Homosexuality

[Deleted member]

Ever since I discovered scientists had political agendas I've lost faith in them. I disagree with their claims on this because I've never witnessed any evidence of this ever, only heterosexual practice. Even when I used to volunteer at a Zoo there was never any mention or practice of this at all.

I'm justified in discrediting the scientist's stance on this, because there has never been any evidence of this outside of testimony, and I know that scientists have had political agendas for homosexuality before.

Someone already linked a video. scroll back a few posts

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That's not the only unnatural state, it's just one that is obviously unnatural, and obviously possible, proving that there are natural states.

It shows that there are states that are natural, but it does not show that any state that is more natural is still "unnatural".

Both those instances are either a result of human intervention, or an animal altering its ecosystem through circumstances forced upon it by external factors, not on its own accord. The animals are still chess pieces being moved around by a greater power. If I gave you the paragraph on it from my essay this would have been more clear.

Better example. A monkey goes ape**** and murders everyone in his tribe. How could this possibly be forced on him through an external factor? Are we forced by external factors into things such as dementia? Where does an animal's ecosystem end?

The development of technology is natural, so there is nothing wrong with it. Flying and driving serve the end of transportation, which is a human good, but they don't corrupt any goal or natural practice.

They corrupt us. They make us more lazy, more fat, and able to travel distances far above what we normally would be capable of.

No, we've changed our environment and our wants.

What is natural is still the same now as it was back then, if it had changed, the nature of the human person would change too, but it hasn't. A coffee machine created now still has the same purpose in 1000 years, the only way it would have a different purpose is if the very nature of the object was altered.

Okay, this makes sense to me.

The heavy urbanisation of human society means that the up-keep of one person costs far more resources than it really needs to. We are only over-populated in relation to what our societal systems (government, urbanisation etc.) can sustain. There are plenty of places like Egypt and Australia where there is alot of unused spaced.

...and where most of it is uninhabitable. Tons of space in antarctica, why aren't we living there yet? Because it's not really a habitat suited for human populations.

Besides, without immigration, western civilisation would actually be dying out. For a civilisation to last over 25 years, every couple needs a fertility rate of 2.11 children. A rate of 1.8 has never been reversed in history, and a rate of 1.3 has never been reversed.

All western countries have rates beteen 1 and 2.

Saw this report. The problem IS immigration, in fact-the fact that people in places like africa and asia have between 5 and 12 children! That's your source of overpopulation right there.

I covered this before. This moral theory is based on the nature of the human person, that is why I find it so convincing, and why I think it gives me a right to say it surpasses other moral theories, because it is founded on empirical observation, unlike other theories. The point is, the human person hasn't chnaged, so what is natural hasn't either.

But the human person has changed! We as a species have changed! Be it intellectually, or even more deeply biologically. This is why the theory is faulty, because we as a species are not only changing, but changing more often than anything else on the planet. We have the ability to change ourselves to a ridiculous extent.

Ever since I discovered scientists had political agendas I've lost faith in them. I disagree with their claims on this because I've never witnessed any evidence of this ever, only heterosexual practice. Even when I used to volunteer at a Zoo there was never any mention or practice of this at all.

Anecdotal evidence. Try actual empirical testing. And it doesn't matter if some scientists have political agendas or not-scientific theories still need to put up with an incredible amount of scrutiny, and discrediting them because the scientists have agendas is a basic ad hominem fallacy.

I'm justified in discrediting the scientist's stance on this, because there has never been any evidence of this outside of testimony, and I know that scientists have had political agendas for homosexuality before.

Vid was provided.



I think the main problem with your ideas are:
A) It relies on human nature remaining the same throughout the evolution of mankind as a species. It may not have been such an issue before, but now sex for nothing but sexual gratification is in fact a very large part of our collective psyche. Would this not count as natural if it has evolutionally been ingrained into us as a species that sex is for fun and making babies, not just the latter?
B) It appears incredibly subjective to me.

 

[rvkevin]

Do you have a skeleton of your argument? I tried to form one and was unsuccessful. Fix until your heart’s content.

1) The action corrupts a natural act, by being the means for an end other than the end it was biologically designed for.
2) The action was biologically designed for a specific end. You do the action in the same way as it was designed for (it would imitate the way the action would be performed to fulfill that end), even if it does not fulfill that end.
3) An action is wrong (or unnatural) if it fulfills the requirements for 1 and does not fulfill the requirements for 2. Otherwise, it is right (or natural).

 

[Sieguest]

Just wanted to clear something up here-



Homosexuality isn't wrong because it corrupts the natural end of procreation. It is wrong because it corrupts the natural act, which is meant for procreation, there's a difference.

The act is designed to be done with someone you're willing to have kids with. As long as you do this is there is nothing wrong, because you are doing the natural act. This is why it is ok for infertile couples to have sex, because they are still doing it the way it is designed.

The reason why homosexuality is wrong is because sexual pleasure is meant solely for the natural act, which in turn only exists for procreation. Homosexuality is wrong because it takes sexuality, which is meant only for the natural act, and employs it outside of said act.

Yes pleasure is a natural end, but the means must be natural too. For example, is it right for me to befriend a wealthy woman merely to exploit such wealth?

Both the means and the end (friendship and seeking personal wellbeing) are not necessarily wrongs independantly, but the structure of that process clearly is clearly what makes it wrong.

It's the same with the homosexual act, they are taking sexuality and applying it for the wrong reason. I've showed before that sexual pleasure isn't an end in itself, it is a means towards the end of procreation, because the sexual act is fulfilled only once the ejaculation has occurred.

Okay, so I'm clear on this: does natural law hold that the process or the end must be uncorrupted? Or does it hold both in consideration? I know that is says natural=good, but I'm confused as to what the natural is.

 

[Dre89]

It shows that there are states that are natural, but it does not show that any state that is more natural is still "unnatural".

Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Better example. A monkey goes ape**** and murders everyone in his tribe. How could this possibly be forced on him through an external factor? Are we forced by external factors into things such as dementia? Where does an animal's ecosystem end?

But this is what separates animals from humans. A monkey will never needlessly murder his entire tribe, because animals always obey the laws of their ecosystem. The only times this slaughter would ever occur was if some mental disease was obtained (external factor) or by human intervention (manipulated by a higher power). Neither of those are done by the animal's own accord.

They corrupt us. They make us more lazy, more fat, and able to travel distances far above what we normally would be capable of.

Not always. There is the potential for what you're saying (if it isn't happening already) but only once technology gets to the point where it starts removing these goods like exercise etc. does it become of detriment. It is perfectly possible to have technology and still uphold those goods.

Okay, this makes sense to me.

I appreciate your maturity and not just arguing back pointlssly for the sake of it.

...and where most of it is uninhabitable. Tons of space in antarctica, why aren't we living there yet? Because it's not really a habitat suited for human populations.

There are plenty of unhabited habitable spaces other than Antartica. The other point I made too was that the heavy unrbanisation amd structure of social order means that it costs far more to sustain a person's life than it should have to.

Saw this report. The problem IS immigration, in fact-the fact that people in places like africa and asia have between 5 and 12 children! That's your source of overpopulation right there.

I again refer to the urbanisation issue. I also again refer to the fact there is plenty of space to fill up.

But the human person has changed! We as a species have changed! Be it intellectually, or even more deeply biologically. This is why the theory is faulty, because we as a species are not only changing, but changing more often than anything else on the planet. We have the ability to change ourselves to a ridiculous extent.

Firstly, I'm not convinced by the evolution theory you're proposing (atheist macroevolution). I would accept creationist evolution (although you have to be Catholic for that). Regardless, it's not that relevant, because the reality is a being should always try to fulfill the form it has. In other words, one should do what is natural for it.

Even if macroevolution is true, the human forn has hardly changed since the first humans existed. They still had the same intellect, physical capacities, and inclinations as us, so what was good for them is still good for us.

The fact that we are so different to other animals in that we are designed to flourish as ends in ourselves, and can alter what we contribute to unlike animals makes me doubt macroevolution (when I say macroevolution I just mean athiest evolution). The ability to alter what we contribute to and corrupt our own natures is not a matter of being more intelligent, that's not something that can gradually evolve. Animals of lower intelligence than us could have had the ability to ignore defy their ecosystems, and likewise, there could be creatures more intelligent than us that couldn't defy theri ecosystems. The fact that neither of those exist lelads me to doubt macroevolution.

Besides, even if macroevolution were true, it's a moot point because animals would be changing as well, yet they always trictly adhere to what is natutral from them anyway, meaning that humans can/should do the same.

But anyway that's another debate.

Anecdotal evidence. Try actual empirical testing. And it doesn't matter if some scientists have political agendas or not-scientific theories still need to put up with an incredible amount of scrutiny, and discrediting them because the scientists have agendas is a basic ad hominem fallacy.

I discredit them because I have never witnessed any homosexuality in the wild, nor it seems has anyone I know who has worked with animals. Add the fact that scientists have made crap up before for homosexuality, whether homosexuality occurs in the wild or not, I am justified in my doubt.

Vid was provided.

Where was it? I must have missed it. I'll try look for it, but if I don't have an answer to the video soon that means I probably didn't find it so let me know where it is.

I think the main problem with your ideas are:
A) It relies on human nature remaining the same throughout the evolution of mankind as a species. It may not have been such an issue before, but now sex for nothing but sexual gratification is in fact a very large part of our collective psyche. Would this not count as natural if it has evolutionally been ingrained into us as a species that sex is for fun and making babies, not just the latter?
B) It appears incredibly subjective to me.

I covered your first problem. And no it's not subjective at all. This is what separates natural law theories from other moral theries, they're not about subjective logic, they're about an objective authority, which is nature. It's not about using reason, it's about doing what nature is telling us to do. I repeat, alot of what I say would seem to be plain common sense had we been the first humans, who had the exact same nature as us. The 'corrupting of nature' stuff makes it sound so ocmplex, but the only reason why I need to complicate it like that is because we live so dettached from nature and the original lifestyle of humanity that I have to do it.

Do you have a skeleton of your argument? I tried to form one and was unsuccessful. Fix until your heart’s content.

1) The action corrupts a natural act, by being the means for an end other than the end it was biologically designed for.
2) The action was biologically designed for a specific end. You do the action in the same way as it was designed for (it would imitate the way the action would be performed to fulfill that end), even if it does not fulfill that end.
3) An action is wrong (or unnatural) if it fulfills the requirements for 1 and does not fulfill the requirements for 2. Otherwise, it is right (or natural).

Um yeah I think you pretty much nailed it. I'm not sure if three is totally right though. The reason I say this is because I can see someone replying with a 'well then what if...' and then I would have a response to it, which isn't explained by 3, if you know what I mean. But yeah I'm pretty sure what you said is right though.

Okay, so I'm clear on this: does natural law hold that the process or the end must be uncorrupted? Or does it hold both in consideration? I know that is says natural=good, but I'm confused as to what the natural is.

The end cannot be corrupted.

The process can be altered as long as it does not corrupt a natural good. There's a difference between alteration and corruption.

I refer again to the footwear example. Footwear removes the pain from walking, which is for the sake of transportaion. Pain is not a goal of barefoot walking, it is merely to alert you to an undesireable state.

Because pain is not the goal, it is ok to remove it, and it is ok to remove the goal of pain (alerting one to an undesireable state), because the use of footwear means there is no longer any damage to the feet, and because damage to the feet is not a goal of transportation, this is ok to be removed.

Homosexuality changes the end itself. Another thing which I probably didn't make clear is that the corruption of the human body is more 'sinful' or unnatural than the corurption of an artificial object.

For example, one could corrupt the use of a book by using it to bash someone, but apart from the immorality of bashing someone (let's say they smashed a window instead), using the book for and end it was not designed for is not a wrong, because the book does not exist as an end in itself, and is artificial, it is not a a being of nature, so there is no fundamental law beyond human manipulation it must adhere to.

Homosexuality is a far graver wrong because not only are you corrupting the end of a natural good, but it is your body that you are corrupting, in that you are taking sexual pleasure and applying it outside of its natural goal, therefore corrupting a good very crucial to the human person.

Edit- I watched the vid, and I found it pretty inconclusive. All it mainly showed was affection and mammals briefly mounting other, which is probably a dominance gesture rather than a sexual one.

Also, there is a difference between a sexual attraction to the same gender, and just attempting to achieve sexual gratification anyway possible. Domestic dogs often will hump whatever they can to get sexual gratification, simply because there are no females around. if a dog humps another male in that instance, that's not a result of homosexuality, that's a result of the dog attempting to exert his sexual energies in the most gratifying way possible.

I'm not going to be convinced until I actually see a prolonged sexual act between two animals where it is evident that they are of the same sex. All that was quick scene changed and split second mounts. That's not sexual activity at all.

Also, that video was pretty dodgy, it was talking about male oranguatans and showed one sliding down a tree, yet it was probably actually a female, considering it was a female size and male oranguatans never go in the trees.

If that's the best the animal homosexuality case has got it's pretty weak I'm sorry.

 

[Sieguest]

The end cannot be corrupted.

The process can be altered as long as it does not corrupt a natural good. There's a difference between alteration and corruption.

Okay.

I refer again to the footwear example. Footwear removes the pain from walking, which is for the sake of transportaion. Pain is not a goal of barefoot walking, it is merely to alert you to an undesireable state.

Because pain is not the goal, it is ok to remove it, and it is ok to remove the goal of pain (alerting one to an undesireable state), because the use of footwear means there is no longer any damage to the feet, and because damage to the feet is not a goal of transportation, this is ok to be removed.

Okay, I can agree with that.

Homosexuality changes the end itself. Another thing which I probably didn't make clear is that the corruption of the human body is more 'sinful' or unnatural than the corurption of an artificial object.

For example, one could corrupt the use of a book by using it to bash someone, but apart from the immorality of bashing someone (let's say they smashed a window instead), using the book for and end it was not designed for is not a wrong, because the book does not exist as an end in itself, and is artificial, it is not a a being of nature, so there is no fundamental law beyond human manipulation it must adhere to.

Homosexuality is a far graver wrong because not only are you corrupting the end of a natural good, but it is your body that you are corrupting, in that you are taking sexual pleasure and applying it outside of its natural goal, therefore corrupting a good very crucial to the human person.

So my next question is: Can an act serve a dual purpose? I'll reference the chocolate example. Within a certain limit chocolate can meet a goal of eating- survival, but it can also meet the end of pleasure inside that limit as well. Outside of that limit the goal of eating changes to solely meet the end of pleasure.
So assuming someone consumes chocolate within that limit, could the process of eating serve a dual purpose?

Or say running: The goal of running is transportation. But if you're being chased by something like a bear, it would also be meeting the end of survival wouldn't it?

If that's true then could homosexual sex not be claimed to be attempting to serve a dual purpose. The end of procreation (which is corrupted) and the end of pleasure (which in uncorrupted). What does natural law hold in that situation?

 

[rvkevin]

Um yeah I think you pretty much nailed it. I'm not sure if three is totally right though. The reason I say this is because I can see someone replying with a 'well then what if...' and then I would have a response to it, which isn't explained by 3, if you know what I mean. But yeah I'm pretty sure what you said is right though.

Actually, I don't know what you mean. If that is the definition of right and wrong then anything that fits the definition of right would be right, and anything that fits the definition of wrong would be wrong. If we have to rationalize a bunch of exceptions, it would be no better than just choosing what we think is right and wrong based on preference. So, what would you change about it to make the actions you consider natural to be defined as right and what you consider unnatural to be defined as wrong?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

All it shows is one unnatural state. It doesn't show that there are any other states that are necessarily unnatural. That's what I'm trying to say. In retrospect though, it is indeed a very weak point that I will retract.

But this is what separates animals from humans. A monkey will never needlessly murder his entire tribe, because animals always obey the laws of their ecosystem. The only times this slaughter would ever occur was if some mental disease was obtained (external factor) or by human intervention (manipulated by a higher power). Neither of those are done by the animal's own accord.

I'm going to look for more examples of this. I am absolutely positive that it is possible for an animal to corrupt its ecosystem, mostly because of the typical curve of population for a dominant species. I can't find an image right now, but lemme find my biology notebook... And it's not in there. Dammit. Basically, it was a graph that the biology teacher showed us that showed a relationship between the population of the most successful species in an environment (one function) in comparison to the maximum level of resources available for that species in said environment (another function). On the Y-axis was the population of the species, on the X-axis was time.
This graph was shown in two forms. First form was the "ideal" form, and what the scientists had originally predicted when they had started this particular experiment. It had the population of the most successful species going up gradually, growth rates slowly levelling out as it reached the maximum level of resources (i.e. X values going towards infinite = maximum) with approximately a circular curve (sin/cos) once it leveled out, going up and down slightly.
The second form was the "natural" form, AKA what really did happen. The population exploded, spiked above the maximum, and then the maximum proceeded to sink (like if a certain animal eats every resource available to it, the ecosystem is not able to regenerate that fast again and the food for it in the future becomes less). And then the species and the maximum continued to go down in lockstep; first the species goes below the maximum, then it goes back up over the maximum, the maximum sinks, et cetera. The species basically goes into a nosedive decline.

I wish I could figure out what this study was; apparently that was a lesson where I forgot my notebook. I will ask my biology teacher next time I'm at school. However, it seemed like pretty clear evidence that an animal can affect its surroundings, just through doing what comes naturally to an animal-eating and breeding. And even then, it seems very logical that something like that would happen; I believe that if I conducted similar experiments with a dominant species, something similar would come out as result.

Not always. There is the potential for what you're saying (if it isn't happening already) but only once technology gets to the point where it starts removing these goods like exercise etc. does it become of detriment. It is perfectly possible to have technology and still uphold those goods.

Ok.

I appreciate your maturity and not just arguing back pointlssly for the sake of it.

I (try to) know when to leave a point be.

There are plenty of unhabited habitable spaces other than Antartica. The other point I made too was that the heavy unrbanisation amd structure of social order means that it costs far more to sustain a person's life than it should have to.

Yes, we like our electronics. We like being close to each other. We have social needs.

Firstly, I'm not convinced by the evolution theory you're proposing (atheist macroevolution). I would accept creationist evolution (although you have to be Catholic for that). Regardless, it's not that relevant, because the reality is a being should always try to fulfill the form it has. In other words, one should do what is natural for it.

Creationist evolution as in... (please do not say young earth creationism; if you say young earth creationism your opinion is forever disqualified from any intelligent debate again ever)

Also, I just figure out that macroevolution is not what I thought it was, and agree-macroevolution seems to defy one of the very basic principles of evolution, that being mutation in the individual.

What I described, however, was not macroevolution, or at least not the way it is defined from what I heard. The idea is not that we as a species all together at once made these evolutionary changes, it's that, like the change from the regressed foreheads to the "babyfaces", it was an individual genetic mutation (that may or may not have happened in multiple individuals at once, dunno) that set itself through through breeding the gene. Or something like that, maybe I need to inform myself a little better on how a species goes from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens without macroevolution (which, even to me, seems a little silly). Let me get back to you on this one.

Even if macroevolution is true, the human forn has hardly changed since the first humans existed. They still had the same intellect, physical capacities, and inclinations as us, so what was good for them is still good for us.

We have gotten weaker. Much weaker. We have gotten smarter. We have changed, at the very least slightly. Additionally, I predict that in the next few generations, we will be getting fatter as well.

The fact that we are so different to other animals in that we are designed to flourish as ends in ourselves, and can alter what we contribute to unlike animals makes me doubt macroevolution (when I say macroevolution I just mean athiest evolution).

Who says animals can't alter their contributions? It may not be as extreme, but I sincerely doubt the reality of this statement.

The ability to alter what we contribute to and corrupt our own natures is not a matter of being more intelligent, that's not something that can gradually evolve. Animals of lower intelligence than us could have had the ability to ignore defy their ecosystems, and likewise, there could be creatures more intelligent than us that couldn't defy theri ecosystems. The fact that neither of those exist lelads me to doubt macroevolution.

It seems here that you're arguing something that requires a little more evidence. I really, really doubt that it's even possible to defy your own ecosystem in a serious manner unless you are intelligent to the point of self-awareness (like only a few species are). And even then, unless you have ridiculously advanced tools (such as humans do), it's STILL night impossible to do so. I.e. animals just aren't far enough along yet. Sooner or later though. And there is no one more intelligent than us, stop kidding yourself. Even if someone more intelligent than us couldn't defy their ecosystems, it wouldn't be a critical blow in favor of your theory-it would merely show that a certain species is not defying their ecosystems (who knows, it could be the smart thing to do).

I covered your first problem. And no it's not subjective at all. This is what separates natural law theories from other moral theries, they're not about subjective logic, they're about an objective authority, which is nature. It's not about using reason, it's about doing what nature is telling us to do. I repeat, alot of what I say would seem to be plain common sense had we been the first humans, who had the exact same nature as us. The 'corrupting of nature' stuff makes it sound so complex, but the only reason why I need to complicate it like that is because we live so detached from nature and the original lifestyle of humanity that I have to do it.

Nature itself is subjective. And if not that, then our understanding thereof.

How do you know that sexual pleasure is not the desired end of anal sex, which in turn is a process all its own? How do you know that anything, really, doesn't have a number of natural ends and processes? By going with "if everyone did it, we'd be extinct"?

Right now, what I have is a gut feeling saying, "something is very, VERY wrong with this theory". I should probably step out of the argument until I figure out how to refute it, because I'm having trouble accepting this. I'm aware this is a negative point; that you seem to be winning this debate and yet I'm still not accepting your point of view, but something just feels very wrong, and I'll get back to this thread when I figure out exactly what that something is.

 

[Dre89]

All it shows is one unnatural state. It doesn't show that there are any other states that are necessarily unnatural. That's what I'm trying to say. In retrospect though, it is indeed a very weak point that I will retract.

But it shows that unnatural states exist, and that they can be caused by humans. If an unnatural states exists, and it can be caused by humans, it is highly unlikely that there are no other unnatural states.

I'm going to look for more examples of this. I am absolutely positive that it is possible for an animal to corrupt its ecosystem, mostly because of the typical curve of population for a dominant species. I can't find an image right now, but lemme find my biology notebook... And it's not in there. Dammit. Basically, it was a graph that the biology teacher showed us that showed a relationship between the population of the most successful species in an environment (one function) in comparison to the maximum level of resources available for that species in said environment (another function). On the Y-axis was the population of the species, on the X-axis was time.
This graph was shown in two forms. First form was the "ideal" form, and what the scientists had originally predicted when they had started this particular experiment. It had the population of the most successful species going up gradually, growth rates slowly levelling out as it reached the maximum level of resources (i.e. X values going towards infinite = maximum) with approximately a circular curve (sin/cos) once it leveled out, going up and down slightly.
The second form was the "natural" form, AKA what really did happen. The population exploded, spiked above the maximum, and then the maximum proceeded to sink (like if a certain animal eats every resource available to it, the ecosystem is not able to regenerate that fast again and the food for it in the future becomes less). And then the species and the maximum continued to go down in lockstep; first the species goes below the maximum, then it goes back up over the maximum, the maximum sinks, et cetera. The species basically goes into a nosedive decline.

I wish I could figure out what this study was; apparently that was a lesson where I forgot my notebook. I will ask my biology teacher next time I'm at school. However, it seemed like pretty clear evidence that an animal can affect its surroundings, just through doing what comes naturally to an animal-eating and breeding. And even then, it seems very logical that something like that would happen; I believe that if I conducted similar experiments with a dominant species, something similar would come out as result.

I've covered this before, but it's not your fault because I didn't explain this before when I briefly summed up my argument. Any alteration to an individual animals will be because of external factors, including human interference.

Any alteration of the contribution of a species is always communal. That is, in a given ecosystem, the entire species adapts and all are alteredt to contribute to the same thing. The fact that the entire species is unified in this alteration shows that it isn't by their own accord, there is some greater power at work which has manipulated them as one.

Humans are different because we individually alter our contributions. The fact we have conflicting opinions right now is testimony to that. The fact that we can idividually alter our own contributions, given that we are largely exposed to the same external factors shows that we flourish as ends in ourselves.

Animals can't act individually in this manner. An individual animal can't just decide to leave it's ecosystem and the natural cycle it contributes to.

Ok.


I (try to) know when to leave a point be.



Yes, we like our electronics. We like being close to each other. We have social needs.



Creationist evolution as in... (please do not say young earth creationism; if you say young earth creationism your opinion is forever disqualified from any intelligent debate again ever)

Creationist evolution is different from Creationism. Creationist evolution (or what I was told that got called this) is a strictly Catholic, not Christian idea.

CE is basically the idea that the world has existed for billions of years, but it was created by God, then God periodically created creatures, which then microevolved through adaptions to their environment. It doesn't believe the world created itself and that it all began from amino acids etc. like athiests do.

Now there is actually a pretty convincing case for this. Catholics, unlike many Protestant denominations, don't interpret the Bible literally, so they don't believe the Genesis story took literally only seven days. The interesting thing though is that the Genesis story correlates heavily to the modern evolution story.

The Genesis story is: non living matter- 'sea monsters'- birds- mammals- humans.

The modern evolution theory is: non living matter- fish- reptiles- birds- mammals- humans (they come later on as they evolved from earlier mammals).

The correlation is pretty interesting, considering the Genesis story somehow knew the progression of life without the scientific knowledge at it's disposal. That's just one of several claims for the Bible's validity.

The point is though is that I am accepting of this theory in that if I were Catholic I'd believe it, for it is compatible with what we observe in nature and the human person, whereas I believe athiest evolution doesn't accommodate for the clear distinction in humans and animals.

Also, I just figure out that macroevolution is not what I thought it was, and agree-macroevolution seems to defy one of the very basic principles of evolution, that being mutation in the individual.

What I described, however, was not macroevolution, or at least not the way it is defined from what I heard. The idea is not that we as a species all together at once made these evolutionary changes, it's that, like the change from the regressed foreheads to the "babyfaces", it was an individual genetic mutation (that may or may not have happened in multiple individuals at once, dunno) that set itself through through breeding the gene. Or something like that, maybe I need to inform myself a little better on how a species goes from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens without macroevolution (which, even to me, seems a little silly). Let me get back to you on this one.

Don't worry I don't think it's too relevant.

We have gotten weaker. Much weaker. We have gotten smarter. We have changed, at the very least slightly. Additionally, I predict that in the next few generations, we will be getting fatter as well.

Getting fatter is a result of human negligence. The changes you've stated are only minor alterations, the core essence that defines a human being hasn't changed. Humans still have very much the same capacities, the same inclinations, and the same intrinsic favouritisms towards certain goods.

Who says animals can't alter their contributions? It may not be as extreme, but I sincerely doubt the reality of this statement.

I've covered this before. The key point is that can't do it on their own accord. It is either initiated by an external factor or done communally, not by the individual.

It seems here that you're arguing something that requires a little more evidence. I really, really doubt that it's even possible to defy your own ecosystem in a serious manner unless you are intelligent to the point of self-awareness (like only a few species are). And even then, unless you have ridiculously advanced tools (such as humans do), it's STILL night impossible to do so. I.e. animals just aren't far enough along yet. Sooner or later though. And there is no one more intelligent than us, stop kidding yourself. Even if someone more intelligent than us couldn't defy their ecosystems, it wouldn't be a critical blow in favor of your theory-it would merely show that a certain species is not defying their ecosystems (who knows, it could be the smart thing to do).

What I argue is evidenced in nature, that's the only reason why I've argued it. All wild animal species contribute to specific cycles.

For example, when the salmon annually migrate for breeding. Not only is this crucial for the preservation of the species, but it is also crucial for the bears, for they need the feast before entering hibernation. Had one of those parties defied this cycle, it would cause an imbalance that would extend beyond either of those two parties.

Nature itself is subjective. And if not that, then our understanding thereof.

Nature is objective. The laws of nature are subject to interpreation, but not to manipulation through said interpretation.

How do you know that sexual pleasure is not the desired end of anal sex, which in turn is a process all its own? How do you know that anything, really, doesn't have a number of natural ends and processes? By going with "if everyone did it, we'd be extinct"?

Right now, what I have is a gut feeling saying, "something is very, VERY wrong with this theory". I should probably step out of the argument until I figure out how to refute it, because I'm having trouble accepting this. I'm aware this is a negative point; that you seem to be winning this debate and yet I'm still not accepting your point of view, but something just feels very wrong, and I'll get back to this thread when I figure out exactly what that something is.

With regards to all the 'how do you that...', I covered all of those previously.

It's evident that the sexual act (whatever it maybe, we're not assuming anything yet) is meant purely for procreation, because the sexual act is only fulfilled once the ejaculation is achieved.

Not only that, but men can incur the condition informally known as 'blue balls' in which the male experience pain in the sack due to prolonged sexual stimulation without climax.

Now we assess the ejaculation itself. The ejaculation cannot be consciously controlled, and always automatically ejects the sperm. The only use of the sperm is if it is inserted in the ******, where it initiates the procreation process.

The sperm serves no purpose outside of this, which is how I concluded what the natural act was.

Now with regards to the claim that sexual pleasure can be both an means to procreation and an end in itself, the notion is flawed due to the nature of sexual pleasure.

If sexual pleasure, was an end in itself, the ejaculation would not be autmatic yet it is. In fact, once sexual stimulation has occurred, what the body desires is said ejaculation, for only in ejaculation is the sexual act fulfilled, and the most intense pleasure is achieved.

If the pleasure was an end in itself, the act would have a completely different nature. Ejaculation would be controlled and not automatic, the body would not immediately desire the ejaculation and wouldn't automatically initiate the climax when the stimulation is sufficient. The pleasure would not end at ejaculation, and the intensity of the ejaculation pleasure would achievable outside of said ejaculation. None of this is the case however.

What feels wrong for you is that we're in the 21st century, where there is no longer any moral integrity, where morality has merely become about preference, everything is about the individual and not about the community, and where the primary goal is personal pleasure. Step outside of that box, and you'll acknowledge that to follow a culture's ideals is foolish because all cultures are temporary and don't have good justification for their ideas, particularly in modern time where nearly every ideal is conceived for commercial benefit.

 

[Sieguest]

Now with regards to the claim that sexual pleasure can be both an means to procreation and an end in itself, the notion is flawed due to the nature of sexual pleasure.

If sexual pleasure, was an end in itself, the ejaculation would not be autmatic yet it is. In fact, once sexual stimulation has occurred, what the body desires is said ejaculation, for only in ejaculation is the sexual act fulfilled, and the most intense pleasure is achieved.

If the pleasure was an end in itself, the act would have a completely different nature. Ejaculation would be controlled and not automatic, the body would not immediately desire the ejaculation and wouldn't automatically initiate the climax when the stimulation is sufficient. The pleasure would not end at ejaculation, and the intensity of the ejaculation pleasure would achievable outside of said ejaculation. None of this is the case however.

What feels wrong for you is that we're in the 21st century, where there is no longer any moral integrity, where morality has merely become about preference, everything is about the individual and not about the community, and where the primary goal is personal pleasure. Step outside of that box, and you'll acknowledge that to follow a culture's ideals is foolish because all cultures are temporary and don't have good justification for their ideas, particularly in modern time where nearly every ideal is conceived for commercial benefit.

Then explain the release of serotonin in the brain if sexual pleasure is not an end in itself.

Also:

Homosexuality isn't wrong because it corrupts the natural end of procreation. It is wrong because it corrupts the natural act.

The end cannot be corrupted.

In the top statement you say that homosexuality is not wrong for corrupting the end, but for corrupting the process to that end. Yet in the bottom statement you say that the end can't be corrupted meaning that homosexuality is wrong for corrupting that end.

Those two statements contradict each other. Could you clarify what exactly natural law declares wrong due to corruption? I know I'm asking the same question over again, but you even said that the act and the end are different, yet you gave both of those things as an answer to the same question.

 

[Dre89]

Then explain the release of serotonin in the brain if sexual pleasure is not an end in itself.

The pleasure is there to entice one into the act, otherwise no one would do it.

Also:

In the top statement you say that homosexuality is not wrong for corrupting the end, but for corrupting the process to that end. Yet in the bottom statement you say that the end can't be corrupted meaning that homosexuality is wrong for corrupting that end.

Those two statements contradict each other. Could you clarify what exactly natural law declares wrong due to corruption? I know I'm asking the same question over again, but you even said that the act and the end are different, yet you gave both of those things as an answer to the same question.

A human end is to do the natural act, whose end is procreation. In participating in the natural act there is no end that is corrupted, whether or not a baby is conceived.

Because of its nature, and human inclination, the natural act is both a human end, and means to procreation. Homosexuality corrupts it on both grounds, for in corrupting the process, you are simultaneously corrupting an end (that the natural act is a human end).

 

[rvkevin]

Outline
1) The action corrupts a natural act, by being the means for an end other than the end it was biologically designed for.
2) The action was biologically designed for a specific end. You do the action in the same way as it was designed for (it would imitate the way the action would be performed to fulfill that end), even if it does not fulfill that end.
3) An action is wrong (or unnatural) if it fulfills the requirements for 1 and does not fulfill the requirements for 2. Otherwise, it is right (or natural).

Example 1
1) Adrenaline was biologically designed for the means of "fight or flight," a means for the end of our survival.
2) Riding a roller coaster corrupts this natural act by fulfilling an end (pleasure) other than it was biologically designed for.
3) Releasing adrenaline from riding a roller coaster does not imitate the natural act of releasing adrenaline, such as seeing the sight of a predator or being inflicted by an injury.
4) Therefore, riding a roller coaster is unnatural and immoral.

Example 2
1) Adrenaline was biologically designed for the means of "fight or flight," a means for the end of our survival.
2) Acupuncture corrupts this natural act by fulfilling an end (pain relief) other than it was biologically designed for.
3) Releasing adrenaline from acupuncture does not imitate the natural act of releasing adrenaline, such as seeing the sight of a predator or being inflicted by an injury.
4) Therefore, acupuncture is unnatural and immoral.

Example 3
1) Toxins are biologically designed for the means of killing other animals, a means for the end of survival of the host species.
2) Using toxins for antidotes corrupts the natural act by fulfilling an end (helping the predator species) other than it was biologically designed for.
3) Consuming an antidote does not imitate the natural transmission of toxins.
4) Therefore, using toxins for medical purposes is unnatural and immoral.

I hope this demonstrates that something being unnatural does not mean it is immoral. Not to mention the number of natural immoral actions one could justify using this system. The next point would be, it is nonsensical to say that biological structures are designed. They may serve some purpose currently or in the past, but to say that they were designed would be to propose an illusory cause for these structures.

 

[blazedaces]

They may serve some purpose currently or in the past, but to say that they were designed would be to propose an illusory connection between cause and effect.

First of all, I very much liked your post.

But can I ask, in the statement above, are you suggesting that there is no such thing as cause and effect, or, as I believe, you are just saying that there is an illusion of cause and effect relationship between certain biological structures and an end?

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

First of all, I very much liked your post.

But can I ask, in the statement above, are you suggesting that there is no such thing as cause and effect, or, as I believe, you are just saying that there is an illusion of cause and effect relationship between certain biological structures and an end?

-blazed

Neither. I worded it poorly, it has been fixed for clarity.

To say something is designed is to imply intention. If the cause was unintentional (which is evidently the case), then it is illusory to say it was designed by some intentional cause.

 

[blazedaces]

Neither. I worded it poorly, it has been fixed for clarity.

To say something is designed is to imply intention. If the cause was unintentional (which is evidently the case), then it is illusory to say it was designed by some intentional cause.

Well then we concur...

-blazed

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Okay Dre, I'm going to leave my stance regarding the legitimacy of your philosophy as "it makes sense but I disagree" (yes, I know, this is a stupidly weak stance to hold, but it goes against critical parts of the society and lifestyle I hold dear and I know there's something fishy about it, I just can't put my finger on what).

Instead, I'm going to argue not the morality, but the practicality.

Is it reasonable to go forwards against the things that a person does in their free time, so long as it doesn't harm anyone? Masturbation only for the sexual pleasure is unnatural, and yet it has been proven to be in fact very positive for psychological development and does not harm anyone. Consentual gay sex only for the sexual pleasure does not hurt anyone. Riding a roller coaster for the adrenaline rush doesn't hurt anyone.

I think I've pinpointed what's missing in your design - fun and self-fulfillment both appear to not be ends, even though they are incredibly important for self-aware, highly developed psyches like the human one. If I run a marathon for no reason but to get the endorphin rush that running long distances provides me, it's a corruption of the natural process. If I bring myself to orgasm for the endorphin rush that is provided by it, I'm perverting the natural order. It seems like fun is right out in your design-I honestly can't think of a process that doesn't become corrupted (according to the natural order) if you do it strictly for fun. If that's the case, than as "right" as it may be, it should be rejected and disdained.

It doesn't matter how correct we may be, if we aren't having fun then we're probably doing something wrong. If we live our life by arbitrary limiting rules that aren't in place to protect ourselves or our fellow man, then we miss out on living what life truly is.

 

[Sieguest]

The pleasure is there to entice one into the act, otherwise no one would do it.

But the serotonin is released during the act, I don't see how it can be used to entice someone into the act if it doesn't happen until they are all ready performing the act. The act is also clearly a means to obtain pleasure, which you agreed with me earlier was a natural end.

Now I still need an answer to the question I asked earlier about whether an act can serve a dual purpose.

A human end is to do the natural act, whose end is procreation. In participating in the natural act there is no end that is corrupted, whether or not a baby is conceived.

Because of its nature, and human inclination, the natural act is both a human end, and means to procreation. Homosexuality corrupts it on both grounds, for in corrupting the process, you are simultaneously corrupting an end (that the natural act is a human end).

I don't see how the process is corrupted, aren't homosexual couples able to perform sex the same way heterosexual couples? The only difference I see is that one has the ability to procreate, the other doesn't.

 

[Dre89]

But the serotonin is released during the act, I don't see how it can be used to entice someone into the act if it doesn't happen until they are all ready performing the act. The act is also clearly a means to obtain pleasure, which you agreed with me earlier was a natural end.

Obviously there needs to be pleasure during the act to sustain interest in continuing to perform the act. That's why the most intense pleasure is at ejaculation, because this is the phase of the act which is to be most desired, because this is what fulfills the act.

If anything the nature of sexual pleasure strengthens my argument, indeed it is how I concluded my argument in the first place.

Now I still need an answer to the question I asked earlier about whether an act can serve a dual purpose.

Theoretically it could have had a dual purpose, but the nature of it suggests it doesn't. I showed recently in a recent post (I think in response to Budget) why sexual pleasure is only a means to an end.

I don't see how the process is corrupted, aren't homosexual couples able to perform sex the same way heterosexual couples? The only difference I see is that one has the ability to procreate, the other doesn't.

I've never seen a man put his sauage into another man's v*****. The fact that the ejaculation is the fulfillment of the act, and the ****** is the only place where this ejaculation has any effect suggests it just wasn't designed for homosexuality.

 

[Sieguest]

Obviously there needs to be pleasure during the act to sustain interest in continuing to perform the act. That's why the most intense pleasure is at ejaculation, because this is the phase of the act which is to be most desired, because this is what fulfills the act.

Yeah, but there is no pleasure before the act begins, so you can't say that pleasure is there to entice the act.

If anything the nature of sexual pleasure strengthens my argument, indeed it is how I concluded my argument in the first place.

It can also be detrimental. I won't press this until later maybe.

Theoretically it could have had a dual purpose, but the nature of it suggests it doesn't. I showed recently in a recent post (I think in response to Budget) why sexual pleasure is only a means to an end.

I think the post you're referring to is the post I called into question in the first place. And isn't a pleasure a end in itself? I remember a post where you even said this.

Yes pleasure is a natural end, but the means must be natural too.

I've never seen a man put his sauage into another man's v*****. The fact that the ejaculation is the fulfillment of the act, and the ****** is the only place where this ejaculation has any effect suggests it just wasn't designed for homosexuality.

By this token I could say that sterile couples having sex is wrong (as many others have said). Because although ejaculation is fulfillment of the act, the sperm has not yet done it's job, and in sterile couples, it never will.

I've never seen a woman with her fallopian tubes closed be able to procreate, so it must be clear that sex in sterile couples isn't natural since it can't meet the end.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah, but there is no pleasure before the act begins, so you can't say that pleasure is there to entice the act.

But you can be aroused before the act. I don't really think this is a big point of contention. There arguments belowe are more relevant I feel.

It can also be detrimental. I won't press this until later maybe.

I think the post you're referring to is the post I called into question in the first place. And isn't a pleasure a end in itself? I remember a post where you even said this, I'll edit it in.

Pleasure is a natural good, but only in certain circumstances. Killing someone for pleasure clearly isn't a good. Given the nature of act, as I've described previously, sexual pleasure is evidently only meant as tool for procreation, otherwise it would have a different nature.

By this token I could say that sterile couples having sex is wrong (as many others have said). Because although ejaculation is fulfillment of the act, the sperm has not yet done it's job, and in sterile couples, it never will.

I've never seen a woman with her fallopian tubes closed be able to procreate, so it must be clear that sex in sterile couples isn't natural since it can't meet the end.

I covered this a while back. Infertile couples are still doing what's required of them- participating in the natural act. Regardless of the outcome, they are still doing the act the way it was designed to be done. But yes I would consider a closing of the tubes itself a wrong.

Anyway I'm sorry guys but I'm really growing tired of this debate. It has been a great debate at that, but there's no point kicking a dead horse, I say we just move onto other debates now, I feel this debate has reached a standstill and won't go anywhere significant from here.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'd still appreciate it if you answered my post at the top of the page. :3

But yeah, it's probably not going to go anywhere; you're set on your faith and we believe that it's either misguided or that there are more important things than being natural/following natural processes (or something else if anyone else is arguing for another reason). Not much direction to turn here.

 

[Dre89]

Why does everyone pidgeon-hole me as being religious simply because my views appear conservative?

I don't believe in religion, I just know a bit about Catholicism and am a deist.

You'll find that your questions have been answered by me in previous posts.

And that is the end of this debate lol.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Faith ≠ immediately religion. You have your faith set in your philosophy as correct.

 

[Dre89]

The way you say it makes it sound like I had conclusions then developed arguments to suit them, when it was completely the other way around.

I've only come to acquire this position in the last two years, because I looked at nature and concluded such.

I find my arguments genuinely convincing, because they are the only reasons why I have the position that I use them to defend.

I don't get why when you're conservative and you don't change your mind after debating liberals, you're labelled as narrow-minded or forming premises around previously held conclusions, yet when you stick to your guns as a liberal that's totally ok.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ah. I see what you mean. Perhaps faith was the wrong term; you merely hold your theory to be very correct. I believe that enjoying life is far more important for a developed species like humans than being natural, and that your theory seems to have "pleasure for pleasure's sake" and "natural" as two mutually exclusive camps.

 

[Sieguest]

But you can be aroused before the act. I don't really think this is a big point of contention. There arguments belowe are more relevant I feel.

True.

Pleasure is a natural good, but only in certain circumstances. Killing someone for pleasure clearly isn't a good. Given the nature of act, as I've described previously, sexual pleasure is evidently only meant as tool for procreation, otherwise it would have a different nature.

How come killing someone for pleasure isn't a good? The act may be "wrong" by a lot of other people standards. But it clearly wasn't "wrong" in the mindset of the person who did it, else why did they do it. In that person's own respect they have fulfilled a natural good, because they have fulfilled the purpose of their act, pleasure.

Likewise, we may hold the act in question, but pleasure is still a good that is obtained by means of the act.

I covered this a while back. Infertile couples are still doing what's required of them- participating in the natural act.Regardless of the outcome, they are still doing the act the way it was designed to be done. But yes I would consider a closing of the tubes itself a wrong.

Isn't the act still natural in homosexual couples. Even if a feature is different, they are still performing sex.

In relation to my fallopian tube example- but the act is uncorrupted, a man can still ejaculate into a woman's ******. The homosexual couple and couple where the woman's tubes are closed are similar, both have a feature in that would normally be involved in procreation changed. Earlier you said that the natural act was completed at ejaculation. Given that, the couple with the tubes closed can still complete the natural act. In the homosexual couple where the ****** is not present(?) the act can also be complete.

The end of procreation in both however cannot be met.

Anyway I'm sorry guys but I'm really growing tired of this debate. It has been a great debate at that, but there's no point kicking a dead horse, I say we just move onto other debates now, I feel this debate has reached a standstill and won't go anywhere significant from here.

Yeah, we haven't gotten an inch past whether natural law is a bad proxy for morality in the last two pages. It's starting to get a bit redundant.

EDIT: Wow, my internet just pulled the stupid.... been fighting with my modem this whole time, I didn't think the post had gone through. =/

I've just noticed that I've been confusing dopamine with serotonin. Dopamine is what provides the feeling of pleasure, serotonin is what maintains it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Practical may not matter for "if it's right or not", but it definitely does matter as far as "should we really do this". It's morally correct to outlaw obesity; obesity is quite clearly a massive detriment to society. However, ensuring that people don't get obese is ridiculously impractical. Is it practical to outlaw homosexuality? Of course not. You can't exactly spot a gay unless he's being obvious about it or he reveals his sexual habits (or, you know, you walk in on him kissing another guy). And additionally, you trample all over his privacy if you reveal this information. And finally, corruption of the natural situation or not, the payoff you gain from doing these things is minimal-gay guys will not **** chicks except in cases of extreme duress (for example ****), and if anal sex spreads AIDS faster, then the anti-gay people have much less to worry about in the future.

But can you honestly name an action that doesn't become corrupted when you do it solely for pleasure? Or a process where pleasure/happiness/contentment is the goal, the end?

 

[Sieguest]

Practical may not matter for "if it's right or not", but it definitely does matter as far as "should we really do this". It's morally correct to outlaw obesity; obesity is quite clearly a massive detriment to society. However, ensuring that people don't get obese is ridiculously impractical. Is it practical to outlaw homosexuality? Of course not. You can't exactly spot a gay unless he's being obvious about it or he reveals his sexual habits (or, you know, you walk in on him kissing another guy). And additionally, you trample all over his privacy if you reveal this information. And finally, corruption of the natural situation or not, the payoff you gain from doing these things is minimal-gay guys will not **** chicks except in cases of extreme duress (for example ****), and if anal sex spreads AIDS faster, then the anti-gay people have much less to worry about in the future.

Good point.

But can you honestly name an action that doesn't become corrupted when you do it solely for pleasure? Or a process where pleasure/happiness/contentment is the goal, the end?

Playing video games.

I just noticed that I had another computer fail. My edit took out the rest of my original post where I made reference to your post. Technology is not my friend today.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But is playing video games natural? Is recreation natural? You don't see animals doing much of it.

 

[Sieguest]

But is playing video games natural? Is recreation natural? You don't see animals doing much of it.

No. But recreation is. Lion cubs at play, wolf pups wrestling. Mutual friendship among humans. Are those not natural?

 

[rvkevin]

No. But recreation is. Lion cubs at play, wolf pups wrestling.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that those activities are recreation. It has been proposed that those activities are means of developing essential skills for when they become adults. If this is the case, then using play as a means for gratification does corrupt the natural act. It would need to be shown that video games translate into skills, which may apply to some games, but others (such as solitaire) would come up short.

"The examples of play mentioned so far generally relate to an animal's gaining experience in its relationship with its environment, and with its own physical abilities. However, playfulness also allows juveniles to learn how to deal with fellow group members. Social play, the fourth and final category, may facilitate cooperation, develop alliances, and encourage innovation in social behavioral patterns."

"Researchers suggest that social play may safely teach young the skills they will later use in aggressive social competition. However, such play may also simultaneously strengthen social bonds between group members, a process that serves to limit the amount of actual aggression between group members."-The evolution of animal play

 

[Sieguest]

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that those activities are recreation. It has been proposed that those activities are means of developing essential skills for when they become adults. If this is the case, then using play as a means for gratification does corrupt the natural act. It would need to be shown that video games translate into skills, which may apply to some games, but others (such as solitaire) would come up short.

"The examples of play mentioned so far generally relate to an animal's gaining experience in its relationship with its environment, and with its own physical abilities. However, playfulness also allows juveniles to learn how to deal with fellow group members. Social play, the fourth and final category, may facilitate cooperation, develop alliances, and encourage innovation in social behavioral patterns."

"Researchers suggest that social play may safely teach young the skills they will later use in aggressive social competition. However, such play may also simultaneously strengthen social bonds between group members, a process that serves to limit the amount of actual aggression between group members."-The evolution of animal play

Hmm, that's pretty interesting. It does make sense too.

 

[rvkevin]

I find my arguments genuinely convincing, because they are the only reasons why I have the position that I use them to defend.

I don't get why when you're conservative and you don't change your mind after debating liberals, you're labelled as narrow-minded or forming premises around previously held conclusions, yet when you stick to your guns as a liberal that's totally ok.

So, how about that naturalistic fallacy?

The viewpoint is irrelevant. Its when someone that builds an argument on a logical fallacy and still thinks its valid and then wails claims of bias when someone points out a flaw that we object to.

 

[blazedaces]

I don't get why when you're conservative and you don't change your mind after debating liberals, you're labelled as narrow-minded or forming premises around previously held conclusions, yet when you stick to your guns as a liberal that's totally ok.

Dre, you're conservative, so you only see your point of view, that conservatives are made to look worse. Liberals are labeled quite a lot of things when they refuse to change their minds by the opposing party as well.

The grass is simply greener on the other side...

-blazed

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Ever since I discovered scientists had political agendas I've lost faith in them. I disagree with their claims on this because I've never witnessed any evidence of this ever, only heterosexual practice. Even when I used to volunteer at a Zoo there was never any mention or practice of this at all.I'm justified in discrediting the scientist's stance on this, because there has never been any evidence of this outside of testimony, and I know that scientists have had political agendas for homosexuality before.

Brilliant. Your saying that your relatively small time working in a zoo outweighs peer-reviewed literature. If that's not arrogant, I don't know what is.

Here are some sources:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article1288633.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/121/4/773

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/gay-vulture-couple-raise-surrogate-chicks-1110120.html

One testimony! You're kidding, I've found 5.

Sure, scientists may have political agendas, but the facts shine through, and if anything there there are probably more scientists whose political agenda is to against this.

 

[Dre89]

I never said it was one testimony, I said the testimony itself isn't reliable.

If this homosexuality is so abundant why hasn't anyone produced a video of it?

The video produced before was inconclusive because all it showed was split-second social courting and dominance gestures, there was no prolonged sexual intercourse shown at all.

For example it said male lions have sex, yet only showed them licking each other, and then called it 'kissing' when one licked near the other's mouth, which is a massive exaggeration, considering that is a universal bonding ritual amongst many mammals. What I don't understand is why there was no footage of them having sex if it's apparently so abundant.

The video was most likely a sham anyway because it shows what they called a 'male' oranguatan sliding down a tree trunk, yet it was the size of a female and males never go in trees.

Until I see video evidence, I am totally justified in my skepticism, because I know that several scientists made crap up about a gay gene, when we have evidence of sexuality being psychological, and I have never witnessed any homosexuality, only heterosexuality. Even when I volunteered at the zoo there was never any mention of homosexuality at all.

The fact that the only video that has been produced made gross exaggerations, showed no sexual intercourse, and called a female oranguatan a male has only made your case weaker.

 

[SuperBowser]

Studies did not make crap about a gay gene. Please show me these studies because I have never read such a thing. I posted it before and I'll post it again: Like most states of the mind homosexuality is multifactorial: Biological, psychological and social factors all play a role. To deny the role of any one of the three would be idiotic and no researcher does such a thing to my knowledge.

What is this evidence of sexuality being solely psychological (sorry if you've brought it up but I haven't noticed it)?

 

[blazedaces]

When you are so biased that you ignore ANY EVIDENCE that contradicts your conclusion...

Dre, if you had gone through every one of those sources and shown them to be inpractical that would be one thing... but the only statement you're making is that supposedly "someone somewhere made up a gay gene"...

Then you made a logical fallacy by overgeneralizing that because "someone somewhere did it" now "all scientists do it"...

Dre, you can't ALWAYS refer to philosophy, sometimes, evidence is needed to support your position. If you don't provide evidence then we have no reason to believe you, period.

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

What is this evidence of sexuality being solely psychological (sorry if you've brought it up but I haven't noticed it)?

If by psychological, he means being related to how the brain functions and then includes the development of the brain as being related to how the brain functions, then I would agree (pending hearing more about the social element you mentioned). Although, if this is the case, I'm not sure how it being psychological helps the argument at all, all it shows is that it is basically biologically predetermined by nature...

 

[blazedaces]

For this reason, philosophy itself is insufficient to form a conclusion.

Tautological statements don't require evidence...

They are truths coined "a priori", which means true regardless of experience (and in our case regardless of evidence). A common one is "Either A or Not A"...

-blazed