|
On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote: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.
Well, he has boiled his point down to the fact that sex's primary purpose is reproduce. Its sort of like boiling down your argument to saying the sky is blue or water is wet. We can't really argue against it.
But it proves nothing. The primary purpose of sex doesn't matter. Flowers primary purpose for being colorful is to attract animals to they can spread their pollen. That doesn't stop me from putting them in my back yard because I like the way they look.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
But guys, equality will ruin e-sports and TL will lose so many visitors!
Now that I've gotten the mandatory sarcasm out of my system, I'd like to say that this is a great initiative. The gaming community(ies) is one of the most hostile ones out there especially in matters of sexuality and religion, and I'm happy to see TL (semi-)actively supporting equality.
|
On June 25 2013 01:47 opisska wrote:
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?
Err, it can very much be "wrong". Like, promoting religious equality of ritualistic cannibalism is generally perceived as wrong in western society, and we still heavily look down on polygamy.
Wrong in society just means the majority thinks the other way. There is no objective right or wrong, just different philosophies on life. Even if I personally think individual freedom is the most important thing in life, it doesn't mean my opinion is any more valid than someone who thinks working for the "greater good" of humanity as a whole is a preferable choice.
|
On June 25 2013 01:49 Plansix wrote:
Flowers primary purpose for being colorful is to attract animals to they can spread their pollen. That doesn't stop me from putting them in my back yard because I like the way they look.
Strangely functional analogy ^_^
|
On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote: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.
I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him.
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.
The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here.
|
On June 25 2013 01:45 SupLilSon wrote:
Haven't they found gay monkeys and lions in the wild? Pretty crayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
“At least 260 species of animal have been noted exhibiting homosexual behaviour but only one species of animal ever, so far as we know, has exhibited homophobic behaviour — and that’s the human being.
"So ask which is really natural.”
-Stephen Fry
|
On June 25 2013 01:50 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote: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. I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him. 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. The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here.
And as I pointed out, you clearly didn't read the last sentence of said paragraph. Go home kid.
|
On June 25 2013 01:43 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +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!
I'd argue equality isn't political: if you don't support equality you're a moron, not a political activist.
Achieving equality is however hugely political, obviously.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 25 2013 01:50 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote: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. I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him. 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. The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here.
None of that suggests it's a choice. Sorry bro. The whole paragraph is predicated upon the fact that someone IS their sexuality already.
|
On June 25 2013 01:46 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:45 A Wet Shamwow 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... 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...
It isn't a choice (as others in this thread are arguing), but let's say that it is a choice, just as choosing not to live only to reproduce is a choice, then why should we prosecute and treat homosexuals as second class citizens while we ourselves are making a choice to "go against" our purpose?
|
On June 25 2013 01:23 SgtCoDFish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:22 Tosster wrote:On June 24 2013 22:23 gingerfluffmuff wrote:
Please keep esports away from politics, religion, sexuality and other stuff.
OT: Best of Luck to TLO and Snute. Exactly this. I wonder why they done that, someone is repressed on the forums? I don't feel like it is the case. Go and find any thread that mentions Scarlett and the way she's treated by some people. You have your answer.
I knew someone's gonna pull Scarlett. People trolling hard - they get banned - good job mods, correct attitude. But there is no general hate.
|
On June 25 2013 01:50 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote: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. I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him. 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. The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here.
How does it help your point at all ? It doesn't say anything about it being a choice or not.
|
On June 25 2013 01:52 SgtCoDFish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:43 radscorpion9 wrote: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! I'd argue equality isn't political: if you don't support equality you're a moron, not a political activist. Achieving equality is however hugely political, obviously.
Calling it equality is politics. Using the word is an argument in itself.
|
On June 25 2013 01:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote: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. Well, he has boiled his point down to the fact that sex's primary purpose is reproduce. Its sort of like boiling down your argument to saying the sky is blue or water is wet. We can't really argue against it. But it proves nothing. The primary purpose of sex doesn't matter. Flowers primary purpose for being colorful is to attract animals to they can spread their pollen. That doesn't stop me from putting them in my back yard because I like the way they look.
The primary purpose doesn't matter for humans because we are one of the few species on earth that is capable of going against the biological mold...
I said there are two components of sexual preference. Biological design and learned behavior. I believe the APA.org website calls these "nature and nurture..." I'm boiling down my viewpoint to homosexual preference being a clash of nature and nurture, with nurture overriding the other. Of course, the viewpoint that homosexuality is a component of "nature" is also valid. I'm just inclined to think that is an anomaly, since it goes against the predominant purpose of sex. Like it or not - I mean, you can sugar coat it all you want, go ahead.
What sort of flowers do you like? And I'm loathe to hear that you think reproduction doesn't matter.
|
This thread makes me sick.
It is disgusting, how some people in this thread celebrate this... abnormality.
There is only one normal way of life: Men and women belong to the person they love, be it of a different or the same gender. I mean, really, who are you to tell anyone who they can kiss and who not? As long as it is an adult human being, what is the problem with it? Monarchy, slavery, forbidding females to vote, do we never learn from history?
I am straight but I think it's cool that TL supports this cause.
For all the haters: Build your own freaking SC website and gtfo of my vision!
|
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. 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.
What did you think was going to happen? You are calling a section of the population unnatural or against the purpose of human nature. Your also claiming they can change the way they are through will alone. Both are widely considered to be discredited points of view, even if you don't accept that they are. They are also see an offensive to some people.
|
On June 25 2013 01:53 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:50 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote: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. I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him. 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. The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here. How does it help your point at all ? It doesn't say anything about it being a choice or not.
Because I'm saying my opinion. He tried to invalidate my opinion by saying I was wrong. And I quoted material from the piece that he fired off at me right back at him. To the other, I'm just saying that he has little grounds to attempt to invalidate my opinion just because he doesn't like it.
|
On June 25 2013 01:54 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:49 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote: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. Well, he has boiled his point down to the fact that sex's primary purpose is reproduce. Its sort of like boiling down your argument to saying the sky is blue or water is wet. We can't really argue against it. But it proves nothing. The primary purpose of sex doesn't matter. Flowers primary purpose for being colorful is to attract animals to they can spread their pollen. That doesn't stop me from putting them in my back yard because I like the way they look. The primary purpose doesn't matter for humans because we are one of the few species on earth that is capable of going against the biological mold... I said there are two components of sexual preference. Biological design and learned behavior. I believe the APA.org website calls these "nature and nurture..." I'm boiling down my viewpoint to homosexual preference being a clash of nature and nurture, with nurture overriding the other. Of course, the viewpoint that homosexuality is a component of "nature" is also valid. I'm just inclined to think that is an anomaly, since it goes against the predominant purpose of sex. Like it or not - I mean, you can sugar coat it all you want, go ahead. What sort of flowers do you like? And I'm loathe to hear that you think reproduction doesn't matter.
Homosexuality isn't necessarily about sex. It's about love. You can have love without sex.
|
United States261 Posts
I'm glad that TL is showing their support. I wish they would put out a fabulous shirt also 
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
I think it's interesting that people think that you can choose to become bi/homosexual - I know some people who considered themselves freaks of nature and were terrified of the thought of anyone ever finding out. They were ashamed of themselves because they were different and some went as far as attempting suicide. Now, if being homosexual is a choice, why on earth would they feel like that?
Edit: and also, heterosexuality and any kind of sexuality - it's not all about sex. There's more to sexuality than just sex. Some people seem to not understand this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
