US Senate Repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[Luigitoilet]

I could just say that from aside from one unsophisticated political theory that stems from religious dogma there's no theory that supports homosexuality. Negative connotation and bias achieves nothing.

Pluvia- It's abit foolish to jump to the conclusion that there are no rational anti-homosexuality arguments when you haven't actually read any of them. I hope you don't think that I've actually been putting mine across in this thread. As I said before, I'm just defending myself against all the attacks I'm getting from people who can't tolerate people with a different opinion to theirs. I don't see why you're saying "well we can conclude there are no rational anti-homsoexual arguments", when did this become a debate about homosexuality? When did it become anyone's objective to provide an argument either way? This is not a debate thread. Just because some of the pro-homosexuals started attacking people who have a different opinion to them, that didn't turn it into a debate where I am required to provide my argument.

Continuing to post without elaboration on your beliefs makes you look like a homophobe who's taking a Philosophy course. No, you don't have to lay out your beliefs, but people would not be so readily attacking you if you actually did. You can't whine about being persecuted if you refuse to explain your beliefs in a rational manner beyond the wiki to the Social Contract Theory. Simply saying "well you just haven't read enough" is not an explanation or an argument and is condescending to boot.

 

[Shadic]

I could just say that from aside from one unsophisticated political theory that stems from religious dogma there's no theory that supports homosexuality. Negative connotation and bias achieves nothing.

It's not about "supporting" homosexuality, it's about being apathetic towards it and treating it the same as heterosexuality.

 

[DoH]

Rational arguments against homosexuality don't exist. With millions of dollars, the defense in the proposition 8 case couldn't come up with any. Legislation drummed up against homosexuality, like prop 8 and DADT, is done so out of animus, not rationality.

I've been arguing gay rights for about eight years now, and no one has provided a rational reason for discrimination. You claim that they are out there dre, so produce them or stop trying to argue that there are. There's a reason that generally the more educated you are, the more tolerant you are of gay people.

 

[Shadic]

And just to throw it out there ahead of time: Not being a couple able to reproduce is not an argument against homosexuality. If that were the case, we'd outlaw all forms of birth control, and prevent all infertile people from forming sexual relationships.

 

[bertbusdriver]

And just to throw it out there ahead of time: Not being a couple able to reproduce is not an argument against homosexuality. If that were the case, we'd outlaw all forms of birth control, and prevent all infertile people from forming sexual relationships.

I'm also pro-homo but i'm not sure this argument is bulletproof. What about the married couple who already has two kids and doesn't want any more offspring? I'm fairly sure the anti-gay people would be ok with these people having access to birth control. But maybe not. Homophobes are a mythical and mysterious beast...

 

[Luigitoilet]

I'm also pro-homo but i'm not sure this argument is bulletproof. What about the married couple who already has two kids and doesn't want any more offspring?

They should suppress their sexuality and stop having sex. That's not out of line, considering we make pedophiles suppress theirs.

 

[CAOTIC]

Rational arguments against homosexuality don't exist. With millions of dollars, the defense in the proposition 8 case couldn't come up with any. Legislation drummed up against homosexuality, like prop 8 and DADT, is done so out of animus, not rationality.

I've been arguing gay rights for about eight years now, and no one has provided a rational reason for discrimination. You claim that they are out there dre, so produce them or stop trying to argue that there are. There's a reason that generally the more educated you are, the more tolerant you are of gay people.

You, sir, have some of the best posts in the latter part of this thread.

 

[Dre89]

The claim that the more educated people are, the moer liekly to accept homosexuality is absurd, because there are plenty of intelligent, highly educated theists who disagree with homosexuality. And I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of educated or intellgient people today were pro-gays anyway, considering that, you know, it is the view of the time....

Why do I need to present an argument?

This isn't a debate thread. If you want mine, it's on the second page of the Proving Grounds.

And it's not my duty to provide rational anti-homosexuality arguments, because, again, this isn't a debate thread. If you're going to make the claim that there are no rational anti-homosexual arguments, the burden of proof is on you to do the research, and refute those arguments (although this isn't the thread for that). By your logic, I could say "statistics show that homosexuals are less intelligent people", and not only would I have no burden to provide these statistics, but the burden will be on you to present statistics to disprove them. That's honestly how flawed your logic is.

Just because I have a different view to you, or what modern society encourages, does not make me all of a sudden obliged to present an argument.

This is no different to me discovering that someone is pro-choice, then attacking them for their view, and demanding that they provide me an argument, because they are obliged, and if they can't provide an argument I'm automatically right.

So again, can someone explain why I'm supposed to provide an argument, when it's not a debate thread, and the thread isn't even about whether homosexuality is right or not?

 

[Omis]

Why does it even matter if it is a debate thread or not?
You brought it up so finish your tangent.
"Guys I have a really cool magic box but thats all I can say about it because this isnt a magic box room."

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=276467

Here is the infamous thread in which the debate Dre vs The World came about in a debate about gay rights. His arguments are inside said thread.

 

[Luigitoilet]

a bunch of words

So why are you still posting in this thread?

 

[darkatma]

Guys stop flaming Dre for his beliefs.. I actually find his arguments to be interesting, and I'm probably going to read about his framework next. His posts contain much more intelligence in them than merkuri's (no offense meant, just that that guy make really confusing and warrantless claims)

I'm also interested in hearing legitimate non-faith based anti-gay arguments. I've never heard a legitimate one before.



also I love DoH's arguments haha.. years of policy debate makes you recognize certain patterns

 

[Dre89]

So why are you still posting in this thread?

I didn't start the debate. My first post asked whether there was an inconsistency between separating men and women, but not gays and straight. A question I myself conceded I didn't have a position on.

My involvement in the thread continued when people started stereotyping all anti-homosexuals, said a person can't be rational and anti-homosexual (which constitutes an attack on me personally, as they were basically saying I'm an irrational person), and because someone thought that because I'm an anti-gay that I must think every gay will hit on staright men in the military. From there, I kept defending myself against people who attacked me.

I never insulted any pro-gays, or even tried to convince them of my position. Heck, I didn't even say "you guys are wrong" and commended certain people (of my opposition) for their posts. You guys, on the other hand, were the contrary to all this.

Again, the burden is not on me to provide a rational anti-gay argument. When someone makes the claim that there are none, the burden is on them to research the arguments and provide refutations of them. Again, by this logic I could just say that statistics show gays are less intelligent, and by this logic, not only would there be no burden on me to present these statistics, but the burden would be on you guys to presnet statistics that suggest otherwise, and if you can't I'd automatically be right. That's how bad that logic is.

Seriously, I don't understand why you guys have to attack everyone who disagrees with you. I don't insult and immediately stereotype racists and sexists, I actually hear them out and give them a chance, and don't feel an urge to insult and convert everyone who disagrees with me.

If someone says "I believe gays should have a right to express their sexuality", I'm not going to attack them and try convert them. I'll stop posting once there's no longer anything I have to defend myself against.

 

[CAOTIC]

The claim that the more educated people are, the moer liekly to accept homosexuality is absurd, because there are plenty of intelligent, highly educated theists who disagree with homosexuality. And I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of educated or intellgient people today were pro-gays anyway, considering that, you know, it is the view of the time....

The claim that "the more educated people are, the more likely they are going to accept homosexuality" is not absurd. There are exceptions as you have stated, but hey, you're Australian -- you might have come across the most recent nationally conducted Ray Morgan Poll asking randoms if they believe homosexuality is immoral.

http://www.roymorgan.com/resources/pdf/papers/20101105.pdf

Coindentially, the results have shown that federal electorates that have the most advanced levels of formal education are far less likely to believe homosexuality is immoral, compared to less formally educated electorates. Of course, it's not the only reason why certain places are more tolerant than others (the other prominant factor is exposure), but there's no need to shut down a generally a correct generalisation.

I believe DOH was talking about people in an all-encompassing way, not just intelligent theists like you have selectively chosen to refute with -- and his statement in my interpretation is more 'correct' than it is 'absurd.'

I do appreciate your presence here though, because people often don't appreciate the value of moral diversity. It is one reason why pro-gay-SWF'ers and are so polarised and admittedly hostile to your position.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I didn't start the debate. My first post asked whether there was an inconsistency between separating men and women, but not gays and straight. A question I myself conceded I didn't have a position on.

My involvement in the thread continued when people started stereotyping all anti-homosexuals, said a person can't be rational and anti-homosexual (which constitutes an attack on me personally, as they were basically saying I'm an irrational person), and because someone thought that because I'm an anti-gay that I must think every gay will hit on staright men in the military. From there, I kept defending myself against people who attacked me.

I never insulted any pro-gays, or even tried to convince them of my position. Heck, I didn't even say "you guys are wrong" and commended certain people (of my opposition) for their posts. You guys, on the other hand, were the contrary to all this.

Again, the burden is not on me to provide a rational anti-gay argument. When someone makes the claim that there are none, the burden is on them to research the arguments and provide refutations of them. Again, by this logic I could just say that statistics show gays are less intelligent, and by this logic, not only would there be no burden on me to present these statistics, but the burden would be on you guys to presnet statistics that suggest otherwise, and if you can't I'd automatically be right. That's how bad that logic is.

Seriously, I don't understand why you guys have to attack everyone who disagrees with you. I don't insult and immediately stereotype racists and sexists, I actually hear them out and give them a chance, and don't feel an urge to insult and convert everyone who disagrees with me.

If someone says "I believe gays should have a right to express their sexuality", I'm not going to attack them and try convert them. I'll stop posting once there's no longer anything I have to defend myself against.

Yes, I know. But, and I'm not being insulting here, realize that you don't really gain anything from defending yourself on the internet. The people who make fun of you are not going to stop that until you stop indulging them with your responses. You can always walk away. You don't have to respond, or "win" an argument or whatever. If you find us all so unreasonable why are you still talking to us?

 

[Shadic]

If someone says "I believe gays should have a right to express their sexuality", I'm not going to attack them and try convert them. I'll stop posting once there's no longer anything I have to defend myself against.

Maybe it's because your stance is one that inhibits the freedom of a good portion of the populace? that lea

 

[Dre89]

Drugs, steroids, and assisting suicide being illegalised inhibit freedom too. Also, you guys are acting as if I shouldn't have the right to hold the view that I do, which is itself infringing on my freedom.

Secondly, your view is just a modern one, so comforming to the view of the time does not grant you the right to stomp on all other views, simply because they're not as popular at the time.

You guys have set a double standard- It's ok to insult and stereotype all anti-homosexuals, yet that treatment can't go the other way. You guys are behaving like the anti-homosexuals you stereotype us as. You're behaviour completely contradicts your reason for defending homosexuality in the first place.

LT- Judging from the homosexuality debate in the DH, providing an argument will generate more insults than not, which is why I'm refraining from doing so. And you're point about me defending myself on the net being pointless is changing the subject, the point is I was never obliged to present an argument, and I was wrongly attacked. Amazingly, given the behaviour of some people here, of all the people you criticise, and ask to refrain from posting, you choose me.

As a moderator, you should be disciplining those who are behaving inappropriately, yet you don't because you're on their side, and criticise me instead. Had this discussion been about a topic you didn't feel so strongly about you would be disciplining them, possibly even giving out infractions.

Caotic- Again, it's only natural that the majority of intelligent people nowadays are pro-gay, because that's the modern view. Rewind to the medieval period, where Christianity was dominant, and the majority of intelligent people would be anti-homosexual.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This isn't a debate thread. If you want mine, it's on the second page of the Proving Grounds.

You mean that 20-page naturalist fallacy where you proposed a societal system based on a heavily subjective (and in your case ridiculously biased-if you can use it to argue against Homosexuality, you can use it to argue for the extinction of the human race, kthx) view of what is "natural" with absolutely no real reasoning whatsoever as to why it would be good, let alone better than the social contract system beyond "it doesn't make the species go extinct"?

And it's not my duty to provide rational anti-homosexuality arguments, because, again, this isn't a debate thread. If you're going to make the claim that there are no rational anti-homosexual arguments, the burden of proof is on you to do the research, and refute those arguments (although this isn't the thread for that). By your logic, I could say "statistics show that homosexuals are less intelligent people", and not only would I have no burden to provide these statistics, but the burden will be on you to present statistics to disprove them. That's honestly how flawed your logic is.

Just because I have a different view to you, or what modern society encourages, does not make me all of a sudden obliged to present an argument.

This is no different to me discovering that someone is pro-choice, then attacking them for their view, and demanding that they provide me an argument, because they are obliged, and if they can't provide an argument I'm automatically right.

So again, can someone explain why I'm supposed to provide an argument, when it's not a debate thread, and the thread isn't even about whether homosexuality is right or not?

If you're going to defend the arguments of bigoted jerks, then expect us to expect explanation or reserve the right to call you a massive ******.

Drugs, steroids, and assisting suicide being illegalised inhibit freedom too. Also, you guys are acting as if I shouldn't have the right to hold the view that I do, which is itself infringing on my freedom.

Secondly, your view is just a modern one, so comforming to the view of the time does not grant you the right to stomp on all other views, simply because they're not as popular at the time.

It's because we hold them for irrational and senseless. I mean, if you saw a guy religiously believing that the rock he is holding in front of him will hatch into the world egg and trigger armageddon if the human population gets higher than 7 Billion, you'd start stomping on his views at the earliest when he explains them to you, and at the very latest when he starts trying to get people who, for whatever stupid reason, believe the same thing, to discriminate against you "breeders".

And for the record, regardless of how rational you, as a person, may seem to be, your belief that homosexuality is wrong is, for all intents and purposes, as irrational and senseless as that nutcase's belief from the last paragraph.

You guys have set a double standard- It's ok to insult and stereotype all anti-homosexuals, yet that treatment can't go the other way. You guys are behaving like the anti-homosexuals you stereotype us as. You're behaviour completely contradicts your reason for defending homosexuality in the first place.

Wait, what?

Okay, answer this one to me-do you find it fair to discriminate against serial murderers? What about stereotyping baby-eaters? How about an insult and some stereotypes towards people guilty of serious slander in the political field?

 

[Dre89]

BPC, resorting to mocking achieves nothing. You insult my views, but don't show why they're bad.

You're also committing the fallacy that pro homosexuality is self evident, or should be the default position, simply because your society has embraced it.

By the way, my theory does not commit the naturalistic fallacy. My theory, like many natural law variants, does not attempt to derive ought from is, it derives is from ought.

I guess the logic here is that if you conform to the modern view, that grants you immunity to criticism, and the right to stomp on different schools of thought, simply because they're not currently embraced by society. In that case, when anti homosexuality was the dominant view, I guess they were justified in treating gays the way you guys treat me? If not, please find a way to prove so without assuming your modern view, because that would be to commit a fallacy.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC, resorting to mocking achieves nothing. You insult my views, but don't show why they're bad.

Because they challenge the (at this point very successful, thank you very much) status quo but fail to give any reason as to why it is better, or even "not far worse".

You're also committing the fallacy that pro homosexuality is self evident, or should be the default position, simply because your society has embraced it.

Well, a few things. First of all, it's mandated by the social contract. Which is the accepted philosophy for how society works in today's world. The only places which have failed to embrace it (at least for the most part) are backwards nations (usually in the middle east), and far worse off than us in almost every way thinkable, from human rights to general living conditions. To challenge the statement "homosexuality is as legitimately acceptable as heterosexuality", you'd have to first remove the social contract. And I honestly don't think you have done that, or for that matter that you are capable of doing so.

By the way, my theory does not commit the naturalistic fallacy. My theory, like many natural law variants, does not attempt to derive ought from is, it derives is from ought.

...What? Okay, now I'm confused. Again. Then again, the theory never made much sense to me in the first place.

I guess the logic here is that if you conform to the modern view, that grants you immunity to criticism, and the right to stomp on different schools of thought, simply because they're not currently embraced by society. In that case, when anti homosexuality was the dominant view, I guess they were justified in treating gays the way you guys treat me? If not, please find a way to prove so without assuming your modern view, because that would be to commit a fallacy.

There is no way to prove so without assuming the modern view. However, the problem with not assuming the modern view is that you then need something to replace it. And your suggestion to replace it makes very little sense to me, or to anyone else I have encountered in this forum. And furthermore, if it's not fair to assume that pro-homo is self-evident, why is it fair to assume the opposite?

 

[Dre89]

I never said it was fair to assume the opposite. We should initially assume a neutral position.

In the PG thread, I did give reasons why I thought my view was superior to SC.

Great, so now a bunch of non philosophy students not understanding my argument apparently invalidates is. This is just too easy to show the consequences of such logic. Non physics students don't understand quantum mechanics, so that has been invalidated now too.

And removing the SC is not as detrimental as you think. The SC is the view that whatever doesn't harm others is ok. Removing that doesn't mean we remove laws punishing murder etc.

 

[CAOTIC]

Caotic- Again, it's only natural that the majority of intelligent people nowadays are pro-gay, because that's the modern view. Rewind to the medieval period, where Christianity was dominant, and the majority of intelligent people would be anti-homosexual.

Yes, but to ask yourself why pro-gay is the modern view, would bring back the focus on assessing many of the social indicators we have today (with my previous one as an example) that are incomparable to medieval context. To illustrate, globalisation is promient in today's society and didn't exist as far back as the period you used as an example. To add to this, the vast and instantensous transfer of information, increased freedoms of expression and independence (less oppression -- religious, governmental or otherwise), have all asisted in shaping a society that has become more open to difference, resulting in expanded human potential and outputs in critical thinking -- which again makes medieval views to the present views far less relevant.

To illustrate, watch this video. (3.10) is critical to my argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY

Comparing intelligence levels of today to medieval times is not a fair comparison. People have become more intellectually robust as every generation passes.

Lastly, good to know you've acknowledged my previous comments, and the fact that DOH was not incorrect

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Dre, if you disagree with Social Contract Theory, why are all of your counter-examples (things like drugs, pedophilia, murder, etc) things that would be considered harmful within Social Contract Theory?

In all of these cases, the end result is that someone was harmed. Drugs are harmful. Pedophilia is harmful. Murder is harmful.

There's no true physical or emotional harm in homosexuality, even pre-Enlightenment except within a religious construct. Male humans have the advantage of being more frequently engaged in sexual activities or thought; this increases the odds of procreation, but this is simply an evolutionary advantage. It exists not for any reason, but humans procreate more often because we have this advantage. There's no causation to prove homosexuality exists outside a "natural" framework. Our drive and psychological need for sexual contact doesn't discriminate, or rather, there's no real proof that it does.

Also, while you are correct in that many of the posters in this thread are assuming Social Contract Theory, you are assuming something else pretty important, which is that in the "natural" world, sex is reserved for procreation, which isn't and can never be proven.

I wonder why you aren't offering any other examples that would be, within modern times, considered "wrong" even though they don't harm our existing construct or another person. Is that because homosexuality is the only one? Is it the only one because you sought justification for your argument after you decided you were against homosexuality?

If you want to assume a neutral position, you could start by assuming that sex is neutral, which as far as we know, it is.

Social Contract Theory is so prevalent because we cannot create a logical basis for anything without it. Natural law doesn't really exist; we have no one to answer our questions about it, and no authority over it. In nature, the fittest survive, and that is the only "rule." Your "natural" approach to social constructs doesn't really work, because it makes a lot of assumptions about nature and ecology. Social Contract doesn't make any assumptions, it just asks you to keep your hands to yourself. A true "naturist" approach would look like anarchy or chaos.

To challenge the statement "homosexuality is as legitimately acceptable as heterosexuality", you'd have to first remove the social contract.

Even removing the social contract isn't enough, unless you're using a religious contract instead. But that's just another contract, isn't it?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Great, so now a bunch of non philosophy students not understanding my argument apparently invalidates is. This is just too easy to show the consequences of such logic. Non physics students don't understand quantum mechanics, so that has been invalidated now too.

This is amazingly condescending... and also wrong. It's not invalidated. You just have completely failed to convince anyone to go away from the status quo. Your philosophy can't be that hard to understand, can it? If it is, this has inherent consequences. Remember how they used to only have the bible in Latin? Remember how this forced most of the world's population to go on the word of the few who could read and write latin? Imagine if your theory of how the world should work takes power. How easy would it be to abuse when even people like us, who are a good bit smarter than the average person (I'd say this is a fair assumption to make), don't understand it?

Also, your comparison is wrong. Philosophies are not quantitative. There is no "right" or "wrong" philosophy. There is only better or worse suited to fit humanity's needs at the moment. In science, there is quantitative right or wrong. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in human-caused climate change, it's out there.

And removing the SC is not as detrimental as you think. The SC is the view that whatever doesn't harm others is ok. Removing that doesn't mean we remove laws punishing murder etc.

But it doesn't ensure that the following system is anywhere near as free for the individual, or as safe, or either of the two. Your system, for example, ensures that Homosexuals are discriminated against due to something not of their own volition. It also ensures that free sex not for procreational purposes is a taboo-there is no good reason for this. Now tell me-what makes it better than what we have now?

 

[Luigitoilet]

As a moderator, you should be disciplining those who are behaving inappropriately, yet you don't because you're on their side, and criticise me instead. Had this discussion been about a topic you didn't feel so strongly about you would be disciplining them, possibly even giving out infractions.

I was saying so for your sake, not disciplining you, but apparently you get your rocks off doing this so I'll step back.

 

[DTP]

Oh. So this thread is about why Dre's arguments are invalid now?

K cool. Got it.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Well, it's kind of hard to talk about anything else, seeing as he is the only dissenting opinion who hasn't left the argument.

 

[DTP]

Ah that's true I suppose.

 

[Namaste]

I'm not a philosophy student because I'm interested in how the world actually works and not how much I can talk about it

 

[1048576]

This is how Dre always argues anything: "nihilism, therefore I'm right." I know I've posted this link a zillion times, but this is what it's like: http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100923.gif

It's really not even worth engaging him without laying some sort of premise first. Are you willing to take up the idea that increasing pleasure is good, Dre?

 

[Dre89]

Increasing pleasure is good, but not st the expense of other goods/values.

Homosexuality is accepted now because of Consequentialist and SC thinking in the Enlightenment Period.

Supermodel- The only reason why I believe sex is meant solely for procreation is because the biology if the act suggests it. It's not an assumption at all.

And NC isn't necessary. The Golden Rule is necessary, but allowing freedom to the point where you don't harm others is not necessary.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Increasing pleasure is good, but not st the expense of other goods/values.

Other goods/values such as?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

He's saying that there are natural values that Consequentialist thinking goes against.

 

[Dre89]

It's interesting LT, because you seem like an intelligent guy, but I think the fact you needed to ask that question shows how heavily ingrained consequentialism is in our society. The default notion of good is pleasure now.

I find it ironic that I'm one of the few people who abstains from saying things are gay, as to not offend gay people. Although regrettably I did use "stage gayed" for a little while.

And I love DTP's random comments. The voice of reason has spoken.

 

[Luigitoilet]

It's interesting LT, because you seem like an intelligent guy, but I think the fact you needed to ask that question shows how heavily ingrained consequentialism is in our society. The default notion of good is pleasure now.

I find it ironic that I'm one of the few people who abstains from saying things are gay, as to not offend gay people. Although regrettably I did use "stage gayed" for a little while.

And I love DTP's random comments. The voice of reason has spoken.

nice non-answer.

What are the other values you're talking about?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Supermodel- The only reason why I believe sex is meant solely for procreation is because the biology if the act suggests it. It's not an assumption at all.

The biology of the act also suggests it is pleasurable for both partners; it is also considered healthy for a variety of other reasons to have sex and have sex often.

Sex has been shown to boost the immune system, decrease the risk for depression, relieve stress, increase the strength of the metabolism (as well as burning off calories on its own of course), release endorphins that reduce pain (from arthritis pain to headaches and regular joint pain), reduce the risk for cancer in men (prostate cancer specifically), and help you sleep better long-term. It also classically, legally, and practically helps cement a relationship; when you've had sex with someone, you feel more emotional toward them and thus your relationship becomes consummated and "confirmed" psychologically.

Sex has multiple benefits other than just poppin' out babies; I have science and articles (if you want them) to back up each of these claims. There's no authority on "natural construct" as you have defined it. Also, I'm quite curious what a "benefit" is to you.

 

[CAOTIC]

CAOTIC likes this.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I find it ironic that I'm one of the few people who abstains from saying things are gay, as to not offend gay people. Although regrettably I did use "stage gayed" for a little while.

Hey I remember that thread. What I don't remember is if you waffled on the definition of "stage gayed" until you left the discussion or if you defined it in a way to include completely non-random "hazards" such as those on RC.

 

[Dre89]

The biology of the act also suggests it is pleasurable for both partners; it is also considered healthy for a variety of other reasons to have sex and have sex often.

Sex has been shown to boost the immune system, decrease the risk for depression, relieve stress, increase the strength of the metabolism (as well as burning off calories on its own of course), release endorphins that reduce pain (from arthritis pain to headaches and regular joint pain), reduce the risk for cancer in men (prostate cancer specifically), and help you sleep better long-term. It also classically, legally, and practically helps cement a relationship; when you've had sex with someone, you feel more emotional toward them and thus your relationship becomes consummated and "confirmed" psychologically.

Sex has multiple benefits other than just poppin' out babies; I have science and articles (if you want them) to back up each of these claims. There's no authority on "natural construct" as you have defined it. Also, I'm quite curious what a "benefit" is to you.

Exactly, sex is good for us because we're structured to be having sex often. Seeing as you should really only be having kids with one partner, having sex with them regularly is good.

The thing is, the pleasure is designed to entice you into the act, that's why the pleasure peaks with ejaculation, and why if you have prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation, you receive pain down there, and has health risks. Not only that, but it gets to a point where the male wil lautomatically ejaculate, despite his will, and if his penis functions normally, it will always ejaculate the sperm, he doesn't have the option of firing blanks. The sperm itself has little purpose outside of fertilising eggs. Females are more "keen" during the most fertile periods of their cycles, how keen they are is affected by how fertile they are at that time. All of these factors suggest the act was deisgned for procreation, and that pleasure is just a means to entice you into the act.

BPC- I could defend my argument in that thread, but that will derail this thread more than it already is.

Now I'm in a tricky situation- I didn't want to get this deep into debate, so either I continue debating, then get criticised for derailing the thread, despite not starting the debate. The other option is that I refuse to debate, in which people criticise me for not presenting an argument and conclude that I don't have one, as if I'm obliged to provide an argument in a non-debate thread where I didn't start the debate.

 

[DoH]

Why should you be having kids with only one partner? Monogamy isn't natural, and it's better for genetic diversity for men to sew their seeds in many-a-field, rather than limiting their genetic spawn to the traits of one mother. You only think monogamy is good because it's the dominant social structure.

And sex isn't entirely for procreation, it has multiple functions. Should old/infertile couples not have sex because it's pointless? And why do gay people get pleasure from sex if they're only drawn to it to procreate?