]On June 25 2013 01:36 Headshot wrote:
Reading through this thread made me kinda sad. I didn't know that people still thought this way, especially on a website like TL. There are people out there that still believe that being gay is a choice? Yikes.
Anyways, here's for a TL LoL team![QUOTE]
The whole choice vs not choice argument is strange because the usage of it is admittance upon the homosexual that something is irregular (which it is not necessarily the case) and a defensive reason for the actions occurring is necessary
people are not going to agree on that matter nor the issue of homosexuality in general, some believe it wrong, some believe it right/nothing wrong about it. There are reasons on both sides, but as religion is a huge part of the argument no one can definitively say its right or wrong, in other words, its best to leave it alone.
|
On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid. I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice...
We kinda knew the primary purpose of sex is to reproduce. Just like the primary purpose of food is for nourishment. We still make tasty food, however, because we can and it doesn't hurt us. Also, you keep dodging the point about male animals that have sex with each other in the wild. Which kind of brings us to the point. Reproduction is the primary purpose of sex. But who cares? Why does that matter?
|
On June 25 2013 01:30 shawster wrote:
the fact that people are saying that equality is political shows how close minded certain individuals are
keep it up tl!
I think you mean something else, because equality very clearly *is* a political issue; one obvious case is gay marriage. Its just a statement of reality!
On June 25 2013 01:41 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:36 Darkong wrote:On June 25 2013 01:26 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:22 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:18 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:13 Shodaa wrote:On June 25 2013 01:09 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:04 Eufouria wrote:
Oh dear, I made the mistake of reading more posts in this thread. Gay propaganda lolwut.
Damn those conniving gays, sneaking into positions of power to push their gay agenda and now they've got into Team Liquid! What about us straight people, its only a matter of time before society as we know it collapses.
Seriously though I would hope the majority of team liquid believes in racial equality, it blows my mind that so many people can't see that their homophobic views are no different to racist views. I hope that in 100 years people can look back at now and say "I can't believe our laws used to be so prejudaced towards gay people" in the same way we do now towards old racist and sexist laws. Race and sexual preference are not the same. One is controllable. The other is not. I do not hate or vilify gays. I simply disagree with what they are doing. It goes against our biological design. It is a distortion. But I do not hate a person if they choose to do that. Like many other opinions, I simply disagree with them. I try not to let that color my interactions with that person or group. Part of being rational is learning to carry your opinions rather than dropping them on people with a sledgehammer. Many of the people here choking out anti-gay sentiments should learn to do the same. If you really think that sexual preference are controllable, then you might be bisexual or pansexual. I am heterosexual. I think sexual preference is controllable. I am open to being proven wrong. If not, then there is still the grounds of an evolutionary anomaly. I told you, I simply disagree with your viewpoint. I know that by expressing myself like this I am bound to come under fire. Go have sex with a man and enjoy it. If preference is controllable, decide to be gay for a day. And evolution doesn't have "anomalies." You really don't understand evolution if you think it just makes stuff bad at survival and then lets it keep living. I told you I was bound to come under fire. What exactly are you getting at here? Are you telling me that I have no grounds to think what I think? "You really don't understand evolution if you think it makes stuff bad at survival..." What? It doesn't matter whether or not I enjoy having sex with a man, I would still be choosing to do it. Is that a harsh viewpoint? Abso-fucking-lutely. Is it still the one I ascribe to? Yes. Psychologically, most behaviors are learned. But there are grounds to think either way. The idea that people have any concious control over their sexual orientation was debunked back in the 70s. Please go educate yourself before you spout more offensive drivel: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." Why don't you read that paragraph before you call me offensive. And why don't you learn to have a bit of dignity or respect? If you want to disagree with me, you can do so politely and I will have no problem with it.
It isn't the most rigorous, but if you read on in that link about the sexual orientation "therapies" that are introduced to change a person's orientation, they say they are harmful to the individual and have found no cases in which it actually works.
What you quoted is how sexual orientation forms. But I'm not sure its entirely relevant here, all that matters is whether it can be changed. And according to the APA there are no studies showing that it can be through any type of (intensive) therapy. I think your argument would be more persuasive if you could show some examples of people changing their sexual orientation through therapy; as of now I don't think that position as any scientific backing.
I agree people should be nicer to you though  . It doesn't help anyone to be offensive
|
I think that the date doesn't even really need to matter, it's a nice showing of support for the LGBTQ community no matter what. Though Pride being this weekend (in SF at least) helps it be all the better.
|
its interesting because i thought tlo was straight, the liquid rising documentary, Day[9] tells a story of how TLO failed to get a girl
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On June 25 2013 01:41 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:36 Darkong wrote:On June 25 2013 01:26 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:22 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:18 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:13 Shodaa wrote:On June 25 2013 01:09 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:04 Eufouria wrote:
Oh dear, I made the mistake of reading more posts in this thread. Gay propaganda lolwut.
Damn those conniving gays, sneaking into positions of power to push their gay agenda and now they've got into Team Liquid! What about us straight people, its only a matter of time before society as we know it collapses.
Seriously though I would hope the majority of team liquid believes in racial equality, it blows my mind that so many people can't see that their homophobic views are no different to racist views. I hope that in 100 years people can look back at now and say "I can't believe our laws used to be so prejudaced towards gay people" in the same way we do now towards old racist and sexist laws. Race and sexual preference are not the same. One is controllable. The other is not. I do not hate or vilify gays. I simply disagree with what they are doing. It goes against our biological design. It is a distortion. But I do not hate a person if they choose to do that. Like many other opinions, I simply disagree with them. I try not to let that color my interactions with that person or group. Part of being rational is learning to carry your opinions rather than dropping them on people with a sledgehammer. Many of the people here choking out anti-gay sentiments should learn to do the same. If you really think that sexual preference are controllable, then you might be bisexual or pansexual. I am heterosexual. I think sexual preference is controllable. I am open to being proven wrong. If not, then there is still the grounds of an evolutionary anomaly. I told you, I simply disagree with your viewpoint. I know that by expressing myself like this I am bound to come under fire. Go have sex with a man and enjoy it. If preference is controllable, decide to be gay for a day. And evolution doesn't have "anomalies." You really don't understand evolution if you think it just makes stuff bad at survival and then lets it keep living. I told you I was bound to come under fire. What exactly are you getting at here? Are you telling me that I have no grounds to think what I think? "You really don't understand evolution if you think it makes stuff bad at survival..." What? It doesn't matter whether or not I enjoy having sex with a man, I would still be choosing to do it. Is that a harsh viewpoint? Abso-fucking-lutely. Is it still the one I ascribe to? Yes. Psychologically, most behaviors are learned. But there are grounds to think either way. The idea that people have any concious control over their sexual orientation was debunked back in the 70s. Please go educate yourself before you spout more offensive drivel: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." Why don't you read that paragraph before you call me offensive. And why don't you learn to have a bit of dignity or respect? If you want to disagree with me, you can do so politely and I will have no problem with it.
IIRC the latest indications the scientists studying this have is that the hormone levels in utero affect a child's later sexual orientation.
|
On June 25 2013 01:41 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:36 Darkong wrote:On June 25 2013 01:26 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:22 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:18 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:13 Shodaa wrote:On June 25 2013 01:09 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:04 Eufouria wrote:
Oh dear, I made the mistake of reading more posts in this thread. Gay propaganda lolwut.
Damn those conniving gays, sneaking into positions of power to push their gay agenda and now they've got into Team Liquid! What about us straight people, its only a matter of time before society as we know it collapses.
Seriously though I would hope the majority of team liquid believes in racial equality, it blows my mind that so many people can't see that their homophobic views are no different to racist views. I hope that in 100 years people can look back at now and say "I can't believe our laws used to be so prejudaced towards gay people" in the same way we do now towards old racist and sexist laws. Race and sexual preference are not the same. One is controllable. The other is not. I do not hate or vilify gays. I simply disagree with what they are doing. It goes against our biological design. It is a distortion. But I do not hate a person if they choose to do that. Like many other opinions, I simply disagree with them. I try not to let that color my interactions with that person or group. Part of being rational is learning to carry your opinions rather than dropping them on people with a sledgehammer. Many of the people here choking out anti-gay sentiments should learn to do the same. If you really think that sexual preference are controllable, then you might be bisexual or pansexual. I am heterosexual. I think sexual preference is controllable. I am open to being proven wrong. If not, then there is still the grounds of an evolutionary anomaly. I told you, I simply disagree with your viewpoint. I know that by expressing myself like this I am bound to come under fire. Go have sex with a man and enjoy it. If preference is controllable, decide to be gay for a day. And evolution doesn't have "anomalies." You really don't understand evolution if you think it just makes stuff bad at survival and then lets it keep living. I told you I was bound to come under fire. What exactly are you getting at here? Are you telling me that I have no grounds to think what I think? "You really don't understand evolution if you think it makes stuff bad at survival..." What? It doesn't matter whether or not I enjoy having sex with a man, I would still be choosing to do it. Is that a harsh viewpoint? Abso-fucking-lutely. Is it still the one I ascribe to? Yes. Psychologically, most behaviors are learned. But there are grounds to think either way. The idea that people have any concious control over their sexual orientation was debunked back in the 70s. Please go educate yourself before you spout more offensive drivel: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." Why don't you read that paragraph before you call me offensive. And why don't you learn to have a bit of dignity or respect? If you want to disagree with me, you can do so politely and I will have no problem with it.
No one's gonna respect you if you can't even read your own damn citations. "Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
|
On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid. I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice...
Why are you even on TL man? You should be out looking for a way to pass on your genes! You're wasting your time! Your purpose is to make sure that you have kids and that they survive!
|
On June 25 2013 01:40 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science.
You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike?
You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here...
And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated.
Alright, this is why I try to avoid this shit. Let's not let things get to heated here. You take to your views, and I'll take to mine.
|
Haven't they found gay monkeys and lions in the wild? Pretty crayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
|
On June 25 2013 01:45 A Wet Shamwow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid. I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Why are you even on TL man? You should be out looking for a way to pass on your genes! You're wasting your time! Your purpose is to make sure that you have kids and that they survive!
You know that's a completely valid viewpoint? And here I am, and I'll say it again...choice overshadows everything and there are socio-economic and cultural reasons why we don't do that anymore...
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:40 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science. You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike? You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here... And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated.
You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid.
|
Having a high-profile webpage means that you have a easy way to promote whatever agenda you choose. I like the fact that TL is very restrictive when it comes to using this and a like that one of the few things they have actually chosen to put forward is something that is something that is so clearly postive.
Guys, you can argue the whole day, it doesn't change a damned thing. Promoting equality and personal freedom can never be wrong, it is really that simple. To any arguments about how unnatural, wrong or whatever homosexuality is, I just say
who gives a shit?
|
On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:40 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science. You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike? You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here... And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated.
I think I'm pretty justified in calling you ignorant and uneducated because you clearly haven't done a bit of research about this topic and you have absolutely zero introspection on it but you still feel comfortable making sweeping claims about human sexuality. Look, just because you have a view doesn't mean it's good. And when you can't back it up with anything more than vague claims about what you think evolution has done, you're not going to get any respect from anyone.
|
Sometimes, I think I should stop reading these threads... people use the same tired old argument to justify oppressing LGBT. "I don't have a problem with them, I just don't want them to have freedoms because they're unlike me".
It's either against God or against our biology... "Oh you're not supposed to do that!"
If we were boxed in by our biology, we wouldn't have invented rubbers and we wouldn't crank it daily.
|
On June 25 2013 01:21 theodorus12 wrote:
It's also quite funny how many private messages I got from this so tolerant community, telling me to "go die", "pls don't reproduce" etc. Only because I said I think gays are disgusting, but still fully support them to have the same rights like everybody else, minus child adoption.
Saying certain people are "disgusting" is still not very tolerable, and preferably should be kept to yourself. I have no idea how so many people in this thread have managed to grow up without being taught common sense, manners and respect, but alas, at least it is showing why exactly a move like this is good for the community. Spread equality.
|
Nikk
United States63 Posts
On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid. I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice...
Reproduction is a consequence of sex. What evidence do you have that it is the purpose? How do you know the purpose is not pleasure? Why do you think there exists a purpose in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
