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 01:04 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:
"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.
Yeah, I did read it, have a look at the last line there seeing as your whole argument rested on homosexuality being a choice.
And you are being offensive through your casual ignorance. If homosexuality was a proper choice there wouldn't be homosexuals, I certainly wouldn't be, I spent 16 years trying very hard to chose not to be gay, going through the motions in relationships that had nothing to it, having sex with women when I wasn't at all attracted to them in any way and going through the feelings of shame, self-loathing and isolation that many others have too trying to fit into a world where so many were prepared to call me strange, perverted, unnatural, amongst other things and you just want to dismiss people's struggles with these issues as though they're something they brought upon themselves through choice.
On June 25 2013 01:53 A Wet Shamwow wrote: 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?
Because we don't want our children to encounter this on everyday basis?
Love is love. One of the most powerful and positive emotions available to us. Who cares if this emotion is shared between a man and a woman, two men or two women? Just be happy for people who manage to find love in their lives.
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.
There are tons of grounds for invalidating your opinion. You are operating under the delusion that simply because you have an opinion it is both worth expressing and immune to criticism. This is not the case. Saying "this is what I believe" does not automatically justify that belief. And it does not garner that belief any respect.
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.
You can't just blanketly call everyone who disagrees with you a moron, and you can't just spout "equality" when in reality you only mean "equality for the people I think are right." Unless you mean complete equality for every single orientation (including paedophilia and bestiality), religious expression (which can dictate violence against certain peoples) and cultural moral (the clan leader has to have sex with all the women of his tribe). Not that I'm comparing any of that to homosexuality, support any of those things, or am against TL's stance, I'm just pointing out that there's a LOT of hypocrisy going on here. There's dickheads on both sides of the debate, but now we're all just circlejerking about how right our side is and how stupid everyone else is.
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.
could you plz clarafy this for me?
why do you hate it so much that people are diffrent and like having sex who have type of body?
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.
I opened this discussion with a line I think I'll rephrase again...even if I disagree with homosexuality, I do not vilify or hate those that practice it. As a rational person, I try not to let that color my interactions with any group. I know that coming here and saying things that go against the circlejerk that I'll fall under fire. But that doesn't lessen my anger that he insulted me like that.
On June 24 2013 23:51 theodorus12 wrote: I'm not talking about banning anything, but there are places where it's ok and such where it's not. This site has always been about esport, esport news etc. Having some admin abusing this site to shove his political views in other peoples faces is just wrong and an insult to anyone who has supported this site in the past.
Stop saying it's a political view when from our end it isn't. We're speaking out about basic human rights.
What about my view? What about the principal falsity of gays? You are not supposed to put your P into a B.
You sir, have revealed yourself as beeing totally dumb. You missed the point. There is no principal falsity of gays. It is quite natural.
It goes against the biological design of human beings...The principal point of sex being reproduction, which cannot occur in a gay relationship - is what he is trying to say.
You clearly don't really understand the principles of evolution if you think that 'producing children' is the only way of keeping a species from extinction. There are multiple ways of contributing to the evolutionary success of your species without ever contributing directly with your genetic material. There's plenty of literature on this.
A famous example are swans - in the swan population, a small percentage of the males is gay. Now, when it is breeding season, the gay swan couple will chase a male/female couple from their nest, and raise the children as their own. Since male swans are larger and stronger then females, a larger % of the eggs will in the end make it till adulthood. Here you have a clear evolutionary advantage that can help a species when pressure from predators is high, and a population is going through a tough phase.
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?
I don't want to look like I'm agreeing with that dude but reproduction is pretty much the purpose of sex. I think it's pleasurable to us so we keep doing it and so we keep reproducing. Survival and reproduction is the basic purpose of pretty much all life right? Just my two cents.
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.
could you plz clarafy this for me?
why do you hate it so much that people are diffrent and like having sex who have type of body?
Let me say it ANOTHER TIME: I do not hate or vilify those that are gay. I simply disagree with homosexuality. I do not let that disagreement color my interactions with homosexuals. I am capable of restraint. I am simply sharing my viewpoint. I respect the common view. I just disagree with it.
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.
You can't just blanketly call everyone who disagrees with you a moron, and you can't just spout "equality" when in reality you only mean "equality for the people I think are right." Unless you mean complete equality for every single orientation (including paedophilia and bestiality), religious expression (which can dictate violence against certain peoples) and cultural moral (the clan leader has to have sex with all the women of his tribe). Not that I'm comparing any of that to homosexuality, support any of those things, or am against TL's stance, I'm just pointing out that there's a LOT of hypocrisy going on here. There's dickheads on both sides of the debate, but now we're all just circlejerking about how right our side is and how stupid everyone else is.
To be fair, he's not calling EVERYONE who disagrees with him a moron, just those who disagree that all humans should have the same basic rights.
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.
I edited an earlier comment I made but I just wanted to reiterate.
Regardless of how your sexual orientation forms, whether through nature or nurture, to date I don't think there's any scientific evidence that suggests that it can be changed once its formed. From that APA link, if you read further down, they talk about whether or not sexual orientation changing therapies actually work, and they conclude that there aren't any indications that they do but that instead they harm a person's mental health.
I think if you wanted to be more persuasive you would have to show evidence that people can *change* their sexual orientation. Because even if something is learned through "nurture", that doesn't mean that it can be undone. It may be a very complicated series of changes in the brain that lead a person to adopt a particular orientation; and once they reach a certain age, it becomes a part of who they are. At least, that's assuming nurture actually plays a significant role which I doubt it does.
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.
You can't just blanketly call everyone who disagrees with you a moron, and you can't just spout "equality" when in reality you only mean "equality for the people I think are right." Unless you mean complete equality for every single orientation (including paedophilia and bestiality), religious expression (which can dictate violence against certain peoples) and cultural moral (the clan leader has to have sex with all the women of his tribe).
There's an enormous difference between two consenting adults having a relationship and nonconsensual relationships between adults and children, or animals. Pedofilia isn't an orientation, it's a mental illness. Two adult men or women consenting to sex is NOTHING like raping a child. Your point is disgusting and groundless.
On June 25 2013 01:53 A Wet Shamwow wrote: 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?
Because we don't want our children to encounter this on everyday basis?
"This"? Two human beings being together? It isn't like there are going to be full blown orgies in the streets. I am pretty sure PDA of any nature is not kosher in most peoples minds, gay or straight.
"As usual, the debate ended with everyone losing. The clash of intractable views produced no harmony, just exhaustion and an ache in the back of the skull"
I can't believe how much people try to argue for or against causes they affect them so little. You're not ignorant and uneducated saying that homosexuality is wrong because nature didn't intend for it, but why do you care so much? Are you nature's white knight, vowed to be opinionated when you spot unnatural behavior? If people like you would go about their business and let others go about their business, then there wouldn't even need to be this gay pride bullshit. Your viewpoint isn't invalid, it's just pointless and idiotic to argue for it. Similar to what religious zealots use in arguments.
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?
I don't want to look like I'm agreeing with that dude but reproduction is pretty much the purpose of sex. I think it's pleasurable to us so we keep doing it and so we keep reproducing. Survival and reproduction is the basic purpose of pretty much all life right? Just my two cents.
If survival and reproduction are the purposes of life then why do we even bother with hobbies? Hell, why don't we all have several kids and then kill ourselves? That way we'd further the species and then we wouldn't consume resources so there'd be more for our kids so they could reproduce. Oh wait, we aren't cicadas.
On June 25 2013 01:56 Zealously wrote: 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?
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.
You might want to read the bit just after that.
ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it.
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.
could you plz clarafy this for me?
why do you hate it so much that people are diffrent and like having sex who have type of body?
Let me say it ANOTHER TIME: I do not hate or vilify those that are gay. I simply disagree with homosexuality. I do not let that disagreement color my interactions with homosexuals. I am capable of restraint. I am simply sharing my viewpoint. I respect the common view. I just disagree with it.
Let's say Bob and Joe love each other. Do you disagree that Bob and Joe love each other? Or do you disagree that Bob and Joe should be able to love each other?
EPT
