It occurred to me that the bulk of the arguments against homosexuality (as a basic human right at the least) seem to centre around the Bible, the Qu'ran, other religious texts, etcetera.
How-ever, Christianity, Islam, (etcetera) and their subsidiaries are each only one denomination, and I don't personally believe the views of one group of people should be used in deciding a question that applies to all of humanity.
(The same applying, conversely, to Buddhist teachings which embrace all sexualities).
And I'm curious as to what non-religious, universally applicable, ideas there might be both for and against homosexuality. Not neccessarily from science, but also from moralistic values and philosophical reasoning that trancend relgious texts.
So;
putting all religion aside, is it wrong to be gay?
(There are many arguments I've only seen backed by religious text. One example, perhaps, that marriage is a union between a man and a woman that is designed to produce children)
NOTE: religion is not allowed in this discussion, and any points as per the following will not be tolerated:
- "But... you can't discuss morality without God!"
- "But... God is the source of morality!"
- "In my religious faith it is wrong because..."
- "In my religious beliefs it is okay because..."
- "Etc..."
Don't try and convince us to include religion in this discussion, others have tried, and failed. It's beside the point, and consitutes as spam. One is entitled to their religious beliefs, but we are not looking for them here - we challenge people to find more universal truths to base their judgements on.
If a topic is posted solely on relgious beliefs, please simply ignore it, to keep on topic. (As even I'm guilty of having gone off on the tangent 
)
Last edited by blackheart on Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:36 am; edited 3 times in total @ bikerman
What is your opinion or synopsis of the articles?
I'm working on reading, understanding and processing them, but let's face it - not everyone is going to bother, especially if they have no idea what they are reading or why before they begin.
What an amazingly well-written & intelligent question, blackheart! 
(Don't be surprised if your original post quickly degrades into "gay is wrong... just because." - ANY question involving homosexuality always seems to.)
I've never understood why anyone would consider a person's genetically predispositioned sexual identity/preferences to be wrong or right.
I believe one of the reasons why religion is often used as the "end-all" to any argument about the moral implications of homosexuality is because... who can possibly argue with a power/being that is supposedly responsible for the whole of human existence, yet has never been irrefutably shown to exist?
I find it amusing when I hear people say that homosexuality is "offensive to god".
The world is much safer, knowing that those individuals are capable of interpreting the personal preferences of an all-knowing deity that may or may not even exist. 
Basically you can divide modern philosophical treatment into 2 camps : the Natural Law camp and the Queer Theory camp.
Natural Law
The view has it's origins in Plato's Dialogues particularly 'Law'. The basic posit is that there are certain fixed laws regarding human conduct and that these are 'natural'. Aquinas later developed this theme and added notions of morality to reconcile the Platonic idea with Christianity. The modern formulation of the theory tends to centre around
a) the generative function (perverted faculty argument). This posits that any sexual act which frustrates the reproductive function is therefore unnatural.
b) human good. The argument here is that marriage is a human good and that because of this the only 'good' expressions of sexuality must occur within the constraints of marriage.
Queer Theory
This view is based around the idea that sexuality is a social construct rather than a natural phenomenon.
My own view is closer to Queer Theory than Natural Law. There are many weaknesses in the Natural Law theory, the most important, IMHO, being that it requires reproduction to be identified as the most important human good for it's validity, since otherwise it would not be able to distinguish between same-sex marriage and different sex marriage.
I do believe that people are born with a tendency as to which sex they are attracted to, how-ever also agree that in the scheme of things each member of the species is supposed to/should be attracted to the opposite sex.
In this, I'm willing to acknowledge that homosexuality is out of the ordinary, and not supposed to happen, how-ever do not acknowledge that it is unnatural or a matter of upbringing.
Unatural should not mean that which occurs in the minority, it is in fact defined as "contrary to the laws or course of nature". As in the course of nature some people are born homosexual, and thereby in natural law some people will be born homosexual, homosexuality cannot be classed as unnatural.
And even if you could twist a definition via the generative function to class it as unnatural, then by what reasoning does unnatural mean bad? The houses we live in are unnatural, the clothes we wear are unnatural, bread is quite technically unnatural - and as yes people are not condemned for the owenership or consumption of such things.
Hence I would lean toward the natural law, yet struggle to see the jump from homosexuals being unnatural to a contradiction of the human good. I also fail to see how a homo-sexual marriage would not be inclusive of relationships that involve "good" expressions of sexuality.
By what do we define "good" sexuality, and by what do we determine that it must be generative to become valid?
Since, by and large, sexuality is hard wired by our genetic environment, people who are practicing homosexuals are acting in accordance with their nature, rather than in opposition to it. I think it's far more unnatural to force someone who is wired to feel love and attraction towards a particular sex or have a particular sexual identity, when their genetic makeup suggests otherwise. If social conditions forced me into relationships with men, I'd feel trapped and alienated.
Also, our species is over-reproducing as it is. The argument that acting against reproduction is wrong is a very weak one in this day and age. Perhaps there was a time in human history when populations were so fragile that fecundity was important, but that day has passed. Now, avoiding reproduction is a very responsible choice, and people entering into relationships where reproduction is not necessarily part of the equation may be doing a good thing for the world. That said, homosexuals can and do reproduce, if not with eachother, through sperm or egg donors.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| Since, by and large, sexuality is hard wired by our genetic environment, people who are practicing homosexuals are acting in accordance with their nature, rather than in opposition to it. I think it's far more unnatural to force someone who is wired to feel love and attraction towards a particular sex or have a particular sexual identity, when their genetic makeup suggests otherwise. If social conditions forced me into relationships with men, I'd feel trapped and alienated. |
This is debatable. There seems to be some genetic component to sexuality but how important and decisive that is we do not really know. My own guess is that it is a combination of genetic predisposition and environment.
I always found the 'Natural Law' argument to be weak - it relies on predefined social constructs (such as marriage) and subjective definitions of morality for it's validity. The very word 'natural' has always struck me as a fairly meaningless term since it requires a subjective judgement about what is 'natural' and what is not. We know that homosexuality is fairly widespread in the animal kingdom - there seems to be a correlation between 'sociality' and homosexuality in that regard. According to the Natural Law argument all such behaviour must itself be un-natural which begs the question who defines what is and is not natural? The argument that reproduction is the natural function of sex is also suspect since that would mean that infertile individuals should abstain from sex and it completely disregards other functions such as social bonding (the Bonobo chimps being a case here) and individual pleasure giving/receiving.Hi, my vision:
1. the soul has no gender - therefore it can't be wrong to be gay!
2. Love is just as much hetero as to gay!
Inclusive of all degrees to which everyone believes homosexuality to be determined by inherent/biological factors (nature) or by developmental/social factors (nurture), do we apply the same logic as to why people are born heterosexual?
Are we to treat the sexualities as equally valid outcomes (although not equally prevelant), or that one has more merit than the other?
Is a man who knows he is attracted to men any further subject to the need to evaluate his sexuality than a man who knows he is attracted to women?
Why is heterosexuality generally viewed as the standard, and then homosexuality the choice?
If you can "choose" to be gay, then does that not mean the vast majority of the world is "choosing" to be straight?
Etc, etc.
I made a mistake earlier. While there is some reason to believe homosexuality may be weakly heritable, there also hypotheses positing that the prenatal environment influences development of sexual preference and sex trait expression. Of course, if these permanent changes are set by methylation of DNA, I'm not strictly wrong in saying that they are genetic!
| blackheart wrote: |
| Inclusive of all degrees to which everyone believes homosexuality to be determined by inherent/biological factors (nature) or by developmental/social factors (nurture), do we apply the same logic as to why people are born heterosexual? |
Yes, the hormones are needed by everyone, straight or gay. I was told once that a communication must occur between the fetus and the mother for gender development to occur. The fetus reports it's gender, and the mother responds by producing appropriate hormones to guide the development of the fetus. Sex trait development, gender identity development, and sexual preference development may be mediated by this process, for gays and straights alike.
| Quote: |
| Are we to treat the sexualities as equally valid outcomes (although not equally prevelant), or that one has more merit than the other? |
Scientifically, there is no reason to have emotional bias towards either condition, and personally I feel that we should treat them equally as well.
| Quote: |
| Is a man who knows he is attracted to men any further subject to the need to evaluate his sexuality than a man who knows he is attracted to women? |
Probably, for social reasons, this will always be the case. I doubt that the gay:straight ratio will be increasing any time soon. The fact is, homosexual relationships will always be less common, and will therefore always be going against the social norm. As to whether or not this form of going against the norm can become accepted, I believe that it can.
| Quote: |
| Why is heterosexuality generally viewed as the standard, and then homosexuality the choice? |
I'm sure there are many reasons, but I think that one of the most important is simply that there are more heterosexuals. There are obviously lots of old-fashioned reasons, too.
| Quote: |
| If you can "choose" to be gay, then does that not mean the vast majority of the world is "choosing" to be straight? |
I hope scientists are able to dispel the notion that gay-ness is a choice people make. I think it's pretty obvious that homosexuals feel just as heterosexuals do: that their sexual preference is an innate part of their being. The only real difference is that homosexuals usually have to think about it a little bit more, and they do have a courageous decision to make: to come out of the closet. I hope some day that decision is one that won't have to be made -- people will feel comfortable enough that no explanations are necessary. | blackheart wrote: |
| Why is heterosexuality generally viewed as the standard, and then homosexuality the choice? |
Are you freakin kidding me? Isnt that obvious? Just look at what males and females look like!? Just look at the reproduction process!?! | LimpFish wrote: |
| blackheart wrote: | | Why is heterosexuality generally viewed as the standard, and then homosexuality the choice? |
Are you freakin kidding me? Isnt that obvious? Just look at what males and females look like!? Just look at the reproduction process!?! |
You seem to be assuming that reproduction is always positive, it's not, we're overpopulated. The world could probably benefit from having more gay or asexual people, it'd bring the population down and thus actually might increase the species' chance of continuing long-term.
Unless you believe in creation (and if we're putting all religion aside as the OP suggests, that's irrelevant), physical gender differences don't mean anything in regards to some intention or purpose, but since they happen to be good at creating others, we evolved that way. Homosexuality isn't against any specific function that genitals are supposed to have, it's just using them in ways other than most do. Heterosexuals are by far the majority, so IMHO that's why it's considered the norm, which is reinforced by centuries of religion and tradition.
As long as no one's being sexually assaulted and no children are involved, I don't have any problem with any sexual orientation.Men is suppoused to match women. Humans are supposed not to kill each other. Boys are suposed to have a father and a mother. People is supposed to take care of nature. All these supposings are not racionally explained. The problem is that the world is so blind with the deceivings of materialism and galobalism and a lot other 'isms' the can not see the spiritual nature of these today most flagelated common beliefs. Without God everything is permited. If you, the reader, dont feel that it is right to go out to the street to kill humans, is because you are a creation of God and laws and rules of humanity stem from this spiritual nature. You will never found a rational proof or demonstration that it is wrong to polute earth with CO2. Nor you will find that it is wrong or right to be gay. Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say. At this point you might have realized that I am a Christian. I am not against a person who is gay, but know he/she is wrong. Outside this spiritual reality you will be confused until the day of your death, as the mind can not tell what is right or wrong in the spiritual field.
The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
Psalm 14:1
| ptolomeo wrote: |
| Without God everything is permited. If you, the reader, dont feel that it is right to go out to the street to kill humans, is because you are a creation of God and laws and rules of humanity stem from this spiritual nature. |
I did ask that people refrain from bringing religion (and thereby religious beliefs) into this discussion , how-ever in response to your post.
I don't believe someone has to have faith in a god to have a sense of morality. With or without faith, people would be able to work out that adultery, murder, theft, abuse, pollution, etcetera are immoral, incorect and not the best course of action.
We act both through compassion and on the basis of the reciprocity principle, with or without the aid of any spirituality. I don't believe there's a god, but I'm not a bad person. Civilisations have prospered without a belief in the Christian God, groups of people have lived harmoniously without any belief in any god.
I.e. missionaries do do good in the communities they aid, how-ever I know organisations and individuals who do the same work with communities in the developped world, but still allow them to keep their original faith and belief system which they have held for centuries.
Faith is irrelevent, goodness is inherent in the person.
| ptolomeo wrote: |
You will never found a rational proof or demonstration that it is wrong to polute earth with CO2.
|
On the contrary, it is science which has the majority share in the push to reduce greenhouse emissions. In fact, we went through all of history up until the last century without a care int he world for CO2 emissions, and christianity is thousands of years old.
| ptolomeo wrote: |
| Nor you will find that it is wrong or right to be gay. Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say. At this point you might have realized that I am a Christian. I am not against a person who is gay, but know he/she is wrong. |
This is the reason I created this dicussion sans religion - you have no personal, scientific or philosophical justification as to why you believe homosexuality is wrong, just that your interpretation of your religious text dictates that it is wrong.
Not everyone has faith in Christianity, and as such an argument based on the Bible cannot be used in determining the answer as to the morality of homosexuality on a universal level.
If you would like to continue discussing your religious views on homosexuality, please continue to do so here (The Church and Homosexuality) or even here (an open-ended discussion about homosexuality). | Quote: |
| I did ask that people refrain from bringing religion (and thereby religious beliefs) into this discussion |
That's ok, but we are in a Philosophy AND Religion forum. I brought "religion" here because without it a deep discussion of the subjet would go to a dead end.
| Quote: |
| With or without faith, people would be able to work out that adultery, murder, theft, abuse, pollution, etcetera are immoral, incorect and not the best course of action.We act both through compassion and on the basis of the reciprocity principle, with or without the aid of any spirituality. |
Can you rationally explain compassion? if that is the case, please do it. (Not a single philosopher or scientist in the history of human kind was able to do it)
| Quote: |
| I don't believe there's a god, but I'm not a bad person. |
Of course you are not a bad person, I didnt say that and no one should. I'm a christian and believe in god, but I'm not a bad person too. I dont understand why you bring this to the discussion, as if there was a conection between being good or bad and believing. We are talking about what is right and what is wrong. I could be a missionarie (like you said) doing good in the communities and at the same time smoke sixty cigarettes a day. Smoking dont make me a bad person, but it is wrong. And the problem is: why is wrong smoking so much? why is wrong to hurt your own body? Rationally we are an aglomerate of molecules that "self" organise. Our thoughts are not more than electrical imulses in our brains, then what is the problem if I smoke till death? why is wrong to pollute the atmosphere? we are molecules electrons and protons, were is right and wrong?
| Quote: |
Civilisations have prospered without a belief in the Christian God, groups of people have lived harmoniously without any belief in any god.
|
You are talking about "prosperity" in the technological sense. We have computers now and very nice cars and phones and big prosperous economies, driven by very unhappy and lonely people who dont know if it is right or not to abandon your wife and children to go with another woman and things like that. Yes we are very prosperous and unhappy at the same time.
| Quote: |
| On the contrary, it is science which has the majority share in the push to reduce greenhouse emissions. In fact, we went through all of history up until the last century without a care int he world for CO2 emissions, and christianity is thousands of years old. |
Science explains how CO2 produce greenhouse effect and things like that, but science can not decide if it is right or wrong to pollute.[/quote]Blackheart,
I believe you are right to leave God out of the arguement of whether or not homosexuality is "wrong". Mainly because I believe that God wouldn't punish homosexuality because it's just a romantic love shared between two people, and sex is an expression of that love. I really don't think God would punish someone for loving another person just because they're of the same sex. But, like you asked, I will set religion aside, even though my beliefe supports homosexuality.
All in all, there's not a damn thing wrong with it. Just because the majority are heterosexual, that doesn't make homosexuals "wrong" or "unatrual". Hell, I've seen my two male cats go at it. Animals have sex by instinct, so apparently it's not that unatural. Most claim that it is because it doesn't have any outcome as far as reproduction goes. So what? With our current population rate of the Earth, that should be considered a good thing. And no one seems to care when a married heterosexual couple,that does not have kids, chooses to use a condom because they don't want kids. I don't see anyone complaining about that.
As far as the human race goes, sex isn't just meant for reproduction. It's meant as an expression of love, pleasure, AND reproduction (not nessicarily all at the same time). Two males or females should be allowed to express love to each other as well as having sexual gradification. If you're a homosexual man, and you don't find women attractive, you won't find any sexual gradification when you have sex with another woman... Or if you're a man/woman that falls in love with someone of the same sex, you really can't help that either, now can you? You truely cannot help what you like or who you fall in love with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Quote: |
| Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say. |
Um, nooooooo. It does not. It says that homosexual acts may be a SIGN of someone who is sinful. And to quote Indi (which is something I honestly agree with him on, believe it or not), "Getting drunk is bad. People sometimes put lamp shades on their head when they're drunk. That doesn't mean that putting a lamp shade on your head is bad too." Apply the same logic. Sin is wrong. Sometimes those who sin carry out homosexual acts. That doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong. I don't think it's a question of 'right' or 'wrong' - more one of statistical probability.
In nature - if homosexuality is a result of genetics - it would, of course, be very quickly all but eliminated. Few animals are homosexual. Those that are are, statistically, abnormal because they fall outside the range of normal behaviour for their species.
We're, probably, the only species that can actively choose whether to accept or reject homosexuality either as individuals or as part of our wider society. We're also, probably, the only species that can introduce our offspring to homosexuality as part of raising and educating them. They then have the free will to follow that path if they so choose.
So, I would see homosexuality as statistically abnormal but, as a species with free will, neither right nor wrong.
It's tempting to say that any trait that results in unsucessful reproduction would be quickly eliminated from the gene pool. However, there are many reasons why this is not necessarily the case.
One of these is gene silencing - a faulty gene may be silenced by certain environmental, epigenetic, or genetic conditions. As long as some individuals aren't expressing the deleterious gene due to silencing, it will remain in the population.
Another is that expression penetrance is not always 100%. Gene silencing drops penetrance, but so can random chance. Deleterious genes with <100% penetrance will be maintained in large interbreeding populations.
Some traits are quantitatitve: over- or under-expression is deleterious, but an expression optimum is beneficial. Many genes contribute to quantitative traits and are maintained in the gene pool, but some combinations of those genes are deleterious. Sexual orientation may be controlled by one or more quantitative traits.
Sometimes a gene has multiple functions. An allele that is deleterious in one sense may be profoundly beneficial in some other way. Particularly if the traits are quantitiative, this can maintain deleterious traits at high levels in a population.
The point of it is, there are reasons to believe that homosexuality is natural and can occur in nature. In fact, homosexuality is prevalent in nature, and some have hypothesized that is is beneficial in certain populations.
Lastly, homosexuality may not be deleterious to an individual's reproductive success. In the case of humans, social pressures may sustain genes that contribute to homosexuality, by supressing expression of homosexuality (or by producing an age-related penetrance). | Quote: |
| Quote: | | Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say. |
Um, nooooooo. It does not. It says that homosexual acts may be a
SIGN of someone who is sinful. And to quote Indi (which is something I honestly agree with
him on, believe it or not), "Getting drunk is bad. People sometimes put lamp shades on their
head when they're drunk. That doesn't mean that putting a lamp shade on your head is bad
too." Apply the same logic. Sin is wrong. Sometimes those who sin carry out homosexual
acts. That doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong. |
laurenrox, here is whot Bible says in the book of Romans chapter one:
25 -They exchanged the truth of God for a lie,
and worshiped and served created things rather
than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26-Because of this, God gave them over to shameful
lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations
for unnatural ones.
27-In the same way the men also abandoned natural
relations with women and were inflamed with lust for
one another. Men committed indecent acts with other
men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
The italics are mine and you can see that Bible says that homosexuality is a perversion, as I said before.
I think that if you all want to discuss homosexuaity from a statistical-scientific-evolutive point of view (non religious or philosophic) you should post in the Science AND nature forum. This is the first time I post in the philosophy and religion forum and am a little disappointed as long as no one want to talk about religion not even philosophy.
[/quote] | laurenrox wrote: |
| Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say. |
Um, nooooooo. It does not. It says that homosexual acts may be a SIGN of someone who is sinful. And to quote Indi (which is something I honestly agree with him on, believe it or not), "Getting drunk is bad. People sometimes put lamp shades on their head when they're drunk. That doesn't mean that putting a lamp shade on your head is bad too." Apply the same logic. Sin is wrong. Sometimes those who sin carry out homosexual acts. That doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong.[/quote]
How many times do I and others have to point oout all the parts of the bible that say bad things?
Lev.18:22
| Quote: |
| Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. |
Lev.20:13
| Quote: |
| If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. |
And ofcorce what ptolomeo pointed out.
Why is it that theists don't read the bible (or what ever there holy book is)
With out religion, no homosexuality is not wrong.For myself homosexuality is wrong and now why? Well it is definately unnatural, there is a natural symmetry to a man and a woman, both compliment each other, in body and in mind. Now when you put 2 women together you have an unbalanced or unnatural union. You can look at the biology and even the psychological make-up of each they just don't match.
I am not a religous man, nor am i close minded, yet I will vigorously campaign against gay marriage and gay unions. Marriage is reserved for those wanting to begin a family and is a union with "creating a family" as its foundation. Which in any gay union is impossible.
But to make one thing clear "I do not hate gays" however if we put every gay person on an island together where all they could be was "gay" then how long would they last? remember they can only be "gay".
This is one of the things that annoys me about gays, they want to be gay, yet want children, "well your gay, you cant have children" you made the choice now you can live with it, you can't have your cake and eat it too, that would make you hypocritical.
| khunia wrote: |
| This is one of the things that annoys me about gays, they want to be gay, yet want children, "well your gay, you cant have children" you made the choice now you can live with it, you can't have your cake and eat it too, that would make you hypocritical. |
A) What makes you so sure it's a choice?
B) Adoption"its not natural" So what? Who cares? Why care? Thats a pathetic argument. Were humans! Unnatural is our way. Just look at the world around us. We are supposed to be hunter/gatherers and we are nothing like that. We are unnatural creators.
The "unnatural" argument is nothing more than a very week justification for homophobia.
| khunia wrote: |
| I am not a religous man, nor am i close minded, yet I will vigorously campaign against gay marriage and gay unions. Marriage is reserved for those wanting to begin a family and is a union with "creating a family" as its foundation. Which in any gay union is impossible. |
Good man! It's good to see someone who has thought this through without resorting to religion.
So you have determined that marriage is reserved for those who want to raise children. Presumably you also mean that it is only reserved for those who want to have children (together) and raise them - otherwise it would still be ok for gays to marry, because, after all, they're perfectly capable of raising children even if they can't conceive them.
So obviously, marriage is only reserved for those who are going to have children together and raise them. Excellent.
Then you obviously also agree with my proposal to ban all marriages between a man and a woman who cannot bear children. i mean, if a homosexual couple cannot be allowed to marry because they cannot have children together, then a sterile heterosexual couple should not be allowed to marry either. Right? "So Bob and Mary, you're high school sweethearts who have been in love for over a decade... everyone thinks you're a beautiful couple... and you both complete each other and make each other so happy... i don't see any objection to your marriage, so i'll just sign your marriage license approval right n- oh! wait a minute! Mary, you had a horrible illness when you were young that ruined your ovaries and now you can't bear children? Oh, i'm sorry, that means you can't get married. Too bad."
You also obviously agree that two people who get married but do not have children are abusing the system. i mean, they're getting all those perks of marriage, but are basically acting like a couple of homosexuals, right? i mean, they're not making any children, and marriage is reserved to those who want to begin a family. What do you think we should do with them? Should we just take away their marriage license and fine them for fraud, or do you think we should also jail them for not breeding?
What are your thoughts?
| khunia wrote: |
| This is one of the things that annoys me about gays, they want to be gay, yet want children, "well your gay, you cant have children" you made the choice now you can live with it, you can't have your cake and eat it too, that would make you hypocritical. |
Actually, recent evidence (the evidence is only, oh, a couple thousand years old), shows that it is possible for gay people to have children... they just can't have children with their partner. Those wily queers have figured out a number of ways to cheat nature! Apparently, what they do is... adopt! Wow. i mean, who would have thought of a gay person adopting someone else's unwanted child? Crafty! Know what else they do? They use a new-fangled technology called "artificial insemination". It lets people have children without having to involve themselves with anyone else. Amazing.
But that's not all! Those sneaky people have figured out that you don't actually need a valid marriage license to get pregnant from someone - or to get someone pregnant. Did you know that? It blew my mind, i tell you, but it's true. You can actually have a baby without marrying someone. And not only that, you don't even need to love them, or even really like them. A gay person can just hire someone whose genes they find to be a suitable match with theirs, then all they have to do is just close their eyes and think of something happy for a couple minutes while the person they hired does their thing, and whammo, nine months later the gay person has a baby! Amazing, isn't it? And you know what's really weird about it? Apparently, animals are copying gay people! O.O Because many kinds of animals have babies without ever getting married! Really! Most of them don't form any kind of attachment with the parent at all! Isn't that amazing?!?! Somehow, gay people even got wild animals to act unnaturally!
Blows your mind. | ptolomeo wrote: |
That's ok, but we are in a Philosophy AND Religion forum. I brought "religion" here because without it a deep discussion of the subjet would go to a dead end.
|
That the forum is called "Philosophy and Religion" does not mean that every thread must relate to both categories. The reason the two are combined is that they do share some commonalities, and similar topics are merged into one forum to reduce the number of forums.
Not everything relgious is philosophical, not everything philosophical must relate back to relgion.
Also, in response to your later post, the reason this thread is not under "science and nature" is that I am not looking for soley scientific/natural arguments either for or against, but also for reasoning etcetera beyond those contained within relgions.
| ptolomeo wrote: |
| Can you rationally explain compassion? if that is the case, please do it. (Not a single philosopher or scientist in the history of human kind was able to do it) |
Just because something cannot be rationally explained (down to the minutist detail) does not mean that it must have an answer only sourcable to a divine enitity. To an extent, compassion and love can be psychologically and biologically explained, through instincts and chemicals (hormones) - although I'm not learned enough in the sciences to know the theory off by heart.
| ptolomeo wrote: |
Of course you are not a bad person, I didnt say that and no one should. I'm a christian and believe in god, but I'm not a bad person too. I dont understand why you bring this to the discussion, as if there was a conection between being good or bad and believing. |
You stated that:
| ptolomeo wrote: |
| Without God everything is permited. If you, the reader, dont feel that it is right to go out to the street to kill humans, is because you are a creation of God and laws and rules of humanity stem from this spiritual nature. |
And I responded in kind that I am not relgious, do not believe in a divine entity, how-ever am not a bad person. I don't feel that it would be right to go out into the street and kill someone, how-ever to me that stems back to nothing even remotely spiritual.
| ptolomeo wrote: |
| You are talking about "prosperity" in the technological sense. We have computers now and very nice cars and phones and big prosperous economies, driven by very unhappy and lonely people who dont know if it is right or not to abandon your wife and children to go with another woman and things like that. Yes we are very prosperous and unhappy at the same time. |
No, I'm talking about emotional, physical and communal prosperity - in fact for the most part refering back to small African tribes that have little to no resemblence of what we would call technology.
Religion is not neccessary to run a successful society, morals are. That religion is largely based on moralistic principles, does not mean that morals cannot exist without relgion. The have, can and will continue to exist without a need for faith, and for nothing more than those reciprocity based principles based in all man kind.[/quote]
| ptolomeo wrote: |
| Science explains how CO2 produce greenhouse effect and things like that, but science can not decide if it is right or wrong to pollute. |
This is true, one of my favourite quotes is one by Albert Einstein, that science can tell us what is, but not what should be (or something to similar wording).
How-ever religion is not required to figure out that pumping toxins, chemicals, etc into the atmosphere (that will eventually damage the earth we live on) is a bad thing. Common sense is enough. The need to protect each other is enough. A half-educated mind is enough.
I don't disagree with the merits or existence of religion, how-ever I created this thread to determine and/or develop an unbiased and universal consensus on the merit or existence of homosexuality.
This thread is not simple for agnostics and atheists, but people from all religions can join in. No religion is to be dicussed as evidence from one religion will not neccessarily be valid in the next etcetera.
I gave you links of threads you can dicuss homosexuality in with as much reference to your religious beliefs as you like. Please either refrain from discussing your religiously based arguments on sexuality here, or refrain from posting at all.
Such posts are, in fact, off topic and consitute as spam.[/i] | Quote: |
laurenrox, here is whot Bible says in the book of Romans chapter one:
25 -They exchanged the truth of God for a lie,
and worshiped and served created things rather
than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26-Because of this, God gave them over to shameful
lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations
for unnatural ones.
27-In the same way the men also abandoned natural
relations with women and were inflamed with lust for
one another. Men committed indecent acts with other
men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
|
A couple of things here. First off, I don't believe half of what the Bible says. Yes, it's true, you can believe in God without believing in the Bible. Imagine that! Don't get me wrong, I believe that a few things in the Bible can be used somewhat for historical accuracy, but let's face it, the Bible is a bunch of crap. It was written by corrupted men in power trying to keep people under their control. Easy to do when you frighten people with eternal damnation. But like I said, I believe in God, not the Bible.
Second, you missed a couple of words.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Read that carefully.
And again I will establish that I personally believe that the Bible is a bunch of BS... but for those of you that don't believe that, then read that little bit I quoted from it. If you don't understand what I'm getting at, then it's probably best.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Quote: |
And ofcorce what ptolomeo pointed out.
Why is it that theists don't read the bible (or what ever there holy book is)
With out religion, no homosexuality is not wrong. |
First off, let me just clear up that I'm not the one that typed "Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say." That was a quote in one of my messages that I was responding to.
Second, I've already stated that I believe in God, not the Bible. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I have to believe in any kind of scripture that people CLAIM to be the work of God.
Third, the only reason I read the Bible is for reference, and the only reference I found at the time on homosexuality was when the Pope made an address to a crowd.
Finally, there are religions or beliefes (such as my own) that allow for homosexuality AND belief in God. This is what upsets me about you, Conspirator. You ASSUME that I follow the mainstream Christian beliefe, when infact, I do not.
NOW LET'S REMOVE THE TOPIC OF GOD FROM THIS DISCUSSION AS BLACKHEART REQUESTED...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indi,
You get a cookie for the most sarcasm I've ever seen in one post. Lol. At least I hope it was sarcasm... MODERATION NOTE
Stop including religion now.
@Bikerman: I changed your second URL to a tinyurl-version as it didn't do any good to the forum lay-out. This seems to be a good time to intrudes animal homosexuality into the conversation.
Homosexuality is not confined to human, examples have been found in animals as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE&NR=1 (I didn't seach Youtube, it came up in a google search)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061024_gay-animals.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm
| laurenrox wrote: |
| Quote: | And ofcorce what ptolomeo pointed out.
Why is it that theists don't read the bible (or what ever there holy book is)
With out religion, no homosexuality is not wrong. |
First off, let me just clear up that I'm not the one that typed "Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say." That was a quote in one of my messages that I was responding to.
Second, I've already stated that I believe in God, not the Bible. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I have to believe in any kind of scripture that people CLAIM to be the work of God.
Third, the only reason I read the Bible is for reference, and the only reference I found at the time on homosexuality was when the Pope made an address to a crowd.
Finally, there are religions or beliefes (such as my own) that allow for homosexuality AND belief in God. This is what upsets me about you, Conspirator. You ASSUME that I follow the mainstream Christian beliefe, when infact, I do not. |
I was not replying to you. We in fact were saying the same thing. If you had read my post you would have seen that.
Adition: Heres a question for those like khunia who use (the pathetic) "its unnatural" argument. How dose that make it wrong? How is unnatural wrong? | The Conspirator wrote: |
| Adition: Heres a question for those like khunia who use (the pathetic) "its unnatural" argument. How dose that make it wrong? How is unnatural wrong? |
How about this one: how is "unnatural" even possible? Humans are biological organisms after all. There is no natural law that we are exempt from -- we're just master manipulators of our environment. | laurenrox wrote: |
| You get a cookie for the most sarcasm I've ever seen in one post. Lol. At least I hope it was sarcasm... |
Sarcasm? Oh goodness no! i think defining marriage to be for the purpose of having/raising children is a splendid idea! i mean, if there are any other reasons for marriage - for example, the fact that the partners love each other very much, or that they want to make a commitment to support each other into old age, or that they want social recognition and legal protection/benefits for their union - then those reasons could apply to homosexuals, too, and thus we would have to allow them to marry. But we don't want that, do we? So we have to make sure that the only reasons to allow marriage are those that exclude homosexuals... therefore, it has to be defined in terms of the one thing that heterosexual couples can do that homosexuals cannot - which is reproduce together.
Why it makes perfect sense! That way we can reserve marriage for heterosexuals... marriage would become a government-approved, dual-person-powered, baby-making machine, and nothing more - a social construct that exists solely for the purpose of having fertile heterosexual men and fertile heterosexual women copulate to produce babies... hopefully fertile, heterosexual babies, of course.
We can then reserve something like "civil unions" for homosexuals... which would be government-approved, culturally-sanctioned, official recognition of a social commitment between two people. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? That way, if two people, homosexual or not, decide they want to form a union that is legally protected and officially recognized, they can do so without tarnishing the sacred, baby-producing tradition of marriage.
But of course, we have to be consistent. If the only purpose of marriage is to be baby-production, then we have to ensure that it is not abused. It would be discrimination if we allowed heterosexual couples to marry when they cannot or will not produce children... after all, aside from the sexes of the participants, what is the difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple except that the former have the capability of producing children while the latter do not? And we can't discriminate by sex, now can we? (i mean, it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals, but we can't discriminate by sex, after all. That's just wrong.) Therefore, any couple that cannot or will not produce children should not be allowed to marry. Thankfully, that excludes all homosexuals. Unfortunately, it includes any sterile heterosexuals, whether they're sterile by choice or not. Small price to pay for protecting the sacred tradition of marriage though, right?
Why, i even have a few more proposals to add!
Since marriage is solely for the purpose of having and raising children, then once those functions are complete there is no more need for the marriage, and it should be dissolved. So... a couple that has been married for 40 years, had a dozen or so children, raised them all, and have seen them all left the nest as adults... well, their marriage license has expired. Because they can no longer produce children or raise the children they produced. The idea of "the grandparents" is nice... but it looks like we'll have to relegate them to history's scrapyard. They can no longer make children, and they have no more children that they need to raise. If we allow them the concession of maintaining their marriage simply to support each other in old age... well, then we would have to allow that to homosexuals, too, and we don't want that. If your grandparents want to remain together, they can always get a civil union.
There is also the issue of what to do with married couples without children. Obviously ones that refuse to breed will have to be fined or jailed, but what about those that tried and failed? There will have to be a statute of limitations on marriage... if you fail to produce a baby within one year, the marriage must be dissolved. Those that wish to remain together without producing children... well they can always get a civil union.
Of course, there is also another situation to consider:
Government representative: Hello, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson?
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Yes?
Government representative: Hi, i'm with the marriage licensing board. i'm here to talk to you about your marriage license.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Is this really necessary right now? We've had a family tragedy-
Government representative: Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, we are aware of that. Your young daughter recently died in a horrible, tragic accident, is that right?
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Yes, it is.
Government representative: My condolences on your loss. She was your only child, was she not?
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Yes, yes she was.
Government representative: My sympathies. However, we have a situation. You see, you are now childless, which means your marriage is illegal.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: What? You've got to be kidding me. We just lost our daughter!
Government representative: Yes, yes, as i said, if i had a heart, it would be in pieces now. However, the situation remains. If you wish to remain married, you will have to begin the process of producing another child.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: WHAT!?!? We just lost our only daughter-!
Government representative: Yes, and she will have to be replaced.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: You have got to be kidding.
Government representative: i work with the government, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. i assure you, i am incapable of "kidding". We are not entirely unsympathetic to your loss, which is why we allow you a grace period of a few months before you have to start getting busy again. But if you are not pregnant by one year's time from the date of the death of your child, your marriage will have to be declared illegal.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Wha-? We just-! Wha-?
Government representative: i understand that you wish to remain together to console each other over your loss. However, marriage is for the purpose of producing children - it's not about two people who love each other making a commitment to stand by each other. If you wish to maintain a recognized committed relationship with all the legal benefits and privileges entitled thereto, i recommend a civil union. Have a nice day.and some Brits still say that Americans don't do irony 
That was almost Swiftian...nice one. Heres a good interview, the interview is not on this topic but is relevant too it. Those who still cling to the false idea that people are not born gay pleas listen to it. being a gay is not wrong...
but involving with a same gender person sexually is wrong...
i mean even if you think you're a gay and does nothing immoral or things like that... there's nothing wrong with it... just don't do immoral things...
jah blez! | isyan wrote: |
being a gay is not wrong...
but involving with a same gender person sexually is wrong...
i mean even if you think you're a gay and does nothing immoral or things like that... there's nothing wrong with it... just don't do immoral things...
jah blez! |
And what makes it so wrong? (keep in mind the name of the thread)Nothing wrong with being yay, and nothing wrong with being traight. The world is overpopulated anyway.
| Quote: |
I was not replying to you. We in fact were saying the same thing. If you had read my post you would have seen that.
|
Yeah, I DID read your post. Just a simple misunderstanding is all. My bad. Apologies.
| Quote: |
Sarcasm? Oh goodness no! i think defining marriage to be for the purpose of having/raising children is a splendid idea! i mean, if there are any other reasons for marriage - for example, the fact that the partners love each other very much, or that they want to make a commitment to support each other into old age, or that they want social recognition and legal protection/benefits for their union - then those reasons could apply to homosexuals, too, and thus we would have to allow them to marry. But we don't want that, do we? So we have to make sure that the only reasons to allow marriage are those that exclude homosexuals... therefore, it has to be defined in terms of the one thing that heterosexual couples can do that homosexuals cannot - which is reproduce together.
Why it makes perfect sense! That way we can reserve marriage for heterosexuals... marriage would become a government-approved, dual-person-powered, baby-making machine, and nothing more - a social construct that exists solely for the purpose of having fertile heterosexual men and fertile heterosexual women copulate to produce babies... hopefully fertile, heterosexual babies, of course.
We can then reserve something like "civil unions" for homosexuals... which would be government-approved, culturally-sanctioned, official recognition of a social commitment between two people. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? That way, if two people, homosexual or not, decide they want to form a union that is legally protected and officially recognized, they can do so without tarnishing the sacred, baby-producing tradition of marriage.
But of course, we have to be consistent. If the only purpose of marriage is to be baby-production, then we have to ensure that it is not abused. It would be discrimination if we allowed heterosexual couples to marry when they cannot or will not produce children... after all, aside from the sexes of the participants, what is the difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple except that the former have the capability of producing children while the latter do not? And we can't discriminate by sex, now can we? (i mean, it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals, but we can't discriminate by sex, after all. That's just wrong.) Therefore, any couple that cannot or will not produce children should not be allowed to marry. Thankfully, that excludes all homosexuals. Unfortunately, it includes any sterile heterosexuals, whether they're sterile by choice or not. Small price to pay for protecting the sacred tradition of marriage though, right?
Why, i even have a few more proposals to add!
Since marriage is solely for the purpose of having and raising children, then once those functions are complete there is no more need for the marriage, and it should be dissolved. So... a couple that has been married for 40 years, had a dozen or so children, raised them all, and have seen them all left the nest as adults... well, their marriage license has expired. Because they can no longer produce children or raise the children they produced. The idea of "the grandparents" is nice... but it looks like we'll have to relegate them to history's scrapyard. They can no longer make children, and they have no more children that they need to raise. If we allow them the concession of maintaining their marriage simply to support each other in old age... well, then we would have to allow that to homosexuals, too, and we don't want that. If your grandparents want to remain together, they can always get a civil union.
There is also the issue of what to do with married couples without children. Obviously ones that refuse to breed will have to be fined or jailed, but what about those that tried and failed? There will have to be a statute of limitations on marriage... if you fail to produce a baby within one year, the marriage must be dissolved. Those that wish to remain together without producing children... well they can always get a civil union.
Of course, there is also another situation to consider:
Government representative: Hello, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson?
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Yes?
Government representative: Hi, i'm with the marriage licensing board. i'm here to talk to you about your marriage license.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Is this really necessary right now? We've had a family tragedy-
Government representative: Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, we are aware of that. Your young daughter recently died in a horrible, tragic accident, is that right?
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Yes, it is.
Government representative: My condolences on your loss. She was your only child, was she not?
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Yes, yes she was.
Government representative: My sympathies. However, we have a situation. You see, you are now childless, which means your marriage is illegal.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: What? You've got to be kidding me. We just lost our daughter!
Government representative: Yes, yes, as i said, if i had a heart, it would be in pieces now. However, the situation remains. If you wish to remain married, you will have to begin the process of producing another child.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: WHAT!?!? We just lost our only daughter-!
Government representative: Yes, and she will have to be replaced.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: You have got to be kidding.
Government representative: i work with the government, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. i assure you, i am incapable of "kidding". We are not entirely unsympathetic to your loss, which is why we allow you a grace period of a few months before you have to start getting busy again. But if you are not pregnant by one year's time from the date of the death of your child, your marriage will have to be declared illegal.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Wha-? We just-! Wha-?
Government representative: i understand that you wish to remain together to console each other over your loss. However, marriage is for the purpose of producing children - it's not about two people who love each other making a commitment to stand by each other. If you wish to maintain a recognized committed relationship with all the legal benefits and privileges entitled thereto, i recommend a civil union. Have a nice day. |
Oh me, oh my! *snickers* Sorry, I understand that this is a serious topic, but you would have to agree that Indi's use of irony is amusing.
| Quote: |
being a gay is not wrong...
but involving with a same gender person sexually is wrong...
i mean even if you think you're a gay and does nothing immoral or things like that... there's nothing wrong with it... just don't do immoral things...
|
Unless you give a reason for why you think sexual relations between two people of the same gender is immoral (for any reason other than religion), then your arguement is null and void.Yes it would be wrong to be gay setting all religion aside. Gay people can't reproduce, which means they are essentially useless to society's ultimate instinctual goal of surviving.
Gay people can, and do, reproduce all the time, as we mentioned above. Also, there's little reason to believe that increasing the human population of the world is leading to anything but trouble (also mentioned several times above). Refraining from reproducing is a more socially conscious choice than reproducing nowadays.
| asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| Yes it would be wrong to be gay setting all religion aside. Gay people can't reproduce, which means they are essentially useless to society's ultimate instinctual goal of surviving. |
If a strait person never has children, is that person "useless to society's ultimate instinctual goal of surviving"? Or is that another meaningless excuse for homophobia?I'm ok with gay people as long as they don't express themselves. Back in the 80's and what not if a gay guy came out and start "expressing" he'd get his ass kicked. Now I think they do it a little too much. If your gay it doesn't mean you have to change your voice all high pitched and stuff like that its so annoying hearing people like that. then when they talk about their (gay) love life with other men its annoying and not acceptable for the work place. Thats the only time you will see me bash a fag. Its just totally wrong to do that. There is no point for you to have gay pride week etc.. But thats my opinion..
I'm not homophobic whatsoever. Just answering the question posed. And yes, obviously, the straight person who never has children would also be quite useless towards the goal of survival.
| asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| I'm not homophobic whatsoever. Just answering the question posed. And yes, obviously, the straight person who never has children would also be quite useless towards the goal of survival. |
So your saying I am "useless toward the goal of survive"? (cause I'm never having children, I've met my relatives and I do not won't to pass on these genes)
Another thing, there are 7 billion people in the world, if the human population keep growing we will hit a point where the earth can not support the human population (which then leads to famine and war and destruction) so isn't it about time many people stop having children? Wouldn't that benefit the human species ? Cause as the current generations die out there would be less people thus more space and resources for each individual person thus ultimately benefiting the species. In which would gay people and people like me be benefiting the survival of the species (cause imagine a would with 20 million people and nuclear weapons).
Whats my point? Just cause people do not reproduse, that dose not nmean there not helping the species.
Note: I don't mean to insinuate that many people should not be allowed to have children, just making a point.
I've noticed something. No one has paid any attention to the post I made about homosexual animals. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| I've noticed something. No one has paid any attention to the post I made about homosexual animals. |
I also made a point about homosexual animals.Conspirator, you're missing the point. The question was if it's wrong to be gay besides religious reasons. It is wrong to be gay because gay people do not contribute towards reproduction. Sure, gay people and anyone else can contribute to society in other ways such as inventing and discovering new things. But that has nothing to do with their status as a gay person. The fact that the person is gay means that he or she is not going to have children, which is wrong, in the sense that humanity is not expanding as much as it could be. And your point about crowding the world with 7+billion people is worthless because in the very grand, long scheme of things, we're going to need a lot more people to populate different planets around the universe. Right now, the earth can support a lot more people anyway, according to some of the latest research being done around the world.
As a gay I would like to say that being gay is NOT something one develops. It is not a disease. As you can't help it, I think nobody has the right to judge other persons as those persons can't help being the way they are. To the people who don't like gays: Try to put yourself in our position. You are young and you are not attracted to girls at ALL, but when a boy walks by, you tend to catch a glimpse. Construction error? It might be, if you think it is an error, but it is nothing you can help.
Our sexual preference doesn't affect our person in general. It doesn't make us any different from you.
The same thing for black people. Their color isn't bad, their color is different from ours (in my case). They can say the same thing about us. It doesn't make the one better than the other.
Their/our complexion doesn't affect our person in general. It doesn't make them/us different from us/them.
Then, to the people who say we shouldn't act like a "fag". You might not know, but not all homosexuals want to "high pitch" their voices, and even if they do, you should ask yourself WHY they are doing so?
Even I can't give a "straight on" reply to that question, but (being a gay) I see two explanations:
- We need to be recognizable for other gay people. We can't just ask a guy: "Hey are you gay?" as it is still a taboo and you might get attacked. So we need to be subtle by inserting a little over-the-top "s"-sound. Some gays go even further by acting girl like, the pink "oooooooooh my goood"-type fancy Nancy type. Even then, not all gays are like that, but it are THOSE people all straight people see on the television (gay pride for example). It's also psychological. We feel the need to form a "gay front" as still a lot of people want us gone from the planet. So, it is the result of us being a suppressed minority. It will fade away as we get accepted.
- Secondly, it could also be something we have from the beginning. I don't know why we tend to be more feminin. Maybe we need to compensate for the lack of a real woman? We like women, but we don't like their looks. That's why we are a girl's best friend.
Good... If anyone has questions... shoot! I have no questions for James007, but:
| asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| It is wrong to be gay because gay people do not contribute towards reproduction. |
Is it therefore also wrong to be sterile? A sterile guy is even less likely to reproduce than a gay guy, since for the sterile one it's completely impossible. | Dalv87 wrote: |
| Is it therefore also wrong to be sterile? A sterile guy is even less likely to reproduce than a gay guy, since for the sterile one it's completely impossible. |
It depends. If the person had a vasectomy, then yes its wrong. If the person was born that way or had an accident, then no. But this is all just my opinion so who am I to say if something's right or wrong. | asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| Dalv87 wrote: | | Is it therefore also wrong to be sterile? A sterile guy is even less likely to reproduce than a gay guy, since for the sterile one it's completely impossible. |
It depends. If the person had a vasectomy, then yes its wrong. If the person was born that way or had an accident, then no. But this is all just my opinion so who am I to say if something's right or wrong. |
Gay people are born gay. | asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| Many people aren't. |
You can testify?
The fact some people don't TELL or know for sure from the beginning is true.No, I can't testify. However, in a psychology course I took I learned that people can become gay from traumatic events such as sexual molestation.
Yes, but let's keep those people out of the discussion please. 
| asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| Many people aren't. |
True, many people aren't born gay. About 90-95% of the population, in fact. The remainder are homosexuals, and are born as such. Of the 90-95% who aren't born gay, I doubt many would electively experience the difficulties that many members of the homosexual population face on a daily basis -- not to mention the fact that they would be forcing themselves into relationships with people they aren't naturally attracted to. I imagine a much higher proportion of people born as gay live a straight lifestyle than the proportion of people born straight who lead a gay lifestyle. | asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| Conspirator, you're missing the point. The question was if it's wrong to be gay besides religious reasons. It is wrong to be gay because gay people do not contribute towards reproduction. Sure, gay people and anyone else can contribute to society in other ways such as inventing and discovering new things. But that has nothing to do with their status as a gay person. The fact that the person is gay means that he or she is not going to have children, which is wrong, in the sense that humanity is not expanding as much as it could be. And your point about crowding the world with 7+billion people is worthless because in the very grand, long scheme of things, we're going to need a lot more people to populate different planets around the universe. Right now, the earth can support a lot more people anyway, according to some of the latest research being done around the world. |
And you missed mine. There would can only support so many people and at this point in history, it would be better for the future survival of humanity for the population to decrees. You say cause of gay people the human population is not expanding as much as it could be but the population is expanding despite them and further expansion is bad for humanity. We have the power to destroy the would, to wipe out humanity and send the would into a nuclear winter.
You colonisation argument doesn't would, that technology is century's away. We can barley get to the moon right now and mars is millions of miles away and barren and dead and (unlike in scifi story's) terephorming is not an option, it has no magnetic filed to protect it from soler flairs and that very bad. And going to another soler system, do you have any idea what that would require? You've been watching too many science fiction shows. And it wouldn't take that many people to colonise a planet, less than a thousand will do.
And you have ignored several things, the human population is still growing despite the existence of homosexuals, people are born gay and human are not the only species with homosexual tendency's.
And, how dose that make it wrong? There are 7 billion of us and the population is growing. And even if the population did drop low enough, do you think that guys and lesbians would not have sex with the opposite sex to have children and bring the population back up?Removed shenyls post, and all replies, from the discussion (as it were a little off topic).
asianwannabe999
| Quote: |
Yes it would be wrong to be gay setting all religion aside. Gay people can't reproduce, which means they are essentially useless to society's ultimate instinctual goal of surviving.
No, I can't testify. However, in a psychology course I took I learned that people can become gay from traumatic events such as sexual molestation. |
Even though a gay couple may be unlikely to reproduce, how does not benefiting the species make something wrong? They are in no way harming anyone else, or infringing on anyone else’s right to survival.
Also, I have (and continue to have) studied psychology. It is true that a person’s sexual orientation can change after a traumatic event, how-ever this is by far the exception, and very much the minority of those whom are homosexual. Also, there is the same ratio of people who are straight who develop a forced (often fake and superficial) homosexuality, as homosexuals who force themselves to become straight (perhaps even a higher ratio on this count, with a higher frequency of society based discrimination embodying that traumatic event, than rape).
Your point is also invalid in that in the study of psychology, you learn that homosexuality is no longer considered a psychological impairment, or even an abnormality. The orientation is, in fact, defined as inherent in an individual as heterosexuality in another – and normal as normal is defined not so simplistically as what is prevalent in a species. When confined to individual human behaviour and mental process, normal is in fact defined as what is consistent and regular with an individual. I.e. a homosexual would only be considered abnormal if they were acting beyond their inherent behaviour/mental process as per sexuality, in forcing themselves to be straight.
Vendetta50
| Quote: |
| I'm ok with gay people as long as they don't express themselves. Back in the 80's and what not if a gay guy came out and start "expressing" he'd get his ass kicked. Now I think they do it a little too much. If your gay it doesn't mean you have to change your voice all high pitched and stuff like that its so annoying hearing people like that. then when they talk about their (gay) love life with other men its annoying and not acceptable for the work place. Thats the only time you will see me bash a fag. Its just totally wrong to do that. There is no point for you to have gay pride week etc.. But thats my opinion.. |
Most gays don’t display recognisably homosexual behaviour. What you see, in fact, is the minority – and there are probably more homosexuals around than you would crealise.
If you are not willing to tolerate homosexual persons exhibiting such behaviours – then maybe you should consider never exhibiting stereotypically heterosexually male behaviour in a gay man’s presence. Don’t ever talk about women, or look at women, when out in public, etc.
Last edited by blackheart on Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:56 am; edited 1 time in total I've been convinced. I guess I didn't really think about the question enough. Thanks for the quick psych lesson blackheart.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | Adition: Heres a question for those like khunia who use (the pathetic) "its unnatural" argument. How dose that make it wrong? How is unnatural wrong? |
How about this one: how is "unnatural" even possible? Humans are biological organisms after all. There is no natural law that we are exempt from -- we're just master manipulators of our environment. |
With the definition of natural being not altered by man, I think a better question is, is it possible for anything man does to be natural.
As for the question, being gay is wrong - certainly. Male homosexual sex causes damage to the rectum and severe urinary infection. This means if you’re a gay man without access to antibiotics you'll die of renal failure.
So, homosexuality is a privilege of the antibiotic age, or in earlier cases, societies with high mortality rates and low life spans for males.
SORY FOLKS, but-sex is BAD.
As for two individuals of the same sex living together, for some this is ideal.
| Quote: |
| Even though a gay couple may be unlikely to reproduce, how does not benefiting the species make something wrong? They are in no way harming anyone else, or infringing on anyone else’s right to survival. |
In fact it does harm others. Perhaps in our modern society it doesn't. However, throughout history fertility has been the first thing on people's minds. Rightly so. If you and you fellow villagers don't bring up a healthy crop of young, the next village over will be farming your land soon.
Like I said, a privilege. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
As for the question, being gay is wrong - certainly. Male homosexual sex causes damage to the rectum and severe urinary infection. This means if you’re a gay man without access to antibiotics you'll die of renal failure.
So, homosexuality is a privilege of the antibiotic age, or in earlier cases, societies with high mortality rates and low life spans for males.
SORY FOLKS, but-sex is BAD. |
All sex can spread STDs, and how is damaging your own rectum morally wrong anyway?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Even though a gay couple may be unlikely to reproduce, how does not benefiting the species make something wrong? They are in no way harming anyone else, or infringing on anyone else’s right to survival. |
In fact it does harm others. Perhaps in our modern society it doesn't. However, throughout history fertility has been the first thing on people's minds. Rightly so. If you and you fellow villagers don't bring up a healthy crop of young, the next village over will be farming your land soon.
Like I said, a privilege. |
In modern society though, one might call reproduction a privilege. The world isn't lacking in people, it's lacking in resources to provide those people, meaning that by reproducing you're adding another mouth, which might harm others because it takes from what they might have. Gay people cause no such problems.
That aside, even if we were short on people, no one has any particular obligation to add to the population. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| As for the question, being gay is wrong - certainly. Male homosexual sex causes damage to the rectum and severe urinary infection. This means if you’re a gay man without access to antibiotics you'll die of renal failure. |
Makes you wonder how societies throughout history managed then. I wonder if the ancient Greeks would have had an abnormally high mortality from renal failure that would support this contention...difficult to say I guess. There must be statistics available about today's societies however, so I would challenge you to back this view up with some evidence. | Quote: |
| So, homosexuality is a privilege of the antibiotic age, or in earlier cases, societies with high mortality rates and low life spans for males. |
Evidence for this view? | Quote: |
In fact it does harm others. Perhaps in our modern society it doesn't. However, throughout history fertility has been the first thing on people's minds. Rightly so. If you and you fellow villagers don't bring up a healthy crop of young, the next village over will be farming your land soon.
Like I said, a privilege. |
Any society has many other indicators of success, apart from it's survival and growth. Even if we assume this narrow definition of success/harm then it is simple to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the idea that non-reproducing elements are, by definition, harmful. Take a simple case of a gay doctor/medicine man...saving more than one life would be a net benefit, in this system of measure, and would therefore make that individual beneficial rather than harmful to the society, would it not? So even adopting this narrow measure of good/harm you would have to include non-reproductive elements of behaviour into the overall calculation of good/harm and although homosexuality might count as a minus point, it does not itself determine the final score.
If we widen the system to include definitions of good and bad which go beyond simple fecundity measures, then the importance of sexuality is diminished still further as a determinant of positive/negative benefit.@horseatingweeds: Do you know that most gay people don't even DO anal sex? And even then, some straight people do it too, so it is actually wrong to be straight as some straight people have that kind of sex?
[ AAAARGH! ]
I think we are still talking about gay LOVE and not gay sex.
| Dalv87 wrote: |
| All sex can spread STDs, and how is damaging your own rectum morally wrong anyway? |
Come on Dalv, keep up. What's more morally wrong that damaging your or you lover's body? And e coli ain't an STD. You have in up there you know....
| Dalv87 wrote: |
In modern society though, one might call reproduction a privilege. The world isn't lacking in people, it's lacking in resources to provide those people, meaning that by reproducing you're adding another mouth, which might harm others because it takes from what they might have. Gay people cause no such problems.
That aside, even if we were short on people, no one has any particular obligation to add to the population. |
You missed it. I wasn't speaking of modern society. In primitive society, YES, you are obligated to make kids. Whether for your own preservation or as a duty to your tribe. Like planting farms or fighting in battles. Again, modern society has developed new mechanisms to free us from such.
Also, the trouble isn't resources, it is allocation, efficiency, and infrastructure.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Makes you wonder how societies throughout history managed then. I wonder if the ancient Greeks would have had an abnormally high mortality from renal failure that would support this contention...difficult to say I guess. There must be statistics available about today's societies however, so I would challenge you to back this view up with some evidence. |
They managed by not being gay! And dieing before such infections reached a chronic stage. I'd sift up some stuff on homosexuals and but-lovers in general, but just believe me on this. If you go to the Dr. with painful pissing, they just assume you've got an e coli from anal dabbling. I'm involved in the Med comunity and my brother is a physician.
Also, the Greek that had man love where usually rich or soldiers. Soldiers died from numerous other disease and the rich didn't have to make babies like the populous.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | | So, homosexuality is a privilege of the antibiotic age, or in earlier cases, societies with high mortality rates and low life spans for males. |
Evidence for this view? |
<removed>
I know you at least know enough about history to accept this.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Any society has many other indicators of success, apart from it's survival and growth. Even if we assume this narrow definition of success/harm then it is simple to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the idea that non-reproducing elements are, by definition, harmful. Take a simple case of a gay doctor/medicine man...saving more than one life would be a net benefit, in this system of measure, and would therefore make that individual beneficial rather than harmful to the society, would it not? So even adopting this narrow measure of good/harm you would have to include non-reproductive elements of behaviour into the overall calculation of good/harm and although homosexuality might count as a minus point, it does not itself determine the final score.
If we widen the system to include definitions of good and bad which go beyond simple fecundity measures, then the importance of sexuality is diminished still further as a determinant of positive/negative benefit. |
Primitive society Bikerman, not modern. When speaking of such things I find it silly to dwell on modern society, which is brand new and represents a fraction of a percent of human history.
You can come up with particular examples, but over all fertility has been paramount. That's why we are always finding fertility trinkets and all that. I think it's something like 5 babies every woman has to have just to maintain a society when the life expectancy is less than thirty, as it most often is.
@ James007
Yeah, I tried specifying that when I said "gay sex." We can just say "but sex" if you want.
DO NOT CHANGE USERNAMESI think you need to separate homosexuality from anal sex. Whether anal sex is a good idea is a totally different argument from whether it's wrong to be homosexual. Homosexual men are perfectly free to abstain from anal sex, while still enjoying a rewarding sex life. Homosexual women are also relevant to this discussion, and are probably not going to be engaging in anal sex.
Regarding the moral obligation to be fecund -- I don't understand why people are so fixated on this argument. Even in 'primitive' societies, fecundity is not necessarily an absolute priority for some or even all members of the society. Fecundity certainly has been important, but it has never been the be-all-end-all of ancient life.
Why do you think it is silly to focus on modern society? That's the society we live in. If the ancient importance of fecundity means that fecundity is important in modern life, does that mean that the second most important thing is to not get eaten by lions? I'll spend the rest of my life having lots of unprotected sex and looking out for lions.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| They managed by not being gay! And dieing before such infections reached a chronic stage. I'd sift up some stuff on homosexuals and but-lovers in general, but just believe me on this. If you go to the Dr. with painful pissing, they just assume you've got an e coli from anal dabbling. I'm involved in the Med comunity and my brother is a physician. |
Nah, sorry, I never take controversial claims on trust if I can help it. I have little doubt that anal sex produces undesirable health effects in some cases. That's a bit different, however, from the statement | Quote: |
| This means if you 19re a gay man without access to antibiotics you'll die of renal failure. |
which is why I asked for something to back such a claim-up. I didn't really expect any evidence, of course, but it seemed reasonable to ask.
Without some idea of numbers, the assertion is just an unsupported opinion. If 0.2% of those engaging in regular anal sex became infected with a kidney-damaging disease then that has completely different implications and outcomes to an infection rate of 10% or 50%. Without knowing what the ballpark figure is there is no way to reasonably make the assertions you have...
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | Any society has many other indicators of success, apart from it's survival and growth. Even if we assume this narrow definition of success/harm then it is simple to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the idea that non-reproducing elements are, by definition, harmful. Take a simple case of a gay doctor/medicine man...saving more than one life would be a net benefit, in this system of measure, and would therefore make that individual beneficial rather than harmful to the society, would it not? So even adopting this narrow measure of good/harm you would have to include non-reproductive elements of behaviour into the overall calculation of good/harm and although homosexuality might count as a minus point, it does not itself determine the final score.
If we widen the system to include definitions of good and bad which go beyond simple fecundity measures, then the importance of sexuality is diminished still further as a determinant of positive/negative benefit. |
Primitive society Bikerman, not modern. When speaking of such things I find it silly to dwell on modern society, which is brand new and represents a fraction of a percent of human history. |
It also, however, represents society about which we have the most reliable and available statistics. So where does primitive give way to modern? Decades? Centuries? Millennia?
| Quote: |
| You can come up with particular examples, but over all fertility has been paramount. That's why we are always finding fertility trinkets and all that. I think it's something like 5 babies every woman has to have just to maintain a society when the life expectancy is less than thirty, as it most often is. |
Most often? When? Where? Now in Africa? 100 years ago in India? Without qualification these 'figures' are meaningless. | Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
Regarding the moral obligation to be fecund -- I don't understand why people are so fixated on this argument. Even in 'primitive' societies, fecundity is not necessarily an absolute priority for some or even all members of the society. Fecundity certainly has been important, but it has never been the be-all-end-all of ancient life. |
Of course not. Getting food is the 'be-all-end-all' in primitive society. To have food you need land and people to gather it. You need to protect it too. This requires strong young people. These strong young people are not strong for long so they must make babies while they can. These babies grow up and care for their parents. Fertility maintains social security.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| Why do you think it is silly to focus on modern society? That's the society we live in. |
Like I said, modern society is rare. Since we are discussing whether homosexuality is moral or good or whatever, looking at modern society is useless.
People in modern societies can do what they want without consequences. We can eat until we weight 1000 pounds, it doesn't hurt anyone else. (actually, it does but not directly enough for anyone to care) We can produce huge amounts of crap we don't need, polluting primitive societies and releasing carcinogens into the air. It's fine for use. If you're around 20 before your 80 you'll have cancer, likely from such elements. That's fine too. We'll fix you in our hospital.
It's like an aristocracy. What would it benefit a king and queen to discus what is right for just them, and not their people.
Similarly, we in our modern society are an aristocracy to the world over time. They have suffered to get us here, they suffer now from our exploitation, and they will suffer in the future from our using up and pollution.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| If the ancient importance of fecundity means that fecundity is important in modern life, does that mean that the second most important thing is to not get eaten by lions? I'll spend the rest of my life having lots of unprotected sex and looking out for lions. |
What you’re saying here makes no sense to me. Reading it, I feel you are insinuating that I would advocate something obviously illogical in an effort to attack my intelligence.
Honestly, I don't mind being insulted. But do it with a little more whit. I never said fertility is important to modern society. Also, if I believed it was, that would equate to other aspects of primitive society being important to modern.
Eating food IS important to modern society just like primitive. Yet, watching out for lions, somehow, is not. So please my dear friend and fellow frihoster Gangnar Teh Unruly, keep it in a wrapper and don't worry some much about lions, but keep eating food.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Again, modern society has developed new mechanisms to free us from such. |
Last edited by horseatingweeds on Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:44 am; edited 2 times in total | Bikerman wrote: |
Nah, sorry, I never take controversial claims on trust if I can help it. I have little doubt that anal sex produces undesirable health effects in some cases. That's a bit different, however, from the statement | Quote: | | This means if you 19re a gay man without access to antibiotics you'll die of renal failure. |
which is why I asked for something to back such a claim-up. I didn't really expect any evidence, of course, but it seemed reasonable to ask.
Without some idea of numbers, the assertion is just an unsupported opinion. If 0.2% of those engaging in regular anal sex became infected with a kidney-damaging disease then that has completely different implications and outcomes to an infection rate of 10% or 50%. Without knowing what the ballpark figure is there is no way to reasonably make the assertions you have... |
Don't be sorry Bick, you'll just be missing a big part of the reality - it's not controvercial. I don't think you understand what you're asking. If you are really interested, just read about urinary infections (UTI).
Let me do my best though. I'm not going to have any references because what I can give you will be articles on line with the info buried. It makes me sick reading them.
Like 2/3 of UTIs are from e coli. E coli comes from the bowel. Having an e coli infection doesn't mean you had your wiener near a colon though. You can also get on from catheterization or from other problems like changes. Woman get them a lot from ph change in the vagina.
Now, if someone IS diagnosed with a e coli uti, they rarely want their but activities recorded or even known. Also, people lie and the Dr. office, for some reason. About diet, drinking, smoking, how they got something stuck somewhere.........
As far as uti rates in homosexuals, this info is likely inexistent, inaccurate, or not available for posting on Frihost.
Further, an untreated e coli infection will eventually travel up the ureters and into the kidneys. It will them eat them alive.
Placing the penis in the anus will eventually allow bacterial to attach the urethra.
Like I said, if you're really interested do your own research. I've done more research on urinary crap than a person deserves and any more I do won't be on anything I don't need to.
If you know any medical professionals you can ask them, especially emergency workers. painful pissing = but sex I just feel bad for men with other urinary problem. They have to fight through the "it's ok, tell us about your but sex" before they're properly treated.
| Bickerman wrote: |
| Most often? When? Where? Now in Africa? 100 years ago in India? Without qualification these 'figures' are meaningless. |
Ummmm, YES? Do you actually want me to feed you a list? This is a universal thing. Don't you ever read anything about geology or anthropology? Human history? The Bible??
| Type - O wrote: |
| PS - why do you routinely alter my user-name in this way? Presumably as an insult? |
OOPS.... | horseatingweeds wrote: |
Don't be sorry Bick, you'll just be missing a big part of the reality - it's not controvercial. I don't think you understand what you're asking. If you are really interested, just read about urinary infections (UTI). |
I thought what I asked for was very clear...it was a ball park figure for infections causing kidney disease attributable to anal sex. I am well aware that certain infections are more likely if anal sex is practised, but your claim is that such infections mean that any homosexuals without antibiotics would have died early of kidney failure, which is a bit different to (for example) saying that 1% or 5% might have done so.
| Quote: |
Let me do my best though. I'm not going to have any references because what I can give you will be articles on line with the info buried. It makes me sick reading them. |
So the information is therefore useless since it cannot be checked, and there is little point. | Quote: |
| Like 2/3 of UTIs are from e coli. E coli comes from the bowel. Having an e coli infection doesn't mean you had your wiener near a colon though. You can also get on from catheterization or from other problems like changes. Woman get them a lot from ph change in the vagina. |
So this information is therefore completely useless in addressing the point in hand... | Quote: |
| Now, if someone IS diagnosed with a e coli uti, they rarely want their but activities recorded or even known. Also, people lie and the Dr. office, for some reason. About diet, drinking, smoking, how they got something stuck somewhere......... |
Yes, that would be a truism. How does this help?
| Quote: |
| As far as uti rates in homosexuals, this info is likely inexistent, inaccurate, or not available for posting on Frihost. |
Why would it not be available for Frihost in particular? In the absence of such figures one must therefore presume that your assertion is based on no actual data and unlikely to be correct.
| Quote: |
| Further, an untreated e coli infection will eventually travel up the ureters and into the kidneys. It will them eat them alive. |
Fine, but as you have already said, e-coli is transmitted via vaginal sex as well as anal sex and so this tells us nothing. E-coli also has other vectors which may or may not be more important than the sexual vector, particularly where food handling protocols are lax. Again in the absence of any proper data the fact that e-coli can/does cause kidney damage is not useful in supporting the assertion since it is not specific to anal-sex and we have no idea of what percentage would be infected anyway...
| Quote: |
| Placing the penis in the anus will eventually allow bacterial to attach the urethra. |
Yes, as placing it in the vagina will allow bacteria to attach to the womb and/or the bloodstream. That's why STDs tend to vector through both anal and vaginal sex. Nobody is denying the fact.
| Quote: |
| Like I said, if you're really interested do your own research. I've done more research on urinary crap than a person deserves and any more I do won't be on anything I don't need to. |
Well, if so it is rather disappointing that all we have seen are a collection of truisms with no specific data or references. I would have expected a researcher to have at least a few references to data used in the research..
| Quote: |
| If you know any medical professionals you can ask them, especially emergency workers. painful pissing = but sex I just feel bad for men with other urinary problem. They have to fight through the "it's ok, tell us about your but sex" before they're properly treated. |
I know a few but they are not making the claim that anal sex would have killed-off any homosexuals without access to antibiotics, you are.
| Quote: |
| Ummmm, YES? Do you actually want me to feed you a list? This is a universal thing. Don't you ever read anything about geology or anthropology? Human history? The Bible?? |
I read quite a lot but that does not change the fact that you have not answered the question. By all means feed me a list. When were mortality rates such that life expectancy was below 30 and how does this vary regionally?COME ON BIKE, SERIOUSLY.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I thought what I asked for was very clear...it was a ball park figure for infections causing kidney disease attributable to anal sex. I am well aware that certain infections are more likely if anal sex is practised, but your claim is that such infections mean that any homosexuals without antibiotics would have died early of kidney failure, which is a bit different to (for example) saying that 1% or 5% might have done so.
|
I didn't mean all. Most WOULD get infections. I also said most primitive people would die of other stuff earlier, before infection became deadly or chronic.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| So this information is therefore completely useless in addressing the point in hand... |
It can be check, YOU just need to do general reading. There are no lists I can give you. Many things are like this. gggg's
| Bikerman wrote: |
Yes, that would be a truism. How does this help?
|
Yes, it explains why I don't have a list for you.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Why would it not be available for Frihost in particular? In the absence of such figures one must therefore presume that your assertion is based on no actual data and unlikely to be correct.
|
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
It's not available for my just to post. There is likely data in medical journals but I don't have access to them and they are not for the general public. They contain personal data. Like who is having but sex.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Fine, but as you have already said, e-coli is transmitted via vaginal sex as well as anal sex and so this tells us nothing. E-coli also has other vectors which may or may not be more important than the sexual vector, particularly where food handling protocols are lax. Again in the absence of any proper data the fact that e-coli can/does cause kidney damage is not useful in supporting the assertion since it is not specific to anal-sex and we have no idea of what percentage would be infected anyway... |
Please Please Please Bikerman. I didn't say e coli is transmitted by the vagina. I said females often get e coli uit from their own vagina due to ph changes. THese changes occur around menstruation or in the presence of certain medications and antibiotics. What I'm telling you is a general universal understanding in the field of medicine. but sex -> urinary -> (infection != antibiotics) = kidney damage.
| Quote: |
| Yes, as placing it in the vagina will allow bacteria to attach to the womb and/or the bloodstream. That's why STDs tend to vector through both anal and vaginal sex. Nobody is denying the fact. |
It's obvious you have little understanding of human disease (this is not an attack on your or a flame). e coli doesn't travel at all like STD's. Yes, a man can get e coli from the vagina. This is extremely rare though. e coli is not suposed to be there in force but it can.
| Quote: |
| Well, if so it is rather disappointing that all we have seen are a collection of truisms with no specific data or references. I would have expected a researcher to have at least a few references to data used in the research.. |
Good glory. It's a general understanding. I didn't do research on e coli. If I did, it wouldn't mean I collected data nor that it is available for bill boards.
| Quote: |
I know a few but they are not making the claim that anal sex would have killed-off any homosexuals without access to antibiotics, you are. |
Am I? No. I'm saying that primitive societies could get away with it because they would die from other crap before.
| Quote: |
| I read quite a lot but that does not change the fact that you have not answered the question. By all means feed me a list. When were mortality rates such that life expectancy was below 30 and how does this vary regionally? |
Honestly, I wouldn't mind putting something together, even though I have better things to do, and that fertility is understood to be important to most societies by anyone who cares, but it would be like throeing the list in a paper shredder. If you really care take a look yourself. I'm starting to think you use "give me hard date" as a debate tactic. I'm uninterested in debate. I like coming here to learn and test my ideas.
Beating simple truths into people like but sex -> e col and importance of fertility is a total wast of time. What the hell is wrong with me?
If you want to discuse the actual subject Bick, thats fine. I'm not making myself sick thinking anout utis any more. I have posted a message that was put as "a little off", due to religion issues.
I re-adjusted it to avoid any mention of religion.
Why stealing is wrong? Why lying is wrong? Why cheating is wrong?
Why sleeping with another same sex and transmitting AIDS is wrong? Why killing another person is wrong? Why engaging in adnormal sexuality with animals are wrong?
Where does the very first person or group of people first created the rules decided that these are wrong?
These are viewed wrong - way BEFORE ANY religion rules are written.
(I am not talking religion, but before religion - is that OK?)
Who put these moral rules in man's mind and consensus? (how did it got wired into humanity?)
Can you discuss moral issue without moral law?
How did you guage so many other issues in life as right and wrong?
Ha, I did not mention any religion, but would highlight, that humanity recognise moral laws and decide based on them. If you recognise you are a moral being, seek out where it comes from? From the source, find out is it right or wrong for homosexuality to exist? Root Cause Analysis.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| I didn't mean all. Most WOULD get infections. I also said most primitive people would die of other stuff earlier, before infection became deadly or chronic. |
Well, you said | Quote: |
| This means if you’re a gay man without access to antibiotics you'll die of renal failure. |
But let's assume that you merely chose your words badly and meant most. You have provided no support for the assertion. I could equally well have made a statement such as 'only 1% of gay men without.........'. I wouldn't, of course, because I cannot support it and it is therefore, at best, a wild guess. That's the point really - your statement about 'most' is equally valid - ie not at all valid.
| Quote: |
| Please Please Please Bikerman. I didn't say e coli is transmitted by the vagina. I said females often get e coli uit from their own vagina due to ph changes. THese changes occur around menstruation or in the presence of certain medications and antibiotics. What I'm telling you is a general universal understanding in the field of medicine. but sex -> urinary -> (infection != antibiotics) = kidney damage. |
You are correct - you didn't say via the vagina so I retract that. Otherwise the point is exactly the same - without some distinction between the rates in different population samples, there is no useful data to make any statement about, let alone a specific statement like yours.. | Quote: |
| It's obvious you have little understanding of human disease (this is not an attack on your or a flame). e coli doesn't travel at all like STD's. Yes, a man can get e coli from the vagina. This is extremely rare though. e coli is not suposed to be there in force but it can. |
I didn't say anything to the contrary, certainly not that e-coli travels like other STDs. I made the point that just as bacteria can travel via the anus to the urethra, so bacteria can travel through the vagina to the womb or into the bloodstream and that this is why STDs generally vector through both anal and vaginal sex. The point was general, not specific to e-coli, and remains valid.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Well, if so it is rather disappointing that all we have seen are a collection of truisms with no specific data or references. I would have expected a researcher to have at least a few references to data used in the research.. |
Good glory. It's a general understanding. I didn't do research on e coli. If I did, it wouldn't mean I collected data nor that it is available for bill boards.
|
A general understanding with no references or support you can provide? General understandings, if indeed it is so, can be wrong, quite often. Even if correct it still doesn't adress the issue. I have already conceded that anal sex is likely to lead to infection in some cases. The issue is your assertion that this is, or would be without treatment, MOST cases (originally all cases but I've accepted that you didn't mean that and taken your stated meaning above). Most cases means an infection rate of over 50% and I see no reason to believe that is any more valid that any other figure one could pluck out of the air. | Quote: |
Am I? No. I'm saying that primitive societies could get away with it because they would die from other crap before. |
OK, I accept that you are saying that a majority of gay men would contract kidney disease but, where life expectancy was sufficiently low, avoid dying from it because they would die from other causes. It still takes the debate no further because you are unable to provide any material or data to show that the numbers are even statistically significant, let alone that the infection rate would be above 50%. | Quote: |
| Honestly, I wouldn't mind putting something together, even though I have better things to do, and that fertility is understood to be important to most societies by anyone who cares, but it would be like throeing the list in a paper shredder. If you really care take a look yourself. I'm starting to think you use "give me hard date" as a debate tactic. I'm uninterested in debate. I like coming here to learn and test my ideas. |
I have never suggested that fertility was not important, I suggested that there are other factors and that these become more or less important, depending on the definition you use of good and bad when talking about what is good for a society.
I usually ask for data/references only when people make specific claims like you have done, and do so simply to test the claim to see if it is either credible or likely. Opinion is one thing, but when people make statements of 'fact' which reference specific numbers or number ranges then they should be at least prepared to give some clue as to why this should be taken seriously. You have not or cannot do so and that is the point I was seeking to get at. The point is now made that the assertion is made without credible evidence or support, and should therefore be treated with scepticism, certainly not taken at face value.
The statistics on life expectancy are pretty easy to come by so I don't understand why you didn't just provide them...why that would be anything like shredding a list I can't imagine. The stats are relevant because your contention is that unless males died of other causes then most would have died of infection caused by anal sex. It would be useful, therefore, to have some baselines for average age, before moving on to consider mortality for the infections concerned and considering at what age the infection would become significant. In the event this is not necessary because there is no reason to support the original assertion about infection rates was correct so it is unnecessary to go on and look at the effects that such infections would have.
You are uninterested in debate, you say. How, therefore do you test your ideas? I presume that you simply make any point you feel like, stick in whatever stats or numbers would support the point and then expect the point to be conceded? Is that it? | shenyl wrote: |
I have posted a message that was put as "a little off", due to religion issues.
I re-adjusted it to avoid any mention of religion.
Why stealing is wrong? Why lying is wrong? Why cheating is wrong?
Why sleeping with another same sex and transmitting AIDS is wrong? |
Why do you conflate the two? This implies that transmitting aids via gay sex morally different to transmitting it via straight sex? Surely the issues are separate - the morality of sexuality and being gay is one issue and the morality of infecting another person (without informing them of the risk, presumably) is another issue. Conflating the two in this way is to suggest that either you think that AIDS is transmitted only by gay sex.. | Bikerman wrote: |
| You are uninterested in debate, you say. How, therefore do you test your ideas? I presume that you simply make any point you feel like, stick in whatever stats or numbers would support the point and then expect the point to be conceded? Is that it? |
Debate is a useless contest where you simple atempt to come out looking like a winner. Debates have rules and ways to score regardless of actual validity. I like discusion. Discussion with people educated and intelligent to understand simple basic things without me gathering numerical data.
I don't want to talk about urinary infection anymore. I don't have data to support it. All I have is conversations with some of the most brilliant urologists in the US, and my brother, the neurologist. Oh yeah, I also know some numb-nut HMO slaves. These HMO people are the ones who will brand you a but lover for any urinary problem until proved otherwise.
It's a simple fact Bike. e coli infection will eventually cause renal failure. It you paricipate in but love you are exposed to e coli in that region. Eventually, you will be infected with e coli. without antibiotics, you will not likely be freed form the infection.
Non of this info needs statistics. It is simple logic based on fact. If you cross the street blindfolded, eventually you will suffer trauma. I don't have statistics for this. I bet $Frih 1000 if you can post some.
Anyway, I don't feel you are sincerely interested in this discusion. You seem only motivated to annoy me about things I simply take for granted as simple fact. There are too many unknowns to explore to waste time informing you, despite you resistance, to simple universal fact, cause and effect logic.
As for anyone actually interested in the discussion, I think homosexuality might be classified as wrong, not because it causes direct harm, but because it prevents benefits to the homosexual's society. By society I refer to the average society throughout humanity.
We can get away with all kinds of thing now, and I don't think we should oppress homosexuals in a modern society such as the US, for many this seems best for them.
However, we won't always be so comfortable. One day we'll need strong young dedicated men again. And in this day, we will likely have to replace them.
There is also the argumant of social structure. The nuclear family being the foundation of this. Allowing homosexuals to adopt currently would be quit handy, we have plenty of iresponsible people making babies.
I believe in accepting people for who they are. I also believe in sacrificing for one's society. A strong society, after all, is best for the individual, gay or not.If homosexuality can be determined morally wrong because some homosexuals practice anal sex, of which some practice unsafe anal sex, of which some contract escherichia coli, then by the same logic people who defecate are morally wrong, because some of those persons would wipe after defecation, some of whom would wipe from back to front, some of whom would contract e coli.
Also, some of those that would defecate would then not wash their hands, some of whom would have the e coli bacteria on their hands as a result, some of whom would pass the bacteria onto another person, some of those other persons then falling ill.
It would be pointless to try and debate that anal intercourse is just as safe as conventionally heterosexual intercourse – because it is true that it carries higher risks. How-ever anal sex should not be seen as a deviant practice partaken in only by homosexuals.
(Of those studied in the UK) one third of homosexual couples stated that they did not engage in anal sex at all, and one third of heterosexual couples stated that they practiced anal sex semi-regularly. Due to the smaller number of homosexual persons within the population, there are in fact, in absolute numbers, more heterosexuals who practice anal sex than homosexuals.
Also, due to human tendency, it is likely a homosexual coupel would be more frank in admitting the practice on the survey, and a heterosexual couple would be less likely.
Also, there is more to anal intercourse than simply penetration via the male genitalia – if one is to consider such practices as rimming, fisting, and the use of sexual aids – also further practiced by heterosexual couples than homosexual.
As such that one would immediately come to the conclusion that a case of e coli would originate from homosexual intercourse seems a little presumptuous and on the basis of nothing more than urban myth.
It is more than possible to practice safe anal sex via taking the correct precautions – just as one must with heterosexual sex. One can use muscle relaxants, thicker and strengthened condoms, etcetera (I’m hardly the expert on what’s out there, so there are no doubt father specialised prodcuts).
Also, (at least in Australia) it is approximately one in four homosexual persons who are either “infected by” or “carriers” of STI’s, sexual bacteria, etcetera. In heterosexual’s the statistics place infection rates at one in five (thus making a homosexual only 5% more likely to contract any STI/bacteria/etc than a heterosexual).
As such, the validity and security of anal sex is completely irrelevant to the validity, security and ultimate morality of homosexual relationships. It is possible for a male homosexual to abstain from anal sex and find sexual gratification through other methods of intercourse.
Then of course, one has to consider the number of female homosexuals (lesbians), who are just as relevant to this discussion as the male homosexuals. As they are far less likely to partake in anal (let alone anal to oral) intercourse than either a heterosexual couple or homosexual male, the anal sex argument should scarcely be used in determining the right or wrong of their sexuality. And you could hardly condone, or rather remain neutral on, female homosexuality whilst condemning the male.
Also – I would personally, philosophically, consider it a stretch to immeadiately brand everything physically harmful as morally wrong. Would be consider smoking morally wrong? What about skateboarding, skiing, bungee jumping? They all carry a high degree of risk to physical harm.
If we have to stick to medical risk – then would we consider drinking water that isn’t sterilised morally wrong?
I personally wouldn’t even compare those things to homosexuality in that homosexuality’s alternative is only 5% safer, unless you are to view abstinence as an option.
Then if one is to use the argument that homosexuals cannot reproduce – then it must be taken into consideration that many homosexuals still want children, either adopting, in male couples finding a surrogate mother or in female couples through the use of IVF. That I suppose though, is opening an entirely new can of worms, so instead of blatant surrogates and IVF I should also mention that many homosexual coupels partake in heterosexual sex that once of twice necessary for procreation and then alow nature to take it’s course.
To state that we need every male and female in the population to be procreating for the survival of the species is grabbing at straws. Even in history, it is only some, not all, communities that had a strong emphasis on procreation. Many small islands, Tibeten communities and even in those in Africa bringing up homosexuals as the opposite sex (then allowed to marry to the same sex).
And if we are to look at history, I would in fact see the facts as proof that homosexuality is something naturally inherent. Why else would some have prevailed in homosexuality in the face of persecution, gross discrimination and death? Even in some modern societies sodomy still carries the death penalty.
I also suppose not showering, eating only home grown foods, enlisting in the military, donating all my excess income to charity (nay working only for charity), and many more highly instantaneously unpracticable activities would be highly beneficial to my society. But no, I'm highly non-contributive and practice nothing highly constructive.... but hey, at least my heterosexuality will pop out a baby one day. Wait scratch that, bisexuality - that clever little niche where a homosexual may willingly procreate that hasn't yet been touched on.
I’m sure this post has been all over the place, but I hope I’ve at least provoked some thought – and I’m looking forward to the reply. I’m quite proud of the discussion this thread has spawned so far. Well, not proud, but impressed.
Last edited by blackheart on Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:40 pm; edited 3 times in total
OK...before anyone reads through and starts to tear into this, let me first say that I am not a medical person of any sort and have never conducted or written up a medical study or anything like it. Consequently this is probably going to be flawed on several levels and may contain some howlers. If it does then please point them out and I'll try to remedy them - obviously suggestions to that end will be gratefully received with any criticism. Bear in mind also that I had a couple of hours to knock this up so it is likely to contain typos and other errors of grammar/syntax as well as perhaps more serious errors of content....
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Debate is a useless contest where you simple atempt to come out looking like a winner. Debates have rules and ways to score regardless of actual validity. I like discusion. Discussion with people educated and intelligent to understand simple basic things without me gathering numerical data. |
<x>Debate is a system requiring people to support their assertions, not simply make statements they claim are true, with no supporting evidence. I don't like that. I like people who do not challenge unfounded assertions because that is much easier and I can claim anything I like is a fact. Because they agree with me, such people are obviously intelligent and educated as opposed to those who challenge me who must therefore be stupid and ignorant.<x> | Quote: |
| I don't want to talk about urinary infection anymore. I don't have data to support it. All I have is conversations with some of the most brilliant urologists in the US, and my brother, the neurologist. Oh yeah, I also know some numb-nut HMO slaves. These HMO people are the ones who will brand you a but lover for any urinary problem until proved otherwise. |
<x>I cannot support my assertion that the majority of those practising anal sex will become infected with e-coli which left untreated would destroy their kidneys. I will, therefore, try to imply that all professionals agree with my assertion by saying that I am in discussion with many of them.<x> | Quote: |
| It's a simple fact Bike. e coli infection will eventually cause renal failure. It you paricipate in but love you are exposed to e coli in that region. Eventually, you will be infected with e coli. without antibiotics, you will not likely be freed form the infection. |
<x>Why don't you just believe me when I say that anal sex will inevitably lead to e-coli? I have said it is the case therefore it must be a fact.<x>
| Quote: |
| Non of this info needs statistics. It is simple logic based on fact. If you cross the street blindfolded, eventually you will suffer trauma. I don't have statistics for this. I bet $Frih 1000 if you can post some. |
<x>I have no statistics therefore I will simply state that the assertion is true again and imply that anyone who does not accept it does not understand simple logic.<x>
| Quote: |
| Anyway, I don't feel you are sincerely interested in this discusion. You seem only motivated to annoy me about things I simply take for granted as simple fact. There are too many unknowns to explore to waste time informing you, despite you resistance, to simple universal fact, cause and effect logic. |
<x>You have asked me to provide evidence for detailed claims that I make -this is unfair and annoying. I will therefore try to smear you by claiming you are not interested in the discussion, despite your previous postings, and implying that that you don't understand simple facts, despite me having provided no facts to understand.<x>
OK....now let's try some facts.
Background Fact
Kidney disorder caused by e-coli (70-90%), and other (10-30%) bacterial infections are known medically as acute pyelonephritis.
Fundamental point to test.
"If you 19re a gay man without access to antibiotics you'll die of renal failure."
Modifications - this is modified to allow for 'most' rather than the implicit 'all' and the possibility that the subject might die from other causes must be considered and factored out in some way. The modified assertion, therefore, reads :
If you are a 19yr old gay man without access to antibiotics you will most likely die from renal failure if you do not first die from other causes
I think this is a generous interpretation of the original assertion and summarises fairly the intended as well as stated meaning.
Limitations and weaknesses
1) I have no mechanism to check reporting accuracy in chosen papers and studies so I must rely on the authors to have done so. Because of this I have tried to select sources which are both reputable and, where appropriate, give as full an experimental protocol as possible.
2) This relies entirely on second-hand data. There is no way around this - I haven't the time to conduct a proper study so this will have to do.
3) There is no statistical analysis. True - in most cases it is not needed because I am trying to test a yes/no assertion and although it would be useful to have certainty limits and confidence boundaries, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to provide these accurately because of the diverse nature of the data and the sources. Better to leave them out entirely than mislead by including incorrect measures.
Testable implications/indicators of the main assertion
1 E-coli UTIs will infect a large majority of those who indulge in anal-sex as an absolute percentage, and in relation to those indulging in vaginal sex.
2 The prevalence of e-coli UTIs will be higher in homosexual males than in heterosexuals of both sexes. Alternatively vaginal and anal sex will show markedly different transmission rates for e-coli UTIs.
3 Without antibiotic treatment this e-coli UTI will almost inevitably develop into pyelonephritis which will destroy the kidneys or damage them so badly that death will follow (supposing the sufferer does not die first of other causes).
I would expect to see all 3 indicators present for the assertion to be true. If one or more is not present then the assertion must be in serious doubt. If non of the indicators are present then the assertion can be considered invalid.
Note - If other population segments (either female or male heterosexual) have comparable rates of pyelonephritis, this does not in itself disprove the main assertion but if the assertion is to hold true in this light then there must be some factor which means that homosexual males will suffer death at a higher rate than the other population for this condition -we would therefore expect to see higher mortality rates per x infections.
Implication/Indicator 1 - E-coli UTI's more prevalent in those indulging in anal-sex rather than vaginal sex
There is not a huge amount of direct data on anal-sex rates of infection compared with vaginal sex rates of infection for e-coli UTI. Two studies that I did find on this are:
The prevalence of urinary tract infection among homosexuals was therefore similar to that in the heterosexual population.
Reports that the prevalence of UTI in homosexual men is greater than in heterosexual men are unconfirmed.
Neither are, however, particularly complete or detailed. There is, however, plenty of data on gender based infection rates for both e-coli UTIs and the possibly resulting pyelonephritis.
In short, E-coli UTIs are very significantly more common (many times so) in females than in males, as are recurrence rates. The stats for the US, for example are:
From 1988-1994, there were an estimated 12.7 million UTIs annually in women according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III. ([i]ie 12.7*12 million = 152.4 million in total). In men, the estimated incidence for the same period was 2 million UTIs.
Source - http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic2843.htm
The conclusion is inevitably, therefore, that the 1st implication/indicator counter-indicated. There is a far higher incidence of e-coli UTIs in females than males. Given that there seems to be little or no evidence that anal sex is a more efficient infection route than vaginal sex*, it is an unwarranted and unsupportable assumption that anal sex is more likely than vaginal sex to result in e-coli UTIs (and any associated complications, including pyelonephritis), than is vaginal sex. Whilst this cannot be definitely ruled-out, the available evidence is to the contrary with no supporting evidence I could find.
In conclusion this must remain unlikely but unproven.
Implication 2 - greater incidence of e-coli infection in homosexual males than in heterosexual females and males
No further analysis is needed to state categorically that this is undoubtedly false. There is a far higher rate of both e-coli UTIs and the possible resultant complication pyelonephritis in females than in either homosexual or heterosexual males. Adult women are approximately 30 times more likely to suffer UTIs than adult males. There is no doubt that this is due to a variety of causes other than sexual intercourse but this is not significant. The significant point is that one would, therefore, expect female mortality rates of a similar proportion compared to male homosexual mortality. The second significance is that I have found no conclusive evidence, either, that the heterosexual male population has a lower rate of such UTI/pyelonephritis than the homosexual population. There is some disagreement here and the picture seems to be undecided. The passage below is fairly typical....
| Quote: |
| A small group of 15- to 50-year-old men experience recurrent infection (usually caused by Escherichia coli-[e-coli]) despite otherwise good health and a normal urinary tract. There are reports of transmission of bacteria from sex with an infected female partner. The evidence for an association with anal intercourse is weak, and risk factors may not be identifiable. As in women, if left untreated, any male UTI may eventually be transmitted to the upper tracts, resulting in pyelonephritis. |
* Source - http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1044-3983(199503)6%3A2%3C162%3AFUTIAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E
Given the additional fact that no evidence has been found that vaginal sex is more or less likely to transmit e-coli UTIs than anal sex, the only reasonable conclusion is that the indicator is not found and there is no evidence for a higher rate of either e-coli UTIs or pyelonephritis in the homosexual male population at present.
http://sti.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/62/3/189
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1233927
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/action/showFullText?submitFullText=Full+Text+HTML&doi=10.1046%2Fj.1464-410X.2001.02377-5.x&cookieSet=1
Conclusion. Indicator not present.
Implication 3 - pyelonephritis will almost inevitably result and be fatal if the male lives long enough to avoid other causes of death, and is not treated with antibiotics
It is not possible to give a figure for mortality rates for those with pyelonephritis because obviously such patients would routinely be treated with modern antibiotics. It is possible, however, to give some indicative figures for the progression from an e-coli UTI to the pyelonephritis and to note that the rates of pyelonephritis in women is far higher than that in males. Such mortality figures as I have found for patients indicates that current mortality rates are not significantly gender dependant, with woman and men suffering about the same levels of mortality (some studies put it higher for men (about 14:9) others more equal. Hospitalisation rates are generally 4 to 5 times greater for women than men. This does not fit with the main assertion unless there is some hidden factor at work, because the implication is that male homosexuals would suffer similar mortality to females in total. Thus we would expect to see this reflected by population decreases. If we add the complicating factor that pyelonephritis causes significant infant mortality if present during pregnancy (and the incidence today is as high as 8% for such women), then the assertion begins to look very shaky.
At this point there is a further complication, however.
Rates for Pyelonephritis tend to spike in old(er)-age - post 65 especially. This makes it entirely possible that, failing all else, Pyelonephritis may well eventually have killed many homosexual men. Here too, though, the rates for women are highest and the rates for homosexual and heterosexual men are not
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic2843.htm
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000201/713.html
Other important considerations to stress here :
i. Pyelonephritis is significantly more common in females than in males. This separation narrows considerably with increasing age, especially in patients aged 65 years and older. Quantitative information regarding bacteriuria and UTI reflects this observation about pyelonephritis (see Frequency).
ii. The prevalence rate of bacteriuria in young non-pregnant women is 1-3%. The prevalence rate in adult men is less than or equal to 0.1%. After age 65 years, the prevalence rates for women and men are 20% and 10%, respectively. Approximately 10-30% of women develop a symptomatic UTI at some point in their lives.
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic2843.htm
Although the mortality rate cannot be determined, there is no reason to suppose that more men than women would have died of this condition in previous times; indeed modern experience is that the opposite is the case - many more women than men die from the condition today, given similar medication, and rates of mortality show no significant difference based on gender.
Amendment - I have since found 2 studies which contradict this and claim a mortality rate of 16:8 for men:women.
The actual mortality rate in historical times is not knowable and the effect of short life expectancy is no doubt important, but this simply leads to the assumption that if all or most homosexual men would have died from kidney disease if they had not died from other causes, the same must apply to a very large proportion of women. I know of no way to test this reliably. *
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/160/10/985
Conclusion the indicator is not found to be present. There is only circumstantial evidence, however, so this must remain unproven although the strong balance of probabilities is that it is false.
Overall conclusion. It is difficult to see how the assertion can be supported given the evidence available. 1 indicator is definitely against the assertion and a generous interpretation of the other 2 would be that they are unproven but unlikely.
There is, therefore, no obvious support for the assertion and quite significant evidence to the contrary. Whilst it is not possible to say that the statement is definitely wrong, it can certainly be said to be so with a fairly high degree of confidence.
*An alternative possibility is that homosexual men would indeed have died eventually from kidney failure, as would most women and significant numbers of heterosexual men. This could only be proven or refuted by forensic evidence from historical sources, including, I imagine, tissue samples. It would be a difficult if not impossible task to come up with meaningful figures, I suspect.
<Post adapted to the frihost rules>
Last edited by Bikerman on Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:38 pm; edited 6 times in total | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Dalv87 wrote: | | All sex can spread STDs, and how is damaging your own rectum morally wrong anyway? |
Come on Dalv, keep up. What's more morally wrong that damaging your or you lover's body? |
Giving them AIDS, which anyone can do regardless of sexual orientation, for example? It's with consent anyway, so why do you care what they do?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| And e coli ain't an STD. You have in up there you know.... |
Of course e coli isn't an STD, but how is that relevant?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Dalv87 wrote: | In modern society though, one might call reproduction a privilege. The world isn't lacking in people, it's lacking in resources to provide those people, meaning that by reproducing you're adding another mouth, which might harm others because it takes from what they might have. Gay people cause no such problems.
That aside, even if we were short on people, no one has any particular obligation to add to the population. |
You missed it. I wasn't speaking of modern society. |
Then you weren't talking about the situation we actually live in today.
| Quote: |
| In primitive society, YES, you are obligated to make kids. Whether for your own preservation or as a duty to your tribe. Like planting farms or fighting in battles. |
Planting food or fighting will help protect people, I don't see why you're saying that means you have to make new people.Okay, I've read most of whats been discussed since I've last posted... And I have yet to see anyone mention anything bad about homosexual women. Why is this? Male sex is bad but female sex isn't?
Not to mention the fact that one or two people are saying, "anal sex is bad" and it seems that anal sex is only being applied to male homosexuals. Theres not a damn thing wrong with anal sex. As long as you keep yourself clean and do it the right way, then you shouldn't have any problems. I've had it myself, and I'm aware that there are possibilities of infection, etc, but there's also some of the same chance of infection with non circumsized men. Since that's the case, women should stop having sex with uncircumsized men as well? Honestly...
And let's not forget that (unless they're using toys) women don't have anal sex. So it's okay for women? How does that work?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Of course not. Getting food is the 'be-all-end-all' in primitive society. To have food you need land and people to gather it. You need to protect it too. This requires strong young people. These strong young people are not strong for long so they must make babies while they can. These babies grow up and care for their parents. Fertility maintains social security. |
Whether your description is accurate is debatable, but immaterial. The fact is that there are no societies currently on earth that are not either developed, or suffering from overpopulation or excess population growth. In fact, the world is already overpopulated to the extent that all humans on Earth cannot live in a state of comfort.
| Quote: |
| modern society is rare |
On the contrary, all societies on Earth are modern societies. Extant pre-industrial societies are still modern societies. Discussing historic and pre-historic societies is pointless, as those societies, and their concerns, exist no longer. The unfortunate costs of high birth rates and population explosions are being borne by the least developed countries in the world today. Birth rates remain high and unequaled by death rates, despite the prevalence of density-dependent mortality factors such as HIV, which is rampant in developing nations and transmitted principally by vaginal sex. The consequences are increased marginalization, famine, suffering, and irreversible loss of overtaxed farmland.
| Quote: |
| People in modern societies can do what they want without consequences. We can eat until we weight 1000 pounds, it doesn't hurt anyone else. (actually, it does but not directly enough for anyone to care) We can produce huge amounts of crap we don't need, polluting primitive societies and releasing carcinogens into the air...Similarly, we in our modern society are an aristocracy to the world over time. They have suffered to get us here, they suffer now from our exploitation, and they will suffer in the future from our using up and pollution. |
I agree. There are too many of us, and we use too many resources (it would take 3 planets to fuel 6 billion people who lived like Americans). We should work to limit reproduction. David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist, believs that the stable population of the Earth is 2 billion people. At that level, we would be able to maintain a high quality of life for all residents of the earth, through management of food and a working infrastructure for delivering needed food and medicine.
| Quote: |
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: | | If the ancient importance of fecundity means that fecundity is important in modern life, does that mean that the second most important thing is to not get eaten by lions? I'll spend the rest of my life having lots of unprotected sex and looking out for lions. |
What you’re saying here makes no sense to me. Reading it, I feel you are insinuating that I would advocate something obviously illogical in an effort to attack my intelligence.
Honestly, I don't mind being insulted. But do it with a little more whit. I never said fertility is important to modern society. Also, if I believed it was, that would equate to other aspects of primitive society being important to modern.
Eating food IS important to modern society just like primitive. Yet, watching out for lions, somehow, is not. So please my dear friend and fellow frihoster Gangnar Teh Unruly, keep it in a wrapper and don't worry some much about lions, but keep eating food.
Again, modern society has developed new mechanisms to free us from such. |
My point is, we cannot base our current sense of morality on what we thought was important to prehistoric cultures. Why should we arbitrarily focus on continuous reproduction when we could arbitrarily focus on something else that we think was important to our long-ago ancestors? An emphasis on fecundity is anachronistic. Also, there are other ways a person can benefit a society, even a pre-industrial society, than by having babies. Homosexual men can still be "strong, young [and] dedicated" contributers to society even without having children or having sex with women -- to say nothing of homosexual women.Bikerman, your just missing some basics that would make this whole question obvious. You can't compare women to men. Women get uti's for two resons.
1. Short urethra
2. Vaginal flora
Men, as a rule, are not susceptible to uti unless there is an additional mechanism involved. Why? Because the male urethra is very long and there is no natural area close to its opening that promotes bacteria. Not just e coli, there is also staff and pseudomonas.
It’s difficult for men to get a uti. It almost only happens as a result of a urinary catheter or other activities. Patients rarely will disuse these other activities though. Using logic, when the infection is e coli, somehow a bowel bacteria made its way from some bowel, all the way up the urethra. How else would this happen?
Such infections untreated will eventually move into the kidney. Not always though. Sometimes the body can fight it off but this is increasingly rare with e coli only mutating and growing stronger and human immunity generally weakening.
Also, without antibiotics, such as in primitive societies, the body would have a beter chance at clearing the infection due to increased immunity.
There are other causes of such infection but these are rare. Some people are highly susceptible to ifection for other reasons.
I'll leave you to believe what you want. I;m tired of explaining basics. Like I said, do just a pinch of research on the urinary track and UTI and you'll understand.
Gagnar The Unruly
Again, I refer to non-modern society as it is where 99.99999% of humanity has lived. Our modern society just started a moment ago and will be over soon enough. We are the aristocracy of future history. Basing our morals on what we see today as fine and comfortable will not give us a sure moral compass.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Basing our morals on what we see today as fine and comfortable will not give us a sure moral compass. |
Then where do we start? Where's the line drawn? And what culture do we pick? Some culture from 2000 years ago? 6000 years ago? 500000 yeras ago? 3.5 million years ago? Cultural diversity was high in pre-industrial and nomadic cultures. If we go back, say, 3000 years, the issues faced by, as well as the lifestyles of, plains Americans were dramatically different than those living in Sweden, from those living in the great stone-age cities in central and south america, or from those in the metal age cities in Greece, Sumeria, and Egypt.
Perhaps for some very small agrarian tribe on edge of self-sustainance and in danger of extinction, survival meant fecundity. A northern nomadic tribe might have to be more careful with the frequency and timing of childbirth, as children might have represented a significant liability and burden. People living in cities may have been faced with overpopulation even back then. Many modern pre-industrial societies are expreiencing unwanted growth. Birth rates in modern pre-industrial populations, given the option of safe contraceptive methods, are plummeting. It seems that people, once thought to value fecundity as a form of wealth, are independently deciding to have fewer children. Fecundity may actually be a by-product of other cultural phenomena, not the end towards which members of those cultures are striving (witness the demographic-economic paradox).
I think an important component in acting in a morally responsible way is doing what's best for the society you're living in, and paying your obligations to that society. I think this is consistent across all cultures and people, past and present. In modern times, one responsibility we have is to limit reproduction, and I suspect that it will always be important from here on out. I don't think that 6 billion people are going anywhere any time soon.
There is nothing about homosexuality that is detrimental to society. In fact, I feel that expression of homosexuality is a positive thing. It improves our culture by adding diversity, by forcing people to re-asses gender-roles and sex issues, and by allowing people to live in a way that is in accordance with their personal desire for love and understanding.
* It's also noteworthy that humans have not lately been riding on the bubble of life and death. The human population has been exploding at a more than exponential rate for literally thousands of years. The rate is faster now than it ever has been, but it has almost always been more than exponential. Humans have never had a problem reproducing enough. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
Bikerman, your just missing some basics that would make this whole question obvious. You can't compare women to men. Women get uti's for two resons.
1. Short urethra
2. Vaginal flora |
Well, actually for 3 - the most significant reported factor (according to the Lancet and the BMI) - female anatomy has the urethra and anus much closer together than in the male male and this is significant, but I agree with the above, and I see that you have mentioned this difference below, so, yes, I agree, but no, I don't think I missed the point. I had actually written the lengths of the relative urethras down (1.5inch for female and 8 inch for male), and gone through these factors in my previous posting, but edited it down before posting, because it doesn't actually change the conclusions | Quote: |
Men, as a rule, are not susceptible to uti unless there is an additional mechanism involved. Why? Because the male urethra is very long and there is no natural area close to its opening that promotes bacteria. Not just e coli, there is also staff and pseudomonas. |
Yes..again that is true and I agree...I still don't see what I've missed but let's proceed...
| Quote: |
| It’s difficult for men to get a uti. It almost only happens as a result of a urinary catheter or other activities. Patients rarely will disuse these other activities though. Using logic, when the infection is e coli, somehow a bowel bacteria made its way from some bowel, all the way up the urethra. How else would this happen? |
Quite a few ways actually. One of the mistakes is to assume that faecal matter is the only source of infection. It's not. e-coli occurs naturally in several parts of the body apart from in the lower intestines. In fact the most common cause of male e-coli UTI in older men is known as asymptomatic bacteriuria and is caused by the prostate gland partially blocking urine flow, causing the bladder to become a better breeding site for e-coli which then colonise it in high concentrations. The bladder becomes infected with e-coli that would normally exist in much smaller numbers and be controlled by repeated 'flushing' during normal urination.
Another very common cause in men is congenital defect. In fact it is this, not anal sex, according to most of the journals and articles I have read, that would be a doctors first check in an otherwise healthy male reporting symptoms of e-coli uti. The main abnormalities which would predispose to this would be a prolapsed bladder and 'diverticula' or imperfections in the urethra wall which allow bacteria to collect and multiply. Many journal articles list congenital defect as easily the most common cause of male UTI. (Recently this has been linked with circumcision): http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/
Again there is no necessity for direct passage of faecal matter to transport the e-coli because small colonies already exist in various parts of the body and it is these bladder-living e-coli that eventually multiply because of a problem. All this, however, is completely besides the point.
| Quote: |
| Such infections untreated will eventually move into the kidney. Not always though. Sometimes the body can fight it off but this is increasingly rare with e coli only mutating and growing stronger and human immunity generally weakening. |
At which point the infection is known as pyelonephritis......I've already gone through this...the exact number that go on from a lower infection to develop pyelonephritis is impossible to gauge because, obviously, patients are immediately given antibiotics when known and so there is no control or reference group which could give an indication. However we have at last arrived at a point where I can re-iterate the argument I made at the end of the previous posting in proper context...We agree that:
1) Women are far more prone to e-coli infection than men. Current estimates in the US put the figure as low as 20% and as high as 50% of women that will experience UID of this type at least once.
2) As you say, this will very often move into the kidneys without antibiotic treatment.
3) As you also say, once in the kidneys then without antibiotics the prognosis is not good.
Now, the conclusion you draw from this is that homosexual sex in males is a luxury of the age of antibiotics.
The corollary that I made in the previous posting is that you could express that slightly differently and with more certainty of being correct with a simple change: women are dependant on the age of antibiotics.
We know that women have a massive rate of the kidney killer disease, right now - for sure with no doubts, no extrapolations and no assumptions required. According to the logic you present, therefore, without antibiotics many (perhaps even a majority) of women would die of kidney disease, if not from other causes first.
The claim about homosexual men is far less clear cut and requires assumptions which do not seem to be borne out in the literature and studies, but the case here is not in debate (aside from an exact percentage). It would certainly wipe out over 1/4, maybe 1/2 of the women (or population producing capability) in 1 generation, perhaps a much higher percentage When we now couple that to your other point - that low life expectancy societies need women to have 5 or so children, and fecundity is clearly critical, well, then we arrive at an obvious conclusion I think.
There are no women. They obviously died out centuries ago and what we think are women are just our deluded imaginations driven by grief.
The grief itself, though, is an illusion, since man also went extinct about 79 years after the last women died in the renal ward in Chester, in 1705.
We are just figments of our own imaginations, logical impossibilities, the victims of impossible logicalities.If the "unnatural arguement" is so pathetic, answer me this, if we put all the gay men on 1 island and all the gay woman on another Island so that they can be as gay as they like how long would this island last? If you can tell me how they will survive 1 generation I would be very impressed. I have read nothing, you shouldn't call people pathetic or their arguments pathetic based solely on the basis that they have an opinion that is different to yours.
So forget all the religous questions, and answer 1 simple question, would the gay population of these islands last beyond a generation?
Gagnar The Unruly wrote:
| Quote: |
There is nothing about homosexuality that is detrimental to society. In fact, I feel that expression of homosexuality is a positive thing. It improves our culture by adding diversity, by forcing people to re-asses gender-roles and sex issues, and by allowing people to live in a way that is in accordance with their personal desire for love and understanding.
|
What is the measurement of homosexuality is not detrimental to society?
Is it based on the perspective, that physically there is little harm?
What about the societal (people to people, family, society) relationship perspective? Harm can be physical, emotional as well as the longer term sociological effect? Just because you do not harm your colleague physically, but creates such strained working relationship in the workplace - then this is not detrimental. Humanity are relational beings, and relationship is based on social relationship.
Positive? I once saw how homosexuals worked in the office. One would be fondering the others bottom in broad day light of the office, where others looked as if nothing had happened (They were too dumfounded and had seen it too often of such lewd acts). | khunia wrote: |
If the "unnatural arguement" is so pathetic, answer me this, if we put all the gay men on 1 island and all the gay woman on another Island so that they can be as gay as they like how long would this island last? If you can tell me how they will survive 1 generation I would be very impressed. I have read nothing, you shouldn't call people pathetic or their arguments pathetic based solely on the basis that they have an opinion that is different to yours.
So forget all the religous questions, and answer 1 simple question, would the gay population of these islands last beyond a generation? |
LMAO, I can't believe I'm even going to bother to answer this but...
It's pathetic because gay men and women DON'T live on little islands by themselves. They live with heterosexuals, bisexuals, and whateversexuals too. So, that's a bit of a pointless question, isn't it? The human society can allow for homosexuals because of our population and at the rate that we reproduce. Now if we were on the verge of becoming exstinct, then I'd say the homosexuals might have to pitch in too for the next generation or so. This doesn't mean that it has to be done physically, but I CAN be done through artifical insimination (spelling?), helping to take care of other people's children, whatever.
And even if homosexual men lived on one island with homosexual women on the other, they'd still be able to survive. Because, guess what? There are these little things called BOATS *snickers* lmao... I'm sure that the homosexual males wouldn't mind shooting off into a cup for their fellow homosexual woman, and I'm sure that the homosexual women wouldn't mind carrying a kid or two. All of this could be easily shipped between the two islands... 
| khunia wrote: |
If the "unnatural arguement" is so pathetic, answer me this, if we put all the gay men on 1 island and all the gay woman on another Island so that they can be as gay as they like how long would this island last? If you can tell me how they will survive 1 generation I would be very impressed. I have read nothing, you shouldn't call people pathetic or their arguments pathetic based solely on the basis that they have an opinion that is different to yours.
So forget all the religous questions, and answer 1 simple question, would the gay population of these islands last beyond a generation? |
Who is this *we* that treats other people in such a way? What makes you think that the gay men and women would actually let you put them on an island to start with? They might just take objection to that I suspect.
Is this a stupid question? No possibly not, just not very well reasoned out.
If I took you and put you on an island how long would YOU last? More than a generation?
If the individual sexes are separated then it doesn't really matter what your sexuality is does it? Gay or straight, nobody is going to be having children unless they can swim a long way. At least the gay guys and lesbian women would enjoy the last generation of mankind better than most of the straight folk I think:-)It was a metaphoric question answering the question as to whether it was unnatural if you could look beyond your own opinion and look at something unbiased then you would see it is unnatural.
It is amazing that most of the angry remarks are coming from those that are pro gay hahaha. If you can't handle another persons opinion then maybe forums isn't the place you should be.
However so in essence what you are saying is that Gays are parasites that need heterosexuals to live off for their own survival?
Well i wouldnt have thought of it that way however after reading your post I agree with you, yes Gays are kind of like parasites, they live amongst us because without us they could not survive, thank you for proving my point, you are very helpful | khunia wrote: |
It was a metaphoric question answering the question as to whether it was unnatural if you could look beyond your own opinion and look at something unbiased then you would see it is unnatural.
It is amazing that most of the angry remarks are coming from those that are pro gay hahaha. If you can't handle another persons opinion then maybe forums isn't the place you should be.
However so in essence what you are saying is that Gays are parasites that need heterosexuals to live off for their own survival?
Well i wouldnt have thought of it that way however after reading your post I agree with you, yes Gays are kind of like parasites, they live amongst us because without us they could not survive, thank you for proving my point, you are very helpful |
Angry? What anger? I was laughing...did you not see the smilie? Why should I get angry?
I never said anything about parasites, survival or any of the rest of your hallucination, but if it makes you happy then that is fine...enjoy:-)You’re still missing some fundamentals Bikerman.
1. The ‘other causes’ you suggest for male uti are other condition to which uti is a secondary infection. They cause the body to lose its ability to function naturally and be highly susceptible to such infection. This person would not be suspected of but sex.
2. Your sarcastic argument that my argument would equate to women all dieing out also lacks some basics. The last I heard, one in five women will have a uti. You number of as many as 50% is probably more recent and accurate today. But understand, women clear these infections better than men for some of the same reasons they get them. Also, women who get one, usually get more, due to susceptibility. This is a product of out age.
In the old days, yes, often women would die from uti. In primitive society, no one is healthy by our standards. So the bad stuff, like susceptibility gets quickly weeded out. This is likely true in cultures that participate in lots of but sex as well.
So without antibiotics, woman susceptible to uti would mostly die, yes. The primitive people would call this ‘fever’ most likely. This is how animals naturally adjust to environment.
So you might ask why people having but sex wouldn’t adjust the same way. Well, in a culture where this persists in a large enough % of the population for a long enough time, it would. However, a fractional group, especially one not reproducing lots of young, would have much more difficulty.
Also, excuse my zeal. Your interpretation that I believe every but sexer would die without antibiotics is not what I really think. Like saying everyone who entertains themselves by playing in the freeway would be hit by a car.
What I simply mean, is that but sex is a privilege of the antibiotic age, or people with short life spans who are also not responsible for keeping up the population.
According to actual medical data, there is no proven correlate between but sex and uti. Don’t get excited though, you would be surprised how many things have not been proven to correlate. The logic remains, e coli is the infection most commonly producing uti. Rubbing e coli all over your penis in the worst way undoubtedly increases your risk, although not proven, that I know of, with data. This is still medically accepted.
If not having data yet still accepting it scares you, don’t ever get sick. You’ll go crazy.
Gagner The Unruly:
Just draw the line anytime prior to 1940, how about. The basics are pretty universal throughout.
The trouble with living how you perceive best for your society NOW is that you don’t know what’s best, unless you have somewhere to learn, like past societies.
You couldn’t be more wrong about humans not having trouble reproducing. All societies have fought to maintain their numbers with few exceptions, especially in cities. I can think of only two pre-modern societies, china around 1000bc and the Aztecs. Egypt has intermittent problems, but this was due to a huge abundance of food crosses with the occasional drought.
If you want a good example, read about Rome around 100 and 200bc. They had terrible trouble keeping up population in the cities.
Another possible exception is smaller societies that live partly off the land and in an area with plenty of food and few neighbors. However, overall population and the need to produce has always been highly important.
khunia:
That parasite idea is a very good observation. The word is offensive, but you are right following the logic put forth here. Rather than parasite, I would use “social dependant” like a person unable to reproduce. In most societies they would be dependant on their extended family and friends for survival past their prime or during illness or injury.
Only in a well organized society, or modern society, is this possible. Perhaps homosexuality is not only dependant on modern medicine, but also a high degree of social organization with empathy for the week, disabled….. and gay.
I'm not wrong. As I mentioned above, the human population has grown super-exponentially for the past several thousand years. That doesn't suggest to me that humans have, as a whole, had trouble getting their numbers up.
What culture prior to 1940 are you going to take as the gold standard? What would a person from 1940 do, say that people in 1880 set the moral standard? And what was so great about 1940, anyways?
Fortunately, we have the ability to learn not just from our mistakes, and from past example, but through application of logic and reason.
Gay people are not parasites. For the last time: there are much more valuable ways to contribute to society than to reproduce. The fact that some people do not or cannot reproduce does not render them dependent on others. They are perfectly capable of self-sufficiency and of making meaningful contributions to society. It is NOT NECESSARY that everyone reproduce. In fact, it is counter-productive. Besides, gay people can and do reproduce!.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
You’re still missing some fundamentals Bikerman.
1. The ‘other causes’ you suggest for male uti are other condition to which uti is a secondary infection. They cause the body to lose its ability to function naturally and be highly susceptible to such infection. This person would not be suspected of but sex. |
The point I was making is that (certainly UK) clinicians guidlines give a checklist for new patients presenting with UTI, For men, right at the top is 'check for congenital defects'. Next come Use of spermicide, Diabetes, Presence of catheter, Institutionalisation. Nowhere comes anal sex. This was a response to your point that doctors would immediately suspect new cases of male UTI as resulting from homosexual activity. The point being that here in the UK at least they would not normally do so with any new male patient presenting, let alone make the assumption with most.
| Quote: |
| 2. Your sarcastic argument that my argument would equate to women all dieing out also lacks some basics. The last I heard, one in five women will have a uti. You number of as many as 50% is probably more recent and accurate today. But understand, women clear these infections better than men for some of the same reasons they get them. Also, women who get one, usually get more, due to susceptibility. This is a product of out age. |
The 50% figure is from the American Diabetic Association site (it is not specific to diabetics and counts people rather than presentations, using several statistical adjustments for under-reporting and lazy diagnosis. I would find it hard to defend, statistically, since I think it over compensates. The true figure, based on my browsing, is probably closer to 30-35% of women by population.
| Quote: |
In the old days, yes, often women would die from uti. In primitive society, no one is healthy by our standards. So the bad stuff, like susceptibility gets quickly weeded out. This is likely true in cultures that participate in lots of but sex as well.
So without antibiotics, woman susceptible to uti would mostly die, yes. The primitive people would call this ‘fever’ most likely. This is how animals naturally adjust to environment. |
Otherwise known as natural selection | Quote: |
So you might ask why people having but sex wouldn’t adjust the same way. Well, in a culture where this persists in a large enough % of the population for a long enough time, it would. However, a fractional group, especially one not reproducing lots of young, would have much more difficulty. |
That neglects the fact that any selected immunity/resistance in the mother is passed through to the male child as well, so the homosexual population could still survive via inherited resistance. It would depend on the infection rates, gender differences in the bodies defences and other factors. | Quote: |
Also, excuse my zeal. Your interpretation that I believe every but sexer would die without antibiotics is not what I really think. Like saying everyone who entertains themselves by playing in the freeway would be hit by a car.
What I simply mean, is that but sex is a privilege of the antibiotic age, or people with short life spans who are also not responsible for keeping up the population.
According to actual medical data, there is no proven correlate between but sex and uti. Don’t get excited though, you would be surprised how many things have not been proven to correlate. The logic remains, e coli is the infection most commonly producing uti. Rubbing e coli all over your penis in the worst way undoubtedly increases your risk, although not proven, that I know of, with data. This is still medically accepted. |
Well, you may speak for the medical profession in the US. I don't speak for ours here so I had to check their position, and; the Clinical Standards Agency, The National Institute for Clinical Excellence; The British Medical Institute, and the Royal College of nursing don't agree. Since those are the formost bodies representing clinicians in the UK I would say the assumption is, again, very questionable. | Quote: |
| If not having data yet still accepting it scares you, don’t ever get sick. You’ll go crazy. |
It doesn't scare me, it annoys me. Blanket assertions, wide generalisations and unsupported statements of 'fact' have always annoyed me and always will. It is the technique used by the cheap politician, the advertising industry and other conmen/charlatans. It is way too prevalent generally in society. The whole modern capitalist/political system seems to operate on distortion and misinformation designed to sell garbage, placate the public and persuade them that things are very dangerous in the world and they had better hand over a few more civil rights, and then get on with what they are supposed to do - work , don't question authority, vote every 5 years for one of two or three candidates you despise, then go home and leave things to the proper authorities.
Well I refuse to accept it in any forum or situation if I can help it and I don't really mind if it makes me unpopular. I don't mean, of course, to imply that this is a particular case in point, I am just explaining why anytime I see a thing quoted as fact I feel almost compelled to ask for some evidence. I wish more people would do the same...
| Quote: |
| Only in a well organized society, or modern society, is this possible. Perhaps homosexuality is not only dependant on modern medicine, but also a high degree of social organization with empathy for the week, disabled….. and gay. |
But once again the facts would seem to contradict this view. We know that homosexuality has been practised in humans since recorded history, though we have no reliable figures. As far as the animal world goes I think there are about 1000 species or so which have been observed to indulge in homosexual acts, from dolphins, penguins, many marine birds and through to many of the monkey and ape families. If you want a list then here is one :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Modern medicine is therefore clearly a red herring when considering the overall prevalence of homosexuality in nature.
There is some suggestion of a correlation between homosexual prevelance and 'sociability' but there is also some evidence which would support that as a reverse causal relationship - ie the homosexuality influences the sociability rather than being dependant upon it.
There are also those who argue that there are clear benefits from homosexuality in some cases. Here's one example....
| Quote: |
Bottlenose Dolphins
Bottlenose Dolphin males have been observed working in pairs to follow and/or restrict the movement of a female for weeks at a time, waiting for her to become sexually receptive. The same pairs have also been observed engaging in intense sexual play with each other.
Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University, argues that the common same-sex behavior among male dolphin calves is about bond formation and benefits the species evolutionarily. They cite studies that have shown the dolphins later in life are bisexual and the male bonds forged from homosexuality work for protection as well as locating females to reproduce with. |
Other examples about, and not just of bisexual co-operative groups like this.... | Bikerman wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | You’re still missing some fundamentals Bikerman.
1. The ‘other causes’ you suggest for male uti are other condition to which uti is a secondary infection. They cause the body to lose its ability to function naturally and be highly susceptible to such infection. This person would not be suspected of but sex. |
The point I was making is that (certainly UK) clinicians guidlines give a checklist for new patients presenting with UTI, For men, right at the top is 'check for congenital defects'. Next come Use of spermicide, Diabetes, Presence of catheter, Institutionalisation. Nowhere comes anal sex. This was a response to your point that doctors would immediately suspect new cases of male UTI as resulting from homosexual activity. The point being that here in the UK at least they would not normally do so with any new male patient presenting, let alone make the assumption with most. |
My point assumed medical history was known and the man did not display symptoms of obvious primary illness.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | 2. Your sarcastic argument that my argument would equate to women all dieing out also lacks some basics. The last I heard, one in five women will have a uti. You number of as many as 50% is probably more recent and accurate today. But understand, women clear these infections better than men for some of the same reasons they get them. Also, women who get one, usually get more, due to susceptibility. This is a product of out age. |
The 50% figure is from the American Diabetic Association site (it is not specific to diabetics and counts people rather than presentations, using several statistical adjustments for under-reporting and lazy diagnosis. I would find it hard to defend, statistically, since I think it over compensates. The true figure, based on my browsing, is probably closer to 30-35% of women by population. |
Exactly, because we treat it. If we didn't, the instance would be MUCH lower.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | In the old days, yes, often women would die from uti. In primitive society, no one is healthy by our standards. So the bad stuff, like susceptibility gets quickly weeded out. This is likely true in cultures that participate in lots of but sex as well. |
So without antibiotics, woman susceptible to uti would mostly die, yes. The primitive people would call this ‘fever’ most likely. This is how animals naturally adjust to environment.
Otherwise known as natural selection |
Not really, but if that helps you understand, fine. Natural selection would have more to do with competition and changes in the environment. But yes.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
So you might ask why people having but sex wouldn’t adjust the same way. Well, in a culture where this persists in a large enough % of the population for a long enough time, it would. However, a fractional group, especially one not reproducing lots of young, would have much more difficulty. |
That neglects the fact that any selected immunity/resistance in the mother is passed through to the male child as well, so the homosexual population could still survive via inherited resistance. It would depend on the infection rates, gender differences in the bodies defences and other factors. |
Possibly, but I doubt such female changes would effect males, having mostly to do with anatomy, vaginal ph.....
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Also, excuse my zeal. Your interpretation that I believe every but sexer would die without antibiotics is not what I really think. Like saying everyone who entertains themselves by playing in the freeway would be hit by a car.
What I simply mean, is that but sex is a privilege of the antibiotic age, or people with short life spans who are also not responsible for keeping up the population.
According to actual medical data, there is no proven correlate between but sex and uti. Don’t get excited though, you would be surprised how many things have not been proven to correlate. The logic remains, e coli is the infection most commonly producing uti. Rubbing e coli all over your penis in the worst way undoubtedly increases your risk, although not proven, that I know of, with data. This is still medically accepted. |
Well, you may speak for the medical profession in the US. I don't speak for ours here so I had to check their position, and; the Clinical Standards Agency, The National Institute for Clinical Excellence; The British Medical Institute, and the Royal College of nursing don't agree. Since those are the formost bodies representing clinicians in the UK I would say the assumption is, again, very questionable. |
This is not surprising, especially in the UK. Such a correlation would not be politically correct, regardless of its obvious nature. It's all that distortion you're about to rant on.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | If not having data yet still accepting it scares you, don’t ever get sick. You’ll go crazy. |
It doesn't scare me, it annoys me. Blanket assertions, wide generalisations and unsupported statements of 'fact' have always annoyed me and always will. It is the technique used by the cheap politician, the advertising industry and other conmen/charlatans. It is way too prevalent generally in society. The whole modern capitalist/political system seems to operate on distortion and misinformation designed to sell garbage, placate the public and persuade them that things are very dangerous in the world and they had better hand over a few more civil rights, and then get on with what they are supposed to do - work , don't question authority, vote every 5 years for one of two or three candidates you despise, then go home and leave things to the proper authorities.
Well I refuse to accept it in any forum or situation if I can help it and I don't really mind if it makes me unpopular. I don't mean, of course, to imply that this is a particular case in point, I am just explaining why anytime I see a thing quoted as fact I feel almost compelled to ask for some evidence. I wish more people would do the same... |
Indeed, yet in medicine such generalizations are common. No one realy knows what the hell is going on. Ever look up how a medication or procedure benefites a certain illness? Crap-shank If it works it works... If it obviously increases risk, stay away....
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Only in a well organized society, or modern society, is this possible. Perhaps homosexuality is not only dependant on modern medicine, but also a high degree of social organization with empathy for the week, disabled….. and gay. |
But once again the facts would seem to contradict this view. We know that homosexuality has been practised in humans since recorded history, though we have no reliable figures. As far as the animal world goes I think there are about 1000 species or so which have been observed to indulge in homosexual acts, from dolphins, penguins, many marine birds and through to many of the monkey and ape families. If you want a list then here is one :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Modern medicine is therefore clearly a red herring when considering the overall prevalence of homosexuality in nature.
There is some suggestion of a correlation between homosexual prevelance and 'sociability' but there is also some evidence which would support that as a reverse causal relationship - ie the homosexuality influences the sociability rather than being dependant upon it.
There are also those who argue that there are clear benefits from homosexuality in some cases. Here's one example....
| Quote: | Bottlenose Dolphins
Bottlenose Dolphin males have been observed working in pairs to follow and/or restrict the movement of a female for weeks at a time, waiting for her to become sexually receptive. The same pairs have also been observed engaging in intense sexual play with each other.
Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University, argues that the common same-sex behavior among male dolphin calves is about bond formation and benefits the species evolutionarily. They cite studies that have shown the dolphins later in life are bisexual and the male bonds forged from homosexuality work for protection as well as locating females to reproduce with. |
Other examples about, and not just of bisexual co-operative groups like this.... |
[/quote]
Yeah, animals are certainly interesting. They do a lot of weird stuff and we don't really know why.
Gagnar The Unruly
Success doesn't mean there was no struggle. Really, only on group out of the 100s ot 1000s had to reach a successful point.
1940???? Medicine. I'll give you a little chew. In all the wars the US has been involved in, WWII, thanks mostly to penicillin, was the first war in which the enemy inflicted more casualties than illness.
Just on a side not, exponential means multiplied by an exponent. Like 2^2 meaning (2 * 2) = 4 or 2^3 (2*2*2) = 8 So No, humans do not reproduce exponentially, bacteria do though.
| Quote: |
| Gay people are not parasites. For the last time: there are much more valuable ways to contribute to society than to reproduce. The fact that some people do not or cannot reproduce does not render them dependent on others. They are perfectly capable of self-sufficiency and of making meaningful contributions to society. It is NOT NECESSARY that everyone reproduce. In fact, it is counter-productive. Besides, gay people can and do reproduce!. |
Only in modern and organized societies with social mechanisms for illness, injury, and old age.
Not with each other.It is completely ok to be gay.
It is not ok to think that it's not ok to be gay.
I hate homophobes more than anything else (yes I mean it, even religion).
I think it's terrible that all people do not think that it's ok to be what you born to. You can't change it! What if it would be normal to be homosexual and not accepted to be straight. What would you think then? Would you change to be homosexual? ... If you would, then rethink. Then you're not straight, then you must've been bisexual from the beginning. You wouldn't change, cause you CAN'T! Same thing with a gay/lesbian, they CAN'T change! It's not their "fault". They are what they are. Accept it!
If somebody would call me "gay", I wouldn't get angry. But if somebody'd call me "homophobe", I'm sure I'd hit him/her.
So catscratches, you hate a group of people because you disagree with their beliefs, and when someone offends you, you turn immediately to violence.
Any way, this topic isn’t a place to rant about groups of people you hate; it’s discussing the morality of homosexuality outside of religion.
Sociopaths and pedophiles are born that way too. The key is discovering whether or not the thing harms society.
@ the discussion between bikerman and horseatingweeds
Could you not also debate the morality of defecation on the same basis of the spread and contraction of e coli? (see my previous post for further explanation)
(Also, what are your views on lesbians?)
@ horseatingwees
So you’d consider a homosexual in the same league as paedophiles and sociopaths? Even though in homosexual relationships, both partners may be of age and of consensual agreement (to the same extent as heterosexual relationships are so), and whom each still function normally in society in regards to work, social structure, etcetera (except, of course, in instances where they are rejected by persons who are personally homophobic).
I do agree that this is not the place to rant about hating homophobics, how-ever on the same token I do have to admit I loath homophobia on the same merits. It’s difficult to understand how one can determine for someone else wether their sexuality is inherent and valid, and then judge their person immoral as a result. Of course it’s hard to justify that you are sexually attracted to the same sex, how would you respond to the question ‘how do you know that you’re heterosexual’?
One may respond with species ideology of needs for reproduction, but on the same token I could then state that that has no affect on natural born sexuality, only on an individual’s sense of obligation to comply for “greater good”.
Also, what may have been necessary hundreds of years ago in society does not necessarily constitute human good. That homosexuality was inconvenient does not make it morally incorrect. Just as the convenience of a household Negro slave did not, and does not, make the practice morally correct.
As such, our perception of morality does not shift over time simply on our needs (as I’m sure there are many who still “need” a slave).
Interestingly, paedophilia is greatly frowned upon as a key example of gross immorality in modern society, even though only a hundred or two hundred years ago it were common practice for a 30 year old man to marry a 15 year old girl. And it would not have been blinked at another century before if a 40 year old man had wed and consummated his love with a 13 year old.
Why? Because biologically young women are not only more attractive, but the female body is in fact best equipped for childbirth in her teenage years, and that for the men it was important that they were old enough to have been educated and established a career (and source of income) before they were to secure a wife and support a family.
So, at the time, in a past society, such a practice was morally acceptable and beneficial to society as a whole – whereas in modern society where we know of the difference in development between girls, where both sexes are educated at the same time, where education takes less time and jobs are more commercially available, the idea of a thirty or forty year old with a thirteen of fifteen year old is not only morally indecent, but illegal.
Hence, further reflection, scientific knowledge and development of thinking has lead to a change in society based perception.
As per slaves, as per homosexuals, as per paedophiles. Modern society’s values are based on those of the past, but not as carbon copies. We adapt what is current from not only what has worked, but what didn’t – and then adapt this as to what best works for us now.
Our current society sees no justifiable inconvenience in the existence and practice of homosexuality – and as such in most parts of the world it is no longer illegal as it has been in the past.
We have also developed our scientific practices and avenues of philosophical thought to the point where, it is hoped, we can distinguish between what is correct, and what is immoral.
It is no doubt in my mind people are “supposed” to be born straight, but the fact is that some aren’t, and we can no more force a homosexual into heterosexuality than we can justify forcing someone born albino into having to wear fake tan, hair dye and contacts. Or, although I hate to draw such a comparison (as I don’t consider homosexuality a hinderence to the individual), not providing assistance to someone born with a disability (or say, heart condition, where some form of surgery is necessary).
Thus being albino (or disabled) is not morally wrong, so why by the same logic homosexuality? Defecation??? I’m not finding your early post on it. I don’t see how normal defecation would spread e coli. Actually, I do. This is the source of many food-born illness. Wash your hands damn-it. I hate walking into a bathroom and seeing a smelly egg layer scurry past the wash.
Lesbianism is no source of disease that I can think of. Nothing heterosexual sex creates anyway. It has similar non-procreative results though.
Blackheat:
In the same league with regard to sexual impulses manifesting themselves in irregular non-procreative ways. The only difference, with regard to society as you stated, the participants are willing. Damage, on the other hand, is debatable outside of social retribution.
| Quote: |
It’s difficult to understand how one can determine for someone else wether their sexuality is inherent and valid, and then judge their person immoral as a result. Of course it’s hard to justify that you are sexually attracted to the same sex, how would you respond to the question ‘how do you know that you’re heterosexual’?
One may respond with species ideology of needs for reproduction, but on the same token I could then state that that has no affect on natural born sexuality, only on an individual’s sense of obligation to comply for “greater good”. |
Forgive, I am having trouble understanding your thought here.
True, traditions set hundreds of years ago do not equate to morality. However, such traditions should not be thrown out due to their age. Such traditions have formed from trial and error. As I have pointed out somewhere about, judging morality by our current society’s freedoms with regard to technology, consumption, etc. is a short path to destruction. Thousand-year-old institutions have stood for thousands of years because they have protected the people.
Counters to this argument usually bring up slavery. Again, I believe in questioning tradition for such reason, but holding them at a higher standard than we seem to, as if their age negates their validity. Also, one must understand slavery. It’s a big word covering all sorts of social positions. My historical perspective allows me to see many types of slavery as good for the society, and the slave – this is another discussion though.
Your example of an older man marrying a 13 or 15 year-old girl is not an example of changing morality. In a small society this is often necessary for maintaining population. In other societies, again usually small, such marriages are for the good of the woman, allowing here the protection of a household. Remember, woman had to be baby-machines not long ago, and eventually they will again. No prospect of a ‘career’ for anyone then…..
This could become a discussion on its own as well. Marriage in the old days would unit two tribes and ovoid war for years. It could save a young girl and her family from starvation.
Currently, our women do not need, and should not be “baby machines.” Their intellectual and vocational contributions are far too great – and we already have plenty of babies. What we need it to properly raise and educate these little ones. Not doing so is the real problem today – in my opinion.
I would not advocate oppression of homosexuals in our society; in fact I would fight it. This is outside of the discussion of morality. Much immorality is allowed by society. I also believe in maintaining certain institutions for these reasons.
Allow me also to make clean my notion of morality. Immorality is not simply avoiding harm – it is using what you have to do good. I would consider allowing a person to drown similar to actively drowning them.
While I’m off topic, allow me this. I think sexual pressure is too great in our society. People as young as 15, one on this forum as I remember, are “coming out.” My advice to such a young person would be to avoid sexuality all together. That advice would go to any young person actually. If you feel gay, fine. Go ahead and take a young member of the opposite sex to your little dances, date, do whatever. Just keep the whole SEX out of it. Take your time and let yourself mature – get to know yourself. Once you have a degree and know what the hell is going on, than explore such possibly damaging life styles – including heterosexual sex.
Get a bottle of hand lotion for crying out loud! It took me until about 19 to figure that out. (Forgive if that was offensive.) | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Defecation??? I’m not finding your early post on it. I don’t see how normal defecation would spread e coli. Actually, I do. This is the source of many food-born illness. Wash your hands damn-it. I hate walking into a bathroom and seeing a smelly egg layer scurry past the wash. |
I provided a link to my defecation analogy, if the hyperlink didn't work for you in the beggining of my post, here's the adress straight out:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-643713.html&highlight=defecate#643713
As you put it, normal defecation wouldn't normally spread e coli, just as those who practice safe anal sex wouldn't normally spread e coli. The main problem is where people don't take the precautions, and don't use a condom (and those who do don't use the strengthened condoms for the purpose), because they know procreation isn't a factor.
Hence, as per my post, if you can condemn homosexuality because some of those that practice anal do so at great risk, then I can apply the same logic to defecation.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
Lesbianism is no source of disease that I can think of. Nothing heterosexual sex creates anyway. It has similar non-procreative results though. |
So female homosexuality is more acceptable than male?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
Blackheat:
...Forgive, I am having trouble understanding your thought here.
...
...Currently, our women do not need, and should not be “baby machines.” Their intellectual and vocational contributions are far too great – and we already have plenty of babies. What we need it to properly raise and educate these little ones. Not doing so is the real problem today – in my opinion. |
I don't understand why you have trouble understanding my thought, because you even state yourself that old ways are not neccessarily applicable to modern society. That's right, women don't need, and shouldn't, be "baby machines" any more. Homosexuals do not, and do not need, to be condemned any more.
Just as in modern society education is more prevelent, so is health care, which makes the number of people needed to participate in procreation less. It is, in fact, useful to society if people opt not to have children given the rate at which our human population is growing.
Yes those traditions and beliefs were formed via trial and error, how-ever to state that we don't need to change anything to day is to say that if we were to go back to any given point then we could stop there and not change a thing. Then many of the trial and errors that bring us to today would never have happened, and we would still be knocking women out to impregnate them. Because, you know, rape was at a time the norm.
Time is continuous, and as such we need to change as per trial and error as much today as ever.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
I would not advocate oppression of homosexuals in our society; in fact I would fight it. This is outside of the discussion of morality. Much immorality is allowed by society. I also believe in maintaining certain institutions for these reasons.
Allow me also to make clean my notion of morality. Immorality is not simply avoiding harm – it is using what you have to do good. I would consider allowing a person to drown similar to actively drowning them.
|
Two people consumating love, where it is not to your taste, does not equate to allowing either of those two people to drown themselves.
And do you in fact realise that to brand an unchangeable facet of a person as unnaceptable is demeaning, and as such a form of oppression? - whereby an individual feels pressured to change for his or her society.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
While I’m off topic, allow me this. I think sexual pressure is too great in our society. People as young as 15, one on this forum as I remember, are “coming out.” My advice to such a young person would be to avoid sexuality all together. That advice would go to any young person actually. If you feel gay, fine. Go ahead and take a young member of the opposite sex to your little dances, date, do whatever. Just keep the whole SEX out of it. Take your time and let yourself mature – get to know yourself. Once you have a degree and know what the hell is going on, than explore such possibly damaging life styles – including heterosexual sex.
Get a bottle of hand lotion for crying out loud! It took me until about 19 to figure that out. (Forgive if that was offensive.) |
The day when I would recomend a young person oppress their sexuality for a few years, would be the day when the same is asked of heterosexual teenagers. Why should a homosexual teen have to question themselves any further than a heterosexual teen, any further than to avoid the pressure and discrimination pressed onto themselves by people who still insist on deciding wether who they are is a valid "choice". And I do use inverted commas .
It is nothing internal that makes homsexuality a negative quality in a person, it is the external pressures that continue to make innocent person's lives so difficult as to result in the higher rates of depression, self harm, etcetera.
So we have a catch 22 - a person is recommended not to be homosexual because of the poor quality of life, how-ever it is the idea that homosexuality is a poorer quality that makes the life so.No No, normal defecation does not spread e coli. Rubbing a penis with it, containing the urethra, absolutely does.
Condom??? Yes exactly. A product of our modern society. About 60 years old now. Basing morality dependent on a product that has existed for about 99.999999999% of human existence is poor strategy.
Female homosexuality does not substitute the anus, containing that which produces ¾ or UTI, so does not include the health risk. That is all I said. A discussion of Fem-gay only would consist of non-medical implications.
Yes, time prevails. Yet not in a liner for as you would suggest. Continuing in trial and error is necessary – with regard to what our forefathers have already figured out for us. We are not at the top of an ever heightening crest. We are but on an upgrade in a cycling world. According to history, your and my children, or their children, will need these lessons learned by our forefathers – once the upgrade noses over.
My morality would not equate allowing people to drown to allowing people to have gay sex. Perhaps my analogy was misleading. It would equate more to myself having gay sex or living a gay life style. It may not harm anyone directly, but there are other ways to live more beneficial to my society and thus to myself.
Perhaps you should re-read. I did not advocate only homosexuals oppressing their sexuality in youth. All children should hold this part of themselves off until they understand themselves.
Indeed there is social pressure against homosexuality. And, indeed there is a certain attractive quality about it. In the US, such a brave life style is admired and I have witnessed individuals claim this life style simply for the fact that it makes them special. Not all gays fall under this category, but some. It is cool to be the sensitive handsome non-masculine.
This social pressure to avoid homosexuality is not simply bigotry. Society puts pressure on all its members to conduct them selves in a way that most benefits that society.
Not really a catch 22. That saying comes from a novel where a bomber crew member realizes that bombing missions give him a 1/3 chance of surviving. To be removed from the crew he would need to be diagnosed as being crazy, yet, only a crazy person would go on bomber missions with a 1/3 chance of living.
A homosexual can either suppress him/her homosexuality or embrace it. The ramifications of either are arguable. We all have our demons.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| No No, normal defecation does not spread e coli. Rubbing a penis with it, containing the urethra, absolutely does. |
Did you go back and read the post I was alluding to?
My point is that what you have a problem with is anal sex, not homosexuality. Homosexuality is as per the defecation in the analogy. Anal sex (without protection) is as per wiping from back to front in the analogy.
Thus, it is the unprotected anal sex and/or wiping from back to front which is the issue, not the homosexuality or defecation.
Anal sex does not "absolutely" lead to the spread of e coli, either. If that were true, then up to two thirds of gay men (that being the percentage which practice anal sex) would have contracted the bacteria. As only one in four homosexuals are carriers of/ill with/infected by any sexually transmitted anything, this clearly isn't the case.
Also, you don't rub a penis with defecation, as you put it, as defecation is the process, not the result.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Condom??? Yes exactly. A product of our modern society. About 60 years old now. Basing morality dependent on a product that has existed for about 99.999999999% of human existence is poor strategy. |
The health care and education available to women is a new product of our modern society, about 60 or so years old, as well. But since women were restricted to baking cookies and popping out babies up to about the forties, maybe we should go back to that set of moral values too.
At one point our forefathers were in their present day, and if they had taken the same stance that they should stick by the guidelines of their forefathers, society would never had progressed. Because we would never have learned from our forefathers decisions and mistakes because they'd never have made them, just as the future will not progress if we do not continue to adapt now.Well it is that no-one seems to be willing to budge on their opinion lol this discussion could go on forever. So where does that leave everyone hahaha right back where we started hahaha. Time to take a bow and leave this discussion forever and to close the book.
| khunia wrote: |
| Well it is that no-one seems to be willing to budge on their opinion lol this discussion could go on forever. So where does that leave everyone hahaha right back where we started hahaha. Time to take a bow and leave this discussion forever and to close the book. |
Discussion isn't only about finding one definitive answer, but forcing people to think. Even if there haven't be gross changes in people's opinions, there will have been slight shifts and alterations, either further for, further against or even within the grey.Why should it be wrong? Everybody has the right to deceide himself what's right and what's not...
| Quote: |
khunia:
That parasite idea is a very good observation. The word is offensive, but you are right following the logic put forth here. Rather than parasite, I would use “social dependant” like a person unable to reproduce. In most societies they would be dependant on their extended family and friends for survival past their prime or during illness or injury.
Only in a well organized society, or modern society, is this possible. Perhaps homosexuality is not only dependant on modern medicine, but also a high degree of social organization with empathy for the week, disabled….. and gay.
|
A simple illustration:
When a gay dies someday (everyone dies someday), one gay less on this earth (we have to also consider, if there is anything beyond death).
This is simple mathematics (minus one = one less), and simple science (male and male = no reproduction)
When a natural male dies someday (everyone dies someday),
MAYBE one natural male less on this earth (we have to also consider, if there is anything beyond death).
This is simple mathematics (minus one = one less), and simple science (male and a female = possible reproduction for posterity sake).
Possible adding one or more humans to this earth.
I see that gay does need to recruit another, else they will diminish in number, recruiting another means depend on another natural male (a product of the natural lifecycle).
Yes, it seem gay is dependent upon natural male and natural female for their recruitment process. That makes it parasities or social dependence on the natural male/natural female.
As some noted, this is going no where, close the book, the pro gay are filling it with their justifications, and all these will do little to change the perspectives of anyone (gay and natural male). | Ducksteina wrote: |
| Why should it be wrong? Everybody has the right to deceide himself what's right and what's not... |
No, they don't.
Observe:
Dave decides that's right to rape children. According to you, Dave has that right.
Osama decides that it's right to murder random people to further his political/religious agenda. According to you, Osama has that right.
Seem ok to you?
| shenyl wrote: |
A simple illustration:
When a gay dies someday (everyone dies someday), one gay less on this earth (we have to also consider, if there is anything beyond death).
This is simple mathematics (minus one = one less), and simple science (male and male = no reproduction)
When a natural male dies someday (everyone dies someday),
MAYBE one natural male less on this earth (we have to also consider, if there is anything beyond death).
This is simple mathematics (minus one = one less), and simple science (male and a female = possible reproduction for posterity sake).
Possible adding one or more humans to this earth.
I see that gay does need to recruit another, else they will diminish in number, recruiting another means depend on another natural male (a product of the natural lifecycle).
Yes, it seem gay is dependent upon natural male and natural female for their recruitment process. That makes it parasities or social dependence on the natural male/natural female.
As some noted, this is going no where, close the book, the pro gay are filling it with their justifications, and all these will do little to change the perspectives of anyone (gay and natural male). |
The problem with simple is that it's usually wrong. In this case, your math is dead wrong. The whole "parasite" idea is also wrong.
A parasite is an organism that lives off of a host organism while providing nothing back (and that's a generous definition - normally i would say a parasite lives off a host organism while harming them). To characterize gay people as parasites off the host organism of "society" or "civilization", it would have to be true that gay people benefit from it while providing nothing back (or, worse, harming it). That's simply not true. Gay people can and do contribute plenty to society... even if one were to say that gay people could not breed (which is not true), then they could still be contributors to our society, unless you believe that the only way you can contribute to society is to breed. Which is not true, or we would be logically justified in euthanizing everyone who was unable to breed.
As for the math, it's so bizarrely wrong-headed i don't even know where to begin. i have to consider it both from the short-term and the long-term.
Short-term
In the short term, your calculations make no sense. Children are, in the short term, parasites. In the long-term they become productive members of society, but for almost 20 years, a child is a drain on society's resources.
How much can a single person contribute to society in the short term? Obviously each person must be able to support more than one person. Why? Because if each person could not support a single person, then no one could support themselves. And if each person could only support exactly one person, then each person could only support themselves, and if a couple had a child, no one could support the child. Therefore, each person must be able to support more than just themselves in society.
Now, suppose each person could support 1.5 people (you can change this number to any number >1 and it won't change anything - i just picked 1.5 to make the math easy). So when a couple get together, they can support 3 (1.5 × 2) people. When they have a baby, they can support 0 other people ((1.5 × 2) - 3 (the two parents and the baby)). On the other hand, a childless couple can support 1 other person ((1.5 × 2) - 2). In other words, a childless homosexual family unit can support more of society in general than a heterosexual family unit with children. In fact... if you set the number to <1.5... it is the heterosexuals who are the parasites by this metric.
Long term
In the long term, your calculations assume that the only benefit anyone can give to society is by creating more members of society. That completely ignores the quality of life. What is the benefit of creating more members of society if they're just going to starve? You have completely ignored the myriad of other ways that people can, do and must contribute to society - without which we would just be breeding generations of idiots that do nothing but consume anything that is available until there is nothing left available and the entire species dies out from starvation.
So clearly there is another way to contribute to the society, and that's by contributing resources - both material resources and non-material resources (ideas and technologies). Some material is short-term, like crops or entertainment. Other is very, very long-term, like roads or technological advancements. But here's the thing. Any resource that gets contributed has a value from a resource value perspective - no matter how small, it's never zero. But not every child that gets created has a value from a population value perspective - the child may die before they can create children. So when you create a resource, you create something that has definite value. When you create a child, you create something that has possible value, if the child eventually breeds. Another factor to consider is that most resources benefit many, many people whereas breeding only benefits one - the one being born. Someone that develops a cure for an illness that then allows 10,000 people to breed (which is not too far out) effectively does the work of 10,000 breeders. On top of that, it takes nearly 20 years for a child to be "developed" (to the point where it is no longer a parasite but can now contribute, if only by breeding), but most resources get developed very quickly. You can spend nearly 20 years raising one child, or 20 years fighting famine in Africa that allows tens of thousands of children to live.
But according to your calculations, none of that matters. According to you, if i cure cancer but don't create a baby, i am a parasite on society. Does that sound right? | shenyl wrote: |
As some noted, this is going no where, close the book, the pro gay are filling it with their justifications, and all these will do little to change the perspectives of anyone (gay and natural male). |
And as I responded to that person, discussion is not about changing people's opinions to that of your own, but the thought provoked by the discussion.
You infer that it is only pro gay opinions which are not altering anyone's opinion, thus inferring that pro gay must - objectively - be incorrect from the outset. I don't understand why you believe that this discussion is filled with "pro gay justifications", when there has been input both from for and against... very intelligable input from both sides at that.
I enjoy reading all of it, and I would consider closing the book very close minded.Indi wrote:
| Quote: |
According to you, if i cure cancer but don't create a baby, i am a parasite on society. Does that sound right?
|
Firstly, both a natural male/female can also be contributing to cure of various illnesses, it sounded as if to you, only gay are capable of this.
Both being equal, there is no sense in using this as an argument.
Secondly, the social dependence/parasitic allegory is meant to illustrate on the "life production cycle", without which humanity will not be sustainable - don't expand the scope of this illustration.
For a more holistic (complete) view on this matter, there are some other discussion threads in Frihost forum. | shenyl wrote: |
Indi wrote:
| Quote: | According to you, if i cure cancer but don't create a baby, i am a parasite on society. Does that sound right?
|
Firstly, both a natural male/female can also be contributing to cure of various illnesses, it sounded as if to you, only gay are capable of this. |
Is that what it sounded like? Because that's not what i said.
i am well aware that heterosexuals are capable of making the same kind of contribution - in this case, the cure for cancer. That's kind of a "no, duh" point. That has nothing to do with my question. My question was simple. According to you and your math, a person only has worth to humanity if they produce offspring. By that logic, if i were gay and cured cancer... i have contributed nothing, and am in fact a parasite on humanity just like any other homosexual. i asked you if that sounded right to you.
Here's the lowdown on what's going on, just in case you're missing it. If you say "no, you're not a parasite on humanity if you're gay and you cure cancer", then your entire theory, complete with supporting "math", is garbage. You would be conceding that it is possible to be gay and beneficial to society, and that it is not true that the only way to contribute is by breeding. In order for the rest of your argument to hold, you have to say "yes, if you are not a child-producing member of society, you are a parasite... regardless of whether you cure cancer or not". Are you prepared to do that?In no way is being gay wrong. Its a way of life. For a minority maybe but stil a way of life. And its a question of individual preference.
Hi blackheart,
Really interesting question...
What I can say is that a person wasn't born as a homosexual, but he becomes homosexual...
Personally, I find it's not normal, but I accept them as they are as long they don't disturb me or my family.
Why becomming homosexual? Is another question... Maybe the parents relation he had at home and thought that a man wasn't done to be with a woman, etc...
Alexander.
| ConquerSockets wrote: |
Hi blackheart,
Really interesting question...
What I can say is that a person wasn't born as a homosexual, but he becomes homosexual... |
How have you ruled out the possibility that people can be born with a genetic tendency to be gay? It souds like you may be doing some cutting edge work in the field if you can isolate the genetic influence to this level of certainty because, as you probably know, scientists are still working on this issue and there is no clear outcome from other researchers.
I'd be grateful if you can give us a brief line of your research and perhaps even a hint of the findings? | Bikerman wrote: |
| ConquerSockets wrote: | Hi blackheart,
Really interesting question...
What I can say is that a person wasn't born as a homosexual, but he becomes homosexual... |
How have you ruled out the possibility that people can be born with a genetic tendency to be gay? It souds like you may be doing some cutting edge work in the field if you can isolate the genetic influence to this level of certainty because, as you probably know, scientists are still working on this issue and there is no clear outcome from other researchers.
I'd be grateful if you can give us a brief line of your research and perhaps even a hint of the findings? |
Hi,
Thanks you to talk about this, I was waiting to somebody comment on it...
Mostly peoples that are gay are those who becomes it...
Those who was born genetically different from others, like a male having female organs or vice versa is completely different thing I'm not even touching this subject beause of the respect I give to them.
I saw in TV a guy that was born in a totally female corps... They made him plastic operation, because genetically he was coded XXY (XX=female XY=male) This sometimes happens and we can't predict it yet.
Alexander. | ConquerSockets wrote: |
Hi,
Thanks you to talk about this, I was waiting to somebody comment on it...
Mostly peoples that are gay are those who becomes it...
Those who was born genetically different from others, like a male having female organs or vice versa is completely different thing I'm not even touching this subject beause of the respect I give to them.
I saw in TV a guy that was born in a totally female corps... They made him plastic operation, because genetically he was coded XXY (XX=female XY=male) This sometimes happens and we can't predict it yet.
Alexander. |
Ahh...definitely not a researcher
You are confused I'm afraid. What you are attempting to describe is completely different to sexuality - someone born with incomplete or mixed genetalia is, I believe, correctly known as an example of Androgyny (rather than hermaphrodite which is, I think, inaccurate and needlessly demeaning). More recently the term 'intersex' seems to be commonly used for this condition.
That is a completely different issue to sexuality. The genetic component of sexuality is not a gross physical factor. Gay men (and lesbian women) do not necessarily have any major physical differences, although I have heard that there may be some minor physiological correlations with some brain functions which are 'handed' according to sex.
This is, I'm afraid. a red herring as far as this debate goes.
To make this clear so that nobody else makes the same mistake, here are the terms often confused in this context:
Transvestite - a person who likes to dress in clothes of the opposite sex. Not necessarily (or even often) gay. An example is Eddie Izzard. No obvious link to sexuality.
Transexual - a person who feels that they have been born the wrong sex, without necessarily having any physical symptoms to indicate it is so.
Transgender - similar but not the same. Transgender means that a persons sexuality does not match their gender (for them) like transexual, but it does not imply that they wish to be the opposite sex...transgender means between the two genders..neither male nor female.
Bisexual - this IS an issue of sexuality and simply means a person who is sexually attracted to both men and women.
I hope that clears up this misunderstanding.... | The Conspirator wrote: |
This seems to be a good time to intrudes animal homosexuality into the conversation.
Homosexuality is not confined to human, examples have been found in animals as well. |
Yeah. My (male) puppy (4 months) was humping my neighbor's 9 month old (male) puppy yesterday. I think my puppy is gay. I think the beagle is gay because he let my puppy hump him.
| Billy Hill wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | This seems to be a good time to intrudes animal homosexuality into the conversation.
Homosexuality is not confined to human, examples have been found in animals as well. |
Yeah. My (male) puppy (4 months) was humping my neighbor's 9 month old (male) puppy yesterday. I think my puppy is gay. I think the beagle is gay because he let my puppy hump him.
|
No...he's just a dog. Dogs don't tend to be too fussy about who they get friendly with
Seriously, with dogs it is often a dominance thing rather than confusion about sexuality... | Bikerman wrote: |
Gay men (and lesbian women) do not necessarily have any major physical differences, although I have heard that there may be some minor physiological correlations with some brain functions which are 'handed' according to sex.
I hope that clears up this misunderstanding.... |
Hi Bikerman,
Thanks you for your explanations, it helps to understand few terms I wasnt familiar with.
As you said, gay men or lesbian women were born normal without any physical differences, meaning my theory on that they becamed it is true?
Maybe it's all psychologic and all related on the life they had live when they were younger so they deceided to become homosexual?
Alexander | ConquerSockets wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Gay men (and lesbian women) do not necessarily have any major physical differences, although I have heard that there may be some minor physiological correlations with some brain functions which are 'handed' according to sex.
I hope that clears up this misunderstanding.... |
Hi Bikerman,
Thanks you for your explanations, it helps to understand few terms I wasnt familiar with.
As you said, gay men or lesbian women were born normal without any physical differences, meaning my theory on that they becamed it is true?
Maybe it's all psychologic and all related on the life they had live when they were younger so they deceided to become homosexual?
Alexander |
It's theorised that homosexuals are born with genetic and chemical (hormonal) qualities different to heterosexuals of the same sex.
Physical form does not neccessarily influence sexuality, and it's the workings of the brain we're interested in when determining wether people are "born gay".What will happen in the next 100 years if all people try to be HOMO now?? 
What will happen to human existance??
Who will produce new children?? | rabbani wrote: |
What will happen in the next 100 years if all people try to be HOMO now??
What will happen to human existance??
Who will produce new children?? |
You know, I think they don't quite think about this when people take the vows to become nuns and monks. So you say that is wrong too??
[P.S. Sorry i went the religious way but the question begot the answer, I believe] | rabbani wrote: |
What will happen in the next 100 years if all people try to be HOMO now??
What will happen to human existance??
Who will produce new children?? |
I like ainieas's response better than mine, but I still want to ask what do you think actually will happen 100 years from now, considering that most people are not be gay (or asexual)? Eventually the species is going to run out of resources, people who don't reproduce are delaying that point. | Quote: |
| You know, I think they don't quite think about this when people take the vows to become nuns and monks. So you say that is wrong too?? |
It's wrong that ALL people take the vows to become monks or nuns. But some people like that way. What I said is for a large group of peolple. Some people like to be gay, that's their own life. but if everyone likes, that would be a problem.
| Quote: |
| I like ainieas's response better than mine, but I still want to ask what do you think actually will happen 100 years from now, considering that most people are not be gay (or asexual)? Eventually the species is going to run out of resources, people who don't reproduce are delaying that point. |
I think that technology can solve the problem of resources. We can use sun for energy, Polymers instead of metal, etc. Even for water some countries are generating drink water from the seas.
Sorry or bad english and the Quotes. I don't know how to use them in the right way. | rabbani wrote: |
| Quote: | | I like ainieas's response better than mine, but I still want to ask what do you think actually will happen 100 years from now, considering that most people are not be gay (or asexual)? Eventually the species is going to run out of resources, people who don't reproduce are delaying that point. |
I think that technology can solve the problem of resources. We can use sun for energy, Polymers instead of metal, etc. Even for water some countries are generating drink water from the seas. |
First, eventually, we will run out of space. If you want to live on the moon have fun.
More importantly, we don't need to have more people reproducing. My point was basically just that underpopulation is the last thing the human race needs to worry about right now. | ConquerSockets wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Gay men (and lesbian women) do not necessarily have any major physical differences, although I have heard that there may be some minor physiological correlations with some brain functions which are 'handed' according to sex.
I hope that clears up this misunderstanding.... |
Hi Bikerman,
Thanks you for your explanations, it helps to understand few terms I wasnt familiar with.
As you said, gay men or lesbian women were born normal without any physical differences, meaning my theory on that they becamed it is true? |
Please don't misrepresent me...I said that gay men and lesbian women do not NECESSARILY have any MAJOR PHYSICAL differences. That is completely different from saying that they are genetically the same as heterosexuals. My point was that their genitalia is not mixed like the example used above, not that there is no genetic element to sexuality - which I believe, on the balance of probabilities, there is.
| Quote: |
| Maybe it's all psychologic and all related on the life they had live when they were younger so they deceided to become homosexual? |
Why do you think someone would choose to become a homosexual? Seems like a pretty radical choice for most people and I can't imagine that many people would freely choose to be gay/lesbian.
There may be some who would, but the ability to 'choose' implies that both possibilities (3, inc bisexual) are equally acceptable. That is certainly not my own experience - I would not find sleeping with a man and homosexual sex to be just an alternate choice to my normal heterosexuality - it doesn't work like that (at least not for me, and I suspect not for most people)..Blackheat:
I don’t have a problem with anal sex or homosexuality. The discussion here involves whether or not it is wrong. My simple point is that homosexual SEX between men, usually misusing the butt (I use ‘butt’ only because I have using the word ‘anus’ but in case this is offensive I’ll just abbreviate AS) as a vaginal substitute, puts the participants at a health risk. This is often an indication of something being wrong.
It is true, other thing can spread e coli. It has little to do with the discussion. Also, it doesn’t absolutely cause infection. This also has little to do with the discussion. Using my metaphor above, and I hate using metaphors, physical trauma can be caused by many things and is not only caused by playing in traffic. Yet, playing in traffic causes physical trauma – and hence is wrong.
Speaking of trauma, AS also causes damaging physical trauma.
| blackheart wrote: |
Also, you don't rub a penis with defecation, as you put it, as defecation is the process, not the result. |
This statement has me confused, but AS absolutely is doing so. Taking a fecal sample consists often only of shoving a well gloved finger up there, then smearing it on a ‘smear.’ This can then be tested for intestinal infection. Hooray!
I wouldn’t equate women working with morality. This is a stretch. People do what they must and in societies where population needs new bodies, the argument could be made that a woman unwilling to produce is immoral. This does not equate to women in a flourishing society nor does it support the argument for homosexuality based on it also not being procreative.
@*
The math Indi and shenyl are discussing is possibly valid here, with regard to procreation. Not that not procreating is bad; but people are only productive (able to significantly contribute to society) for so long. You start working around 20 and stop around 60. Before and after this other member’s contributions care for you as your contributions did or will. Homosexuals step out of this system by not replacing their productivity, and so are dependant on modern organized society outside of their productive period; baring the arbitrary example.
This ‘stepping out’ is a life-style choice. Fundamentally, such a choice could be considered wrong.
As for the question of choice, this is complicated. Sexuality in general is complicated. Comparing human behavior to animal behavior here is not helpful.
Science has not revealed a genetic predisposition but it does seem to exist. Sexuality is both learned and instinctual – so this complicates things more.
In my own experience, I have known plenty of gays. I can categorize them into three categories. I am not generalizing here, simply recognizing significantly different uniform groups.
The first homosexual I knew was my best friend when I was 14. He was abused as a boy and basically a sexual deviant. He was aroused by anything, even his dog…. He almost sought out oppression and found it easily in southern OK. He also was generally feminine. At times he would turn on his flamboyant ‘thathyness.’
I would classify him and many others as deviants. There sexuality is simply destructive to themselves and their partner(s). This classification would include pedophiles and highly promiscuous gays.
I also suspect the 20-30 year old men that dance around like 13-year-old girls giggling about clothes and jewelry of being in this category, but I can’t be sure. Regardless, such behavior is not healthy or natural. Even if the individual was a woman in a man’s body, they would not behave so.
The next type of homosexuals I became familiar with where healthy people; they where monogamous with an individual that they loved. The couples had an apparent masculine and feminine member. These people seemed just like a man-woman couple. Arguments against this type of life style are usually poor; I can find little wrong with the actual relationship outside of the destructive AS.
The third category is the odd one. Here I have found several people embrace the homosexual life style for the positive social aspects. Currently, homosexuals are not openly oppressed. They are more so admired and regarded with interest.
Proclaiming yourself gay instantly makes you special. You are accepted into a special group. You are unique. This is also the category that I have found lesbians to be in. I have not known as many gay women as men though.
Actually, I can’t think of any full-gay women…. I have known many woman, usually in their 20s, who have experimented though.
I think male and female sexuality must be very different. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| The math Indi and shenyl are discussing is possibly valid here, with regard to procreation. Not that not procreating is bad; but people are only productive (able to significantly contribute to society) for so long. You start working around 20 and stop around 60. Before and after this other member’s contributions care for you as your contributions did or will. Homosexuals step out of this system by not replacing their productivity, and so are dependant on modern organized society outside of their productive period; baring the arbitrary example. |
i don't stand behind any of that "math", because i think the whole concept of it is stupid. It is based on the notion that the only value a human being has to humanity is as a breeding machine. That is patent nonsense, and it's easy to see that it's plain wrong even for animals simply by noting the existence of altruistic behaviour in nature. Altruistic behaviour is conclusive proof that a member of a species can contribute to the species without breeding - so the entire "math" argument was dead before it even began.
But for the record, your numbers are off. Most individuals nowadays start contributing to society much younger than 20. i would put the age closer to 16 than 20. You're not seriously going to tell me that you didn't get your first job until you were 20, are you? They also tend to work far beyond 60. Retirement age here is 65, and probably going up, but many, many people continue to work in some form or another well beyond then. By contrast, the average person will not have a child until after 20, and probably not later than mid-40's (as a rough average maximum for men and women).
And your logic is bizarrely off, too. "Homosexuals step out of this system by not replacing their productivity, and so are dependant on modern organized society outside of their productive period...." Eh? How do homosexuals (technically you mean non-breeders, but anyway) not replace their productivity? The produce exactly the same amount as a breeder - don't they? - except that most of what the breeder produces goes into rearing their own children. All that means is that the productivity of the homosexual (non-breeder) is funnelled into someone else's children and not their own. How is that bad?Because it's not funneled into other peoples children. Their productivity during the productive period supports those past their period. When they are old, they have not created an entity or cared for one to take care of them. This leaves the non-breeders children to care for them as well.
The non-breeder is then dependent on society after the productive period. If modern organized society did not exist, they would be reliant on perhaps nieces and nephews. If these do not exist, then their in trouble. I don't see why this is such a tough concept.
As for my numbers - yes, I had a job at 16 and so on but I lived at home while I went to school until about 23 and didn't work full time until 18. This is where I got the rough 20. Also, the 60 comes from the fact that not everyone reaches old age nor do they work continuously from 20 until death. If anything, my numbers are generous. Factor in the stay at home child care giver.... A person who has children may spend their entire productive period directly caring for the children and the home.
Also, a homosexual can be discerned from a non-breeder in that it is a life style choice, as is choosing not to have a family.
This is only a small part of the discussion though. I think based simply on this point homosexuality would not be wrong in highly developed societies. It does give a clue.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Because it's not funneled into other peoples children. Their productivity during the productive period supports those past their period. When they are old, they have not created an entity or cared for one to take care of them. This leaves the non-breeders children to care for them as well. |
This is a strange position, It starts with an assumption that children are either duty or practically 'bound' to care for their parents in old age. This itself is very debatable. We then move quickly to an argument which looses me. Why is it more productive to be supported in old age by one's children rather than, for example, one's partner, relations or even wider society? I don't follow the logic. If one's children were, for example, architects, then how would it be better or more 'productive 'for them to give up or roll back their careers to care for elderly parents, than for a trained social worker, nurse or other carer to do the same? What measure of productivity are you applying? Are you even confident that this is what actually happens now for a majority of parents with children? I'm not at all sure that is the case..*
*As a dyed-in-the-wool leftie, of course, I do not like the whole notion of productivity as a measure for anything important - such as peoples health and well-being. Productivity is in essence a shorthand term which means doing more with less. That is not, in my opinion, a good first principle to base one's life on without some deeper thought. It is predicated on the fact that growth is the only useful measure of success, which is questionable, and that doing more for less (whether it be less people, less money or less time) is, in itself, a worthy and necessary goal for society in general. I think it is quite easy to make a powerful counter case....anyway, that is for another debate, I digress, but it astonishes me still that this central assumption about productivity is taken, nowadays, to be not only true, but so obvious that it has become almost axiomatic - even questioning like this is likely to attract pity, scorn and disbelief from many.[/b]
Anyway...to continue the central point.....
I cannot see what you mean by the statement that gay men (I'll simplify by considering the one group and paraphrase slightly - not intending to misrepresent) support those 'past their period' in their working life? What does that even mean? Take a teacher....he can expect to teach children of a similar age for 30-40 years in his/her career and retire with the eventual possible requirement for a few months or years of care in return at the end of their life. Why does the blood relationship matter here? I would argue that in purely practical terms the time has long passed when the majority of children feel obliged to spend months and years caring for their parents in old age. Socially organised care provision is now common, if not actually the norm. Couple this with the fact that birthrates have fallen dramatically in the west and that childlessness is now a choice made by many heterosexuals (myself included) and you have, at best, a confused picture of elderly care; certainly not a clear cut position from which we can talk about concepts of efficiency and productivity in such confident terms.....
| Quote: |
| The non-breeder is then dependent on society after the productive period. If modern organized society did not exist, they would be reliant on perhaps nieces and nephews. If these do not exist, then their in trouble. I don't see why this is such a tough concept. |
Why should these nieces and nephews not exist? Does being gay mean that those around you are less fertile?
More seriously and centrally, I question this simplistic picture of life. What is this notion of a 'productive period' ? You sound like Milton Freedman on a power trip with such talk. How can, and why would, you quantify human productivity in such a limited and partial manner, even assuming that you are a completely convinced and dedicated market economist. The metrics in this sort of situation seem to me to be very complex and far from easy to summarise/generalise in this manner.
Is a celibate teacher, for example, more or less productive than a housewife and mother of 5?
How do you even set about measuring it? You can do crude sums involving gross incomes and other capitalist constructs, but I have always rejected the notion that this is particularly important or informative as a description of human and social interaction, certainly not an accurate basis for judging social interdependence and reliance. Humans are far more complex and messy than this simple model, and this sort of simplified 'economist' arithmetic is frequently less useful as a measure than we may think. In this case I think it is simplified to the point of collapse and does not represent a true, or even reasonable picture of life and interactions in today's world.It is possible to incorporate Christianity and Homosexuality together.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm ok putting aside riligion.. but we can include God here...
well for me its wrong.. because gay is using or making love with the same sex.. and i think is gross and against Gods rule or standard..
coz God made man for women.. and women for men.. not for the same sex..
What happened to "all religion aside"?
| Indi wrote: |
| What happened to "all religion aside"? |
I wanted to show people that Christianity and Homosexuality can go together.
At any rate, without religion one could assume that it is still wrong, because it is abnormal and unnatural. Abnormal because it is not normal (as normal is a man and woman) and unnatural because it is not quite with the natural order.
That's not my view on it, but even without religion I am sure people would still "frown upon it". Granted, it wouldn't be nearly as many.
[Back in the days before the "Big 3" - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, homosexuality was considered sacred and a form of goddess worship among the Pagan religions] ... I do believe that's about correct, and I realize it's a pretty general statement, but still.@ Soulfire
I haven't read the posts between when I last logged on and yours, so this may not be simply directed at you, but I haven't excluded religion on the basis that it purely objects to homosexuality - as there are cases where it is supported if not encouraged - but because the beliefs are objective, not held by the collective, and differ greatly between different groups of people. Hence in deciding a universal question, must be put aside.
Also, to all those that use the abnormality/unnatural argument, it should be understood there are many means of deciding the normality of a behaviour or characteristic, and even then each method of definition is objective.
The most commonly used (even by Oxford Dictionary) is the statistical definition of normality, where normal becomes that which is used by the majority of people. As the majority of people are heterosexual, via this definition homosexuals are abnormal. How-ever, via this definitions, high achievers (those that achieve perfect scores in their end of year exams, members of MENSA, etc), people with refined or perfected skills (gifted musicians, reknowned authors), or taking part in anything not practiced by the majority (being a radio host, playing hockey, etc) is also abnormal. How-ever, we would not consider these activities abnormal so much as unusual... and even then not even in all cases, and this differs between cultures and locations.
So why make the jump from homosexuality being unusual, to being abnormal to being wrong? Why solely for this behaviour, and not others?
A more psychologically correct definition of normality, in fact, is that which is normal behaviour for the individual. Hence it is not abnormal for a famous singer to have tens of thousands of people rock up to their concert, whereas it would be abnormal for tens of thousands of people to rock up to hear me perform. Hence it is not abnormal for a homosexual to exhibit and partake in homosexual behaviour, because they are homosexual and it is a consistent trait of their personality, whereas it would be abnormal for a heterosexual to exhibit homosexual tendencies.
Also, to be unnatural is to be that manifested beyond the law of natural order. Within natural order there are discrepancies where some people are born with one blue eye and one brown eye, a grey streak in their hair, a hetero sexuality, or even a homo sexuality. We do not tamper with humans to make them homosexual, and it is my opinion (along with the vast majority of homosexuals, the only people who have any first hand information on the issue, and the only people that really know wether the trait is inherent) they are born as such.
And end.
=> Jess
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | What happened to "all religion aside"? |
I wanted to show people that Christianity and Homosexuality can go together. |
Yeah, my question still stands. | Bikerman wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | | Because it's not funneled into other peoples children. Their productivity during the productive period supports those past their period. When they are old, they have not created an entity or cared for one to take care of them. This leaves the non-breeders children to care for them as well. |
This is a strange position, It starts with an assumption that children are either duty or practically 'bound' to care for their parents in old age. This itself is very debatable. We then move quickly to an argument which looses me. Why is it more productive to be supported in old age by one's children rather than, for example, one's partner, relations or even wider society? I don't follow the logic. If one's children were, for example, architects, then how would it be better or more 'productive 'for them to give up or roll back their careers to care for elderly parents, than for a trained social worker, nurse or other carer to do the same? What measure of productivity are you applying? Are you even confident that this is what actually happens now for a majority of parents with children? I'm not at all sure that is the case..*
*As a dyed-in-the-wool leftie, of course, I do not like the whole notion of productivity as a measure for anything important - such as peoples health and well-being. Productivity is in essence a shorthand term which means doing more with less. That is not, in my opinion, a good first principle to base one's life on without some deeper thought. It is predicated on the fact that growth is the only useful measure of success, which is questionable, and that doing more for less (whether it be less people, less money or less time) is, in itself, a worthy and necessary goal for society in general. I think it is quite easy to make a powerful counter case....anyway, that is for another debate, I digress, but it astonishes me still that this central assumption about productivity is taken, nowadays, to be not only true, but so obvious that it has become almost axiomatic - even questioning like this is likely to attract pity, scorn and disbelief from many.[/b]
Anyway...to continue the central point.....
I cannot see what you mean by the statement that gay men (I'll simplify by considering the one group and paraphrase slightly - not intending to misrepresent) support those 'past their period' in their working life? What does that even mean? Take a teacher....he can expect to teach children of a similar age for 30-40 years in his/her career and retire with the eventual possible requirement for a few months or years of care in return at the end of their life. Why does the blood relationship matter here? I would argue that in purely practical terms the time has long passed when the majority of children feel obliged to spend months and years caring for their parents in old age. Socially organised care provision is now common, if not actually the norm. Couple this with the fact that birthrates have fallen dramatically in the west and that childlessness is now a choice made by many heterosexuals (myself included) and you have, at best, a confused picture of elderly care; certainly not a clear cut position from which we can talk about concepts of efficiency and productivity in such confident terms.....
| Quote: | | The non-breeder is then dependent on society after the productive period. If modern organized society did not exist, they would be reliant on perhaps nieces and nephews. If these do not exist, then their in trouble. I don't see why this is such a tough concept. |
Why should these nieces and nephews not exist? Does being gay mean that those around you are less fertile?
More seriously and centrally, I question this simplistic picture of life. What is this notion of a 'productive period' ? You sound like Milton Freedman on a power trip with such talk. How can, and why would, you quantify human productivity in such a limited and partial manner, even assuming that you are a completely convinced and dedicated market economist. The metrics in this sort of situation seem to me to be very complex and far from easy to summarise/generalise in this manner.
Is a celibate teacher, for example, more or less productive than a housewife and mother of 5?
How do you even set about measuring it? You can do crude sums involving gross incomes and other capitalist constructs, but I have always rejected the notion that this is particularly important or informative as a description of human and social interaction, certainly not an accurate basis for judging social interdependence and reliance. Humans are far more complex and messy than this simple model, and this sort of simplified 'economist' arithmetic is frequently less useful as a measure than we may think. In this case I think it is simplified to the point of collapse and does not represent a true, or even reasonable picture of life and interactions in today's world. |
Let me simplify my argument. You're missing all the main parts.
Non-modern society
People are born, as children they learn how to be "productive," make food clothing shelter etc. They mature and maintain productivity for a certain amount of time. During this time they make and train their own children. Once they are unable to be productive (farm fight carry stuff ect.) their children return the care.
This is the foundation of primitive society. The family unit builds into a structure where children are learning form the adults, adults are providing for the children, sick and elderly, and the elderly are teaching the children. Throughout history this has been the most common human society. Not having children snaps this in half. This is why fertility has been so important to such societies. Not having children means fewer people to care for you and defend you.
Likewise, choosing homosexuality would break down this foundation. If you brother does not have children, fewer people to care for both of you, fewer men at your side defending your village from a raid. Just like refusing to fight, farm, or build; refusing to have children by any means is a social crime.
Modern society
The modern society of the civilized nations are different. They are much bigger. Children don't care directly for their parents. You son becomes and architect, ok. He pays taxes on his productive work. He contributes to other systems, buying food, medical insurance, housing, etc. making such things affordable to the injured sick elderly...
A good example is the health system. Healthy productive people by insurance and don't use it. This makes it affordable to the sick, injured, and elderly.
Now, as I said, the homosexual is dependent on the modern society because he does not contribute new productive members to the system. He puts his productivity in during his time, but once he is injured or past it, he depends on others contributions. He is dependent not only the contributions of the productive members but he has also the production and raising of these productive society members.
To summarize, homosexuals contribute, but they to not contribute a contributer.
Modern society, however, is more efficient than primitive society. Primitive societies spend all their time getting food, basic necessities, and fighting. Moderns people watch TV, eat too much, shop, etc. A modern society can usually thrive with it's population only producing 1+ child each where primitive society required women to spend literally all of their fertile lives having babies.
Modern society can afford such things as career women, for example. Actually, I wouldn't us the word afford. Much of our societies strengths are produced by career women who may only have 1 or 2 children.
Modern society can also afford homosexuals just as it can afford other people who conduct a life-style that produces no children. Thus, they are dependent on modern society. In a primitive society they would be shunned, as they have throughout history, for neglecting one of the most important responsibilities.
I hope that's more clear. | Quote: |
Modern society
The modern society of the civilized nations are different. They are much bigger. Children don't care directly for their parents. You son becomes and architect, ok. He pays taxes on his productive work. He contributes to other systems, buying food, medical insurance, housing, etc. making such things affordable to the injured sick elderly...
A good example is the health system. Healthy productive people by insurance and don't use it. This makes it affordable to the sick, injured, and elderly.
Now, as I said, the homosexual is dependent on the modern society because he does not contribute new productive members to the system. He puts his productivity in during his time, but once he is injured or past it, he depends on others contributions. He is dependent not only the contributions of the productive members but he has also the production and raising of these productive society members.
To summarize, homosexuals contribute, but they to not contribute a contributer. |
As a person who has chosen not to breed (for the record, I consider myself bi-sexual, but am in a monogamous heterosexual relationship. I have simply chosen not to have children.) I have some objections to your points here. There is no need for anyone to be dependent on society or on their children in their old age. All it takes is a bit of forethought in the form of retirement planning. Anyone who goes through life thinking that the future will take care of itself and that they are entitled to be taken care of by someone else is a selfish fool.
You are right that primitive societies needed high birthrates to survive, but today the world is overpopulated. We are headed toward a disaster as the human population is racing toward a future where our resources will not be able to support our sheer numbers. I believe that anyone who makes the choice not to breed is being responsible. Obviously we can't all choose not to breed or we would die out, but reducing the number of births will help us keep our population at a sustainable level.
Therefore, I don't believe that the arguments you have presented about homosexuals not "contributing a contributer" are valid in a modern context. In fact, it is possible that the genetic aspect of homosexuality is an evolutionary reaction to overpopulation - by taking a percentage of fertile adults out of the breeding pool our population growth is naturally slowed without the need for devistating plagues and starvation (nature's other remedies for overpopulation). | Indi wrote: |
| Soulfire wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | What happened to "all religion aside"? |
I wanted to show people that Christianity and Homosexuality can go together. |
Yeah, my question still stands. |
Then you've missed the point of my post and there is no reason to further respond, except to tell you that I am no longer responding, which seems slightly hypocritical, but I felt it necessary. Oh well.
At any rate, the answer is no, homosexuality would not be wrong if it weren't for people allowing a book to dictate their entire thought process.
Would people still oppose homosexuality? Well, I'm quite sure they would, but my point is that it would be significantly fewer people.Do you choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex if you're a heterosexual? No. Enough said.
All religion included and aside, judging people for no reason just because they follow a different lifestyle than yourself is simply stupid. There's no defending it. It amazes me that after thousands of years of being together, we do not know a single thing about tolerance and acceptance.
| Jinx wrote: |
As a person who has chosen not to breed (for the record, I consider myself bi-sexual, but am in a monogamous heterosexual relationship. I have simply chosen not to have children.) I have some objections to your points here. There is no need for anyone to be dependent on society or on their children in their old age. All it takes is a bit of forethought in the form of retirement planning. Anyone who goes through life thinking that the future will take care of itself and that they are entitled to be taken care of by someone else is a selfish fool.
You are right that primitive societies needed high birthrates to survive, but today the world is overpopulated. We are headed toward a disaster as the human population is racing toward a future where our resources will not be able to support our sheer numbers. I believe that anyone who makes the choice not to breed is being responsible. Obviously we can't all choose not to breed or we would die out, but reducing the number of births will help us keep our population at a sustainable level.
Therefore, I don't believe that the arguments you have presented about homosexuals not "contributing a contributer" are valid in a modern context. In fact, it is possible that the genetic aspect of homosexuality is an evolutionary reaction to overpopulation - by taking a percentage of fertile adults out of the breeding pool our population growth is naturally slowed without the need for devistating plagues and starvation (nature's other remedies for overpopulation). |
I think your objections stem from misunderstanding. In fact, retirement plans are just as dependant on the young as the elderly are in primitive societies. True, you don’t have a particular son of daughter running your farm or keeping watch ready to defend you.
Retirement Savings
In modern society elderly have invested or saved resources for them selves to use until they die. The resources come from a surplus early in life provided by a strong and organized society. For a society to remain strong and organized it needs new young people to replace the old.
Resources and investments are dependant on the young. Old people can’t eat money and if this money is in a bank or investment, they need young people to take over these operations, no different that they would a farm or village wall. Young people still grow the food and gather and organize what the old people need so it can be purchased at a low and predictable price, or produced at all.
Medical Needs
There is also medical care. Few old people, regardless of their saved resources, can afford this. To do so, they either by health insurance or have a government run plan, both systems dependant on taxes or premiums from the young and healthy who draw little from the system.
Protection
The old and sick also rely on the young for protection, even in modern societies, but in the form of police and military rather than all the men in a village, for example, who convert to warriors as needed.
Your overpopulation fears are common. However, you must count many other variables. Most of the world’s population increase is coming from the developing, primitive, societies. They are less organized and thus need more young to insure their prosperity later in life.
Most current modern societies need a slight popularity increase to maintain the items I’ve described above. Choosing not to breed will not contribute to a problem of over population unless infrastructure and organization is not also developing. Many modern societies are growing very slow and some, like Russia, aren’t growing at all. This leaves fewer young to contribute to the society in all areas, not just social systems but everything you can think of.
I have heard a number of theories on why homosexuals exist. However, I’ve never accepted that humans would need such an attribute to control population for several reasons.
I can think of only one pre-modern society that MAY have suffered from over population, the Mayans. No one really knows what happened but it is possible they simply outstripped their ability to organize resources. Homosexuality didn’t cure this.
Throughout history no evidence, that I can think of, has ever pointed to problems with over population. The opposite is the case with most societies dealing with a lack of a growing population, fertility idols and so on.
So, we have to look further in the past to stone aged humans or even before. Here it is certain that population always needed to grow. Humans have offspring one at a time. Any creature reproducing at this rate has plenty of limiting components and over population would be a difficult and rare occurrence, certainly not needing a genetic homosexuality component.
I see homosexuality as a genetic population limiter as totally invalid.
On theory that does hold water is that at some point human groups maintained a single or few breeding males that kept all the females producing while the non-breeding males continued in the normal jobs of care and protection. This is rarely seen in today’s animals.
A similar theory is that humans may have functioned similar to animals like horses. Again, a single breeder but this time the group consists on one male and several females. In this case the non-dominant males for groups on their own. Lions do this too.
In both cases the submissive weaker males would be better off releasing their sexuality on their fellow submissive males. But, again, with regard to observing homosexuality, this rarely happens in today’s animals. Further, if such a trait existed, it would be unlikely to carry to future generations.
Some point out that in fact population limiters DO carry. True, but only in highly proliferate species such as lemmings who kill themselves. Others, displaying more confusion, point out that homosexuality has been observed in some animals. Still, this is not the case. Such animals don't pair homosexually they simply display homosexual sexuality or what looks to humans as so. This could more easily be explained as a display of dominance or a simple social bonding mechanism - not an animal only willing to attempt breeding with its own gender.
| liljp617 wrote: |
Do you choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex if you're a heterosexual? No. Enough said. |
That fact that a person doesn't choose to have a feeling or impulse doesn't make it right. Some people, despite their efforts, lust for children, animals, and killing.
| liljp617 wrote: |
All religion included and aside, judging people for no reason just because they follow a different lifestyle than yourself is simply stupid. There's no defending it. It amazes me that after thousands of years of being together, we do not know a single thing about tolerance and acceptance. |
I don't think this discussion is on whether or not homosexuality should be tolerated or accepted, it is whether on not it is "right," particularly without regard to any religion. Thus the discussion comes down to whether or not homosexuality is harmful to any person or his society. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: |
Do you choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex if you're a heterosexual? No. Enough said. |
That fact that a person doesn't choose to have a feeling or impulse doesn't make it right. Some people, despite their efforts, lust for children, animals, and killing.
| liljp617 wrote: |
All religion included and aside, judging people for no reason just because they follow a different lifestyle than yourself is simply stupid. There's no defending it. It amazes me that after thousands of years of being together, we do not know a single thing about tolerance and acceptance. |
I don't think this discussion is on whether or not homosexuality should be tolerated or accepted, it is whether on not it is "right," particularly without regard to any religion. Thus the discussion comes down to whether or not homosexuality is harmful to any person or his society. |
If the criteria for determining whether it is "right" or "wrong" is whether or not it is harmful to society then acceptance and tolerance have quite a bit to do with it.
It's only harmful to those who deem it "wrong" and it hurts no one in society any worse than heterosexuality.
Based on the previously mentioned criteria: If one deems it wrong and denounces/insults it just because it doesn't suit that person's way of life, that's being intolerant and non-accepting. If you deem it right (or not really a big deal) and you respect their way of life regardless of how you live yours, that's being accepting and tolerant. The only argument that supports it being harmful to society in general revolves around those who are intolerant and non-accepting (and most of those people are religious is the saddening irony).
There's also the fact (yes, fact) that THEY CANNOT HELP THEIR EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS. So, since they can't help it and people are insulting them and denouncing their way of life, that's being intolerant (people can't help their race or ethnicity; when insulted for that, it's considered intolerance). And no, I will not listen to people who say they can choose. It's pure stupidity to, as a heterosexual, act like you know what goes on emotionally with a homosexual person. I've never seen or met a single homosexual person who said they chose to be homosexual. | liljp617 wrote: |
| If the criteria for determining whether it is "right" or "wrong" is whether or not it is harmful to society then acceptance and tolerance have quite a bit to do with it. |
Quite a bit? The only thing I can think of is that unacceptance and intolerance are mechanisms in a society to discourage behavior that harms it.
| liljp617 wrote: |
It's only harmful to those who deem it "wrong" and it hurts no one in society any worse than heterosexuality. |
Now this really is the discussion isn't it. Did you read my post above? There are other reasons homosexuality and homosexual sex that is harmful to the body.
| liljp617 wrote: |
Based on the previously mentioned criteria: If one deems it wrong and denounces/insults it just because it doesn't suit that person's way of life, that's being intolerant and non-accepting. If you deem it right (or not really a big deal) and you respect their way of life regardless of how you live yours, that's being accepting and tolerant. The only argument that supports it being harmful to society in general revolves around those who are intolerant and non-accepting (and most of those people are religious is the saddening irony). |
Criteria: If it is harmful to a person or his society. Please.....
| liljp617 wrote: |
There's also the fact (yes, fact) that THEY CANNOT HELP THEIR EMOTIONS AND FEELINGS. So, since they can't help it and people are insulting them and denouncing their way of life, that's being intolerant (people can't help their race or ethnicity; when insulted for that, it's considered intolerance). And no, I will not listen to people who say they can choose. It's pure stupidity to, as a heterosexual, act like you know what goes on emotionally with a homosexual person. I've never seen or met a single homosexual person who said they chose to be homosexual. |
But remember, homosexuality is sexuality which is a behavior. You choose to display a behavior. You cannot help your emotions (actually you can by controlling your thoughts), a better description would be you anatomical preferences, but you CAN help what you do about them.
As I said, some people have some very destructive emotions that they can't help. There seems to be a segment of society that is stimulated by children. They can't help these emotions any more than a homosexual. However, most societies have decided, rightly so, that this is destructive to the child, and thus disallows, by law and punishment, the activity or even the indulgence of images of that activity. No one reading anyone's mind and locking them up.
One last thing, I don't want anyone who skims to catch this last paragraph and clutter this topic with uselessness. I'm not saying pedophilia is the same as homosexuality in harmfulness. I'm just saying they're both originating from the same spot in the head, neither of which are apparently a choice. | The Conspirator wrote: |
"its not natural" So what? Who cares? Why care? Thats a pathetic argument. Were humans! Unnatural is our way. Just look at the world around us. We are supposed to be hunter/gatherers and we are nothing like that. We are unnatural creators.
The "unnatural" argument is nothing more than a very week justification for homophobia. |
that 'Hole' of your body part is not supposed to be formed for placed by the 'joy' stick.
that's why is unnatural.May I ask who homosexuality exactly hurts? Just curious.
Pedophilia enacted on a child physically and emotionally scars that child. It's been proven.
Where is the proof that homosexuality is harmful to society? It's only spun in a way that it seems harmful to those who deem it wrong (as stated). All I got in response to this in my last post was "Please....." and that doesn't help a whole lot.
On a side note, how many heterosexuals have you met that CHOOSE to like those of the opposite sex? Because I've never met a single one. They're naturally attracted emotionally and physically to those of the opposite sex. If you agree with that, when why is it different from homosexuals? And considering I've never seen a valid argument of whom it harms in society, there's no comparison to be had between homosexuality and pedophilia or something of the sort.
Hi liljp617,
The harm it does to society is, as I said, what I've written above, that it is a life style that requires the strength of a strong society to exist. It draws strength out of the society - that is how it's harmful to it.
As for harm to the person, one area I've pointed out in this topic is the harm from anal sex (AS for abbreviation if we discus this further). It causes trauma and urinary infection. Again, without a strong society supplying antibiotics and condoms and all that, this practice would be deadly.
Your next comment brings up an interesting point, choice and what I personally have seen. Here is what I've observed personally.
Deviant
The first homosexual I knew was my best friend when I was a kid. He wasn't so much a woman in a man's body. He had sex with everything, men, women, his dog.... He was a deviant and is probably dead or in jail. He was abused as a child, or so he claimed.
Later I met way to many people like him. It started when I started working full time, at about 18-years of age. I signed up at a health club. There was the "wet area" with a steam room, hot tub, all that stuff. There was a huge number of friendly fellows there. I had no idea.... I thought I was meeting other professionals and networking. At first, I figured the guy across from me in the seem room with his wiener hanging out, getting bumped into and my ass grabbed, people stretching and accidentally reaching out to my wiener, were legitimate accidents.
I was getting hit on!!! All the time!!! I had no idea. I finally stopped going there when a guy had a throbbing hard boner in the shower. I just couldn't handle the atmosphere after that, once i could start to identify the propositions. This is deviant behavior, not a simple gender reversal of preference. These are the men that give crazy statistics to the homosexual male like having an average of 50 partners per year because they probably have like 1000.
Rebels, Posers
I've known a hand full of people with social difficulties. In high school, for example, they had few friends. Later, they 'came out.' I don't think they legitimately are homosexual. I think it's more likely that they found the subculture of homosexuality interesting. We all know about it, the feminine sensitive man who dresses nice and all that. Wearing makeup and the cloths.
Also, after proclaiming homosexuality these people got an instant new and intriguing persona and are automatically welcomed into a subculture and many other social groups. He who was uncool is now cool.
These people are also not very sexually active and usually admit, with regard to the men, that they don't like the AS at all.
Note:
Both of these groups also display an odd behavior. It's the slurred S's, and the general dancing around, giggling about clothes like a 13-year-old girl. That's not healthy behavior for a 30-year-old man, regardless if something in his brain is switch from female to male.
Legitimate
I've also known people of the same sex that do seem very legitimate as the theories you propose describe. I've known several couples, mostly men. They met however, liked each other, fell in love or what ever, and decided to share a life, one on one.
There is almost always a more feminine one, like a husband and wife. I have no idea of what sex they have but from my perspective they are living the healthiest life for themselves they have found. I can't argue with this type relationship. If this were the universal case, I doubt homosexual adoption would be a problem. One of these couples had a child, from a previous marriage, a boy. He was a bit effeminate though.
I truly do not believe that being gay is wrong. But in school I was once required to argue the con side in gay marriage and so I had to argue against it in a debate. I didn't want to use religion because I live in America so all my opponent would have to do is argue the separation of church and state in his rebuttal and I would be finished.... So I won the debate by coming up with an argument that I thought was clever, but ridiculous... someone told me later that the argument had already been used and that it was called the slippery-slope argument. I don't even think the slippery-slope argument is a good argument because it's ridiculous. I hate debating stuff that I don't believe in...
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
Hi liljp617,
The harm it does to society is, as I said, what I've written above, that it is a life style that requires the strength of a strong society to exist. It draws strength out of the society - that is how it's harmful to it.
As for harm to the person, one area I've pointed out in this topic is the harm from anal sex (AS for abbreviation if we discus this further). It causes trauma and urinary infection. Again, without a strong society supplying antibiotics and condoms and all that, this practice would be deadly.
Your next comment brings up an interesting point, choice and what I personally have seen. Here is what I've observed personally.
Rebels, Posers
I've known a hand full of people with social difficulties. In high school, for example, they had few friends. Later, they 'came out.' I don't think they legitimately are homosexual. I think it's more likely that they found the subculture of homosexuality interesting. We all know about it, the feminine sensitive man who dresses nice and all that. Wearing makeup and the cloths.
Also, after proclaiming homosexuality these people got an instant new and intriguing persona and are automatically welcomed into a subculture and many other social groups. He who was uncool is now cool.
These people are also not very sexually active and usually admit, with regard to the men, that they don't like the AS at all. |
Ask yourself this question then: Does it harm society any more than heterosexuality? I see just as much harm from heterosexuality as I do homosexuality, but heterosexuality is accepted because it is the "norm." Intercourse between heterosexuals has just as many chances of spreading disease as does homosexual intercourse and it can be harmful to either person involved in both cases.
I honestly don't see how it takes any more strength away from a society than many accepted things, so I'll leave that alone and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Can't really comment a whole lot on your personal experiences or observations, but there is one I would like to touch base on (the bolded part in the quote).
So these kids went from heterosexuals to homosexuals by choice because they weren't popular/liked as heterosexuals? That makes no sense. Homosexuals are easily among the most hated groups of people in the world. They take the vast brunt of prejudice in the US especially for being homosexual and even get killed for it in some countries. I can't see a person choosing that life because they're not the most popular kid in school. | liljp617 wrote: |
Ask yourself this question then: Does it harm society any more than heterosexuality? I see just as much harm from heterosexuality as I do homosexuality, but heterosexuality is accepted because it is the "norm." |
I have. I feel I've answered it. The homosexual life does not contribute a new contributer to replace himself. It has nothing to do with normal or acceptance. The other way round actually. People don't look down on homosexuals just because they are different. It is an inheritance from thousands of years of needing people to contribute to a group in order to survive. Homosexuality, like cowardice and laziness, harm the social system and are thus looked down upon.
Sex is necessary. Anything can be destructive but heterosexuality produces children and heterosexual relationships provide a structure in which to care for them and continue the social system. Homosexuality relies on this system but does not build, maintain, or preserve it.
| liljp617 wrote: |
Intercourse between heterosexuals has just as many chances of spreading disease as does homosexual intercourse and it can be harmful to either person involved in both cases. |
Oh, dear. I have had conversations go this way before. I am always amazed at how little people understand. First, I wasn't talking about sexually transmitted disease, I was talking about urinary infection (UTI). However, diseases that are transmitted through capillary contact, like AIDS, are more easily spread with AS. Has to do with the abundance of blood vessels and tight space, I guess.
As for the UTI's, I'll explain this only once - I really hate talking about it.
The anus is just a short little sphincter into the colon. The colon grows all kinds of bacteria to break down food. One of these bacteria is ecoli. If a penis goes into the color, as in AS, it is submerged in this bacteria. If this practice continues, bacteria will eventually find its way into the lower urinary track. There is will cause serious problems, bleeding scaring....
It can flush it's self out. Usually, though, antibiotics are required to kill it. The real danger is that, if left to flush it's self out, it can do the opposite and make its way to the upper urinary track and attack the kidneys. There it can cause scaring, lose of urinary output, or kidney failure (death).
Thus, without antibiotics and condoms, privileges of a modern society, AS is not a option for someone who will live for very long.
As for trauma, no, heterosexual sex is not as destructive. The vagina was designed to take trauma. Babies come out of them! No little penis will harm any vagina long term. The anus, however, is not made for this. It gets damage that doesn't repair its self and can result in.... not being able to ... stay closed.
| liljp617 wrote: |
I honestly don't see how it takes any more strength away from a society than many accepted things, so I'll leave that alone and we'll just have to agree to disagree. |
Agreeing to disagree is not productive. I'm here to test my ideas, I really don't care if we agree or disagree, I just want to know why.
Regardless, that is true. Many other behaviors are just as destructive as homosexuality. but DO we accept them? Alcoholism? That removes a persons productivity and adds further burden to our medical system. It's not accepted though. It's identified as a disease.
This discussion is not on whether homosexuality is acceptable, it's whether or not it is Right. My current view is that it is generally destructive but should not be unaccepted, not in the US anyway. people should be free to like as they wish as long as their behavior is not causing excessive harm. My current belief is that the harm it causes should be limited though, not by coming between such people but by keeping such people from coming between others who are following the productive path. Essentially, equal rights, what we have now.
| liljp617 wrote: |
So these kids went from heterosexuals to homosexuals by choice because they weren't popular/liked as heterosexuals? That makes no sense. Homosexuals are easily among the most hated groups of people in the world. They take the vast brunt of prejudice in the US especially for being homosexual and even get killed for it in some countries. I can't see a person choosing that life because they're not the most popular kid in school. |
Doesn't make sense? Really? Do you know any kids? Being rebellious and living dangerously is not something kids avoid. Hell, that's why they make such good soldiers.
And really, the assumption that homosexuals are oppressed in their daily lives is a bit of a myth, anymore. There are certain people and incidence here or there, but all-in-all, America loves the homosexual. They are our favorite characters on TV! It's only natural. Americans love the rebel, the new age, the modern. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
Thus, without antibiotics and condoms, privileges of a modern society, AS is not a option for someone who will live for very long. |
It depends what you mean by 'very long'. Homosexuality is probably as old as human society itself.
http://hometown.aol.com/GraceEACA/chapter2.html
There are a huge number of Gay men throughout history who lived average lifespans or greater (for their time), and who did not have access to condoms or antibiotics. A long list can be found at
http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/queerhis.htm
but some notable examples would include:
Themistocles 524-459BCE
Euripides 485-406BCE
Sophocles 496-406BCE
Virgil 70-19BCE
Donatello 1386-1466
Leonardo da Vinci 1452-1519
Alfred Lord Tennyson 1809-1892 | Bikerman wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
Thus, without antibiotics and condoms, privileges of a modern society, AS is not a option for someone who will live for very long. |
It depends what you mean by 'very long'. Homosexuality is probably as old as human society itself.
http://hometown.aol.com/GraceEACA/chapter2.html
There are a huge number of Gay men throughout history who lived average lifespans or greater (for their time), and who did not have access to condoms or antibiotics. A long list can be found at
http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/queerhis.htm
but some notable examples would include:
Themistocles 524-459BCE
Euripides 485-406BCE
Sophocles 496-406BCE
Virgil 70-19BCE
Donatello 1386-1466
Leonardo da Vinci 1452-1519
Alfred Lord Tennyson 1809-1892 |
Yes bikerman, we have touched on this discussion before. Let's first examine "homosexuality."
Currently, our definition of homosexuality is a person who is attracted to the same sex and so pursues relationships with the same sex in much the same way as a heterosexual would the opposite sex. This is deferent from the examples you have provided. Your examples are people in strong organized societies. They are also prominent figures, the upper class, if you wish. Being in their class freed them from responsibilities of procreation just like any other obligation like fighting, farming, ect. The "homosexuality" they were involved in was more of a general free sexuality - sort of doing what ever. This is mostly in regard to your Greek examples.
As for your main point, that AS will not result in death without modern protection, one must take a number of other things into account.
First, being homosexual doesn't necessarily mean having AS. If, in fact, during these times AS was practiced regularly they certainly must have had their own 'modern' methods of protection. A cleans perhaps; I don't really want to think about it.
Second, life in general was deadly. We forget now, but before the development of modern medicine people died from scratches and nearly everyone was suffering from serious physical malady. People participating in AS could easily have been suffering from UTI or dieing from it without anyone understanding the cause - effect. This could be from sheer ignorance of pathology or from those with such understanding not knowing of the AS activity. Or, the person simply dies from one of a thousand other killers of his time before the UTI had a chance.
Third, the fact that you have examples of homosexuals does not mean AS in not deadly. Being a soldier is deadly yet we have history of many old soldiers. Alexander, although dieing young, by our standards, in India had his lung punctured by an arrow. How he lived through that I have no idea! How did they get the air out of his chest? How did they keep the wound from sucking? How did he avoid infection? Who knows, likely he suffered from it until his death. In per-modern times people dies from all sorts of things all the time - some managed to live - the ones that lived we have history for and can sight them.
I can think of a number of other example besides a soldier. Drinking diseased water, not bathing, daily horseback riding, breathing smoke from fire, lead utensils, smelting copper, parasites, plague; these things were deadly yet some survived and we can site them surviving. It doesn't mean these things were not deadly.
And finally, we have the immune system its self. I suspect that perhaps pre-modern man had a stronger immune system. this could very well by only from my modern point of view though. If 10 men participated in AS regularly and one managed to survive, I could say he had a strong immune system or an anatomy capable of flushing infection from his urinary system - or I could say he simply beat the odds, like Roscoe Temple. He was an American who fought in all three major American offensives in WWI, he lived, no one else in his outfit or over 100 did. Was he a gifted soldier? No. Mortar shells don't care about that, nor do machine guns. He just managed through. It is said that he was a farm boy with amazing marksmanship though.
Sighting him, and all the other soldiers from the other US outfits doesn't mean fighting WWI was a safe activity.
One could counter this argument by demanding the sighting of people from pre-modern times who DID die from AS induced UTI. This would be a good debate counter because it's impossible. People only started to understand pathology 100 years ago. There would be no such record.
Regardless of any of this, the fact remains that AS is a risky behavior and should always be done with a rubber and lubrication, if one is inclined to do it at all, regardless of sexuality. We can see the prominence of AS causing UTI's in the treatment of UTI. If you're a young man complaining of painful pissing, you get a pee-cup and questions about sex. They test it for infection. If your luck, all it is is an ecoli infection and all you need it a bit of Bactrim or Lavequin. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
Yes bikerman, we have touched on this discussion before. Let's first examine "homosexuality."
Currently, our definition of homosexuality is a person who is attracted to the same sex and so pursues relationships with the same sex in much the same way as a heterosexual would the opposite sex. This is deferent from the examples you have provided. Your examples are people in strong organized societies. They are also prominent figures, the upper class, if you wish. Being in their class freed them from responsibilities of procreation just like any other obligation like fighting, farming, ect. The "homosexuality" they were involved in was more of a general free sexuality - sort of doing what ever. This is mostly in regard to your Greek examples. |
The distinction is not relevant to the point (that being that 'AS is not a option for someone who will live for very long).'
| Quote: |
| As for your main point, that AS will not result in death without modern protection, one must take a number of other things into account. |
I did not say that - I merely pointed out that there are many examples of practicioners of AS throughout history who lived a 'normal' lifespan. Thus the statement that it is/was 'not an option' is wrong.
| Quote: |
| First, being homosexual doesn't necessarily mean having AS. If, in fact, during these times AS was practiced regularly they certainly must have had their own 'modern' methods of protection. A cleans perhaps; I don't really want to think about it. |
Your point concerned specifically condoms and/or antibiotics which are relatively modern and my point was that these were not used by most or all of the people I cited.
| Quote: |
| Second, life in general was deadly. We forget now, but before the development of modern medicine people died from scratches and nearly everyone was suffering from serious physical malady. People participating in AS could easily have been suffering from UTI or dieing from it without anyone understanding the cause - effect. This could be from sheer ignorance of pathology or from those with such understanding not knowing of the AS activity. Or, the person simply dies from one of a thousand other killers of his time before the UTI had a chance. |
Which is why I specifically gave the lifespans of the examples quoted - to show that they lived relatively long lives...
| Quote: |
| Third, the fact that you have examples of homosexuals does not mean AS in not deadly. Being a soldier is deadly yet we have history of many old soldiers. Alexander, although dieing young, by our standards, in India had his lung punctured by an arrow. How he lived through that I have no idea! How did they get the air out of his chest? How did they keep the wound from sucking? How did he avoid infection? Who knows, likely he suffered from it until his death. In per-modern times people dies from all sorts of things all the time - some managed to live - the ones that lived we have history for and can sight them. |
I have never claimed that AS does not pose a risk, I merely took issue with your generalisation. Soldiers do not inevitably die in battle and AS does not inevitably lead to GUI, let alone death. You have sought to make the case that AS will always or usually cause death without condoms or antibiotics and I maintain that this is not the case.
| Quote: |
| I can think of a number of other example besides a soldier. Drinking diseased water, not bathing, daily horseback riding, breathing smoke from fire, lead utensils, smelting copper, parasites, plague; these things were deadly yet some survived and we can site them surviving. It doesn't mean these things were not deadly. |
Unless you can quantify in some way then the term 'deadly' is not really useful. Without some sort of statistical basis then the term has little meaning - deadly in what proportion? 0.2%, 2%, 20%, 80%?
| Quote: |
And finally, we have the immune system its self. I suspect that perhaps pre-modern man had a stronger immune system. this could very well by only from my modern point of view though. If 10 men participated in AS regularly and one managed to survive, I could say he had a strong immune system or an anatomy capable of flushing infection from his urinary system - or I could say he simply beat the odds, like Roscoe Temple. He was an American who fought in all three major American offensives in WWI, he lived, no one else in his outfit or over 100 did. Was he a gifted soldier? No. Mortar shells don't care about that, nor do machine guns. He just managed through. It is said that he was a farm boy with amazing marksmanship though.
Sighting him, and all the other soldiers from the other US outfits doesn't mean fighting WWI was a safe activity. |
I have never said that AS is a safe activity - neither, however, is it inevitably deadly.
| Quote: |
One could counter this argument by demanding the sighting of people from pre-modern times who DID die from AS induced UTI. This would be a good debate counter because it's impossible. People only started to understand pathology 100 years ago. There would be no such record.
Regardless of any of this, the fact remains that AS is a risky behavior and should always be done with a rubber and lubrication, if one is inclined to do it at all, regardless of sexuality. We can see the prominence of AS causing UTI's in the treatment of UTI. If you're a young man complaining of painful pissing, you get a pee-cup and questions about sex. They test it for infection. If your luck, all it is is an ecoli infection and all you need it a bit of Bactrim or Lavequin. |
I would certainly not argue with using lube/condoms for anal sex (all sex for that matter).horseatingweeds:
So you are saying that homosexuality is wrong because there is a danger to the people who engage in that lifestyle.
By that logic, it would also be wrong to skydive (about 30 deaths per year), Scuba Dive (140 deaths per year), drive a car (more than 40,000 deaths per year), go swimming (7,000 drowning deaths per year), boating (around 1,000 deaths per year), ride a bicycle (800 deaths per year), or heck, even going outside would be immoral (1,200 deaths from bee stings, 80 deaths from lightning strikes per year).
Life is risky. Everyone dies eventually. Sometimes love is the only thing that makes it all worthwhile.
I don't understand your need to Debate this part of the argument Bikerman, unless you are simply misunderstanding the logic.
You want a statistic telling you, somewhere online, for the percentage of people who have AS that get UTIs? Good luck. I don't know of any such studies or anyone that would be so inclined. If there were such study, it wouldn't be online. Would you do a medical study on something else with an obvious correlation that is also private and border line non-pc?
Currently, UTIs are easy to treat. You don't do studies on stuff that only need four pills to fix. I've found a few studies, on in particular about a particularly bad and difficult to treat ecoli that a gay man was having problems with. He had recurring UTIs, but this says little overall.
I can't give you statistics. All I can do it point you at the logic and its magnitude. Take it for what it's worth.
If you want a bit more info, here is an article on AS trouble in general.
http://www.hemorrhoid.net/analsex.php
One UTI can kill without antibiotics. Every time someone has AS they are exposing themselves to the bacteria and taking a big risk. It might be the first time or they might do it 100 times and get by. It depends on how they do it I suppose. It also depends on anatomy and a number of other things. I don't see how you could do it for long and not get a UTI, it would be amazing.
If the simple logic escapes you, fine, take the number of other physical health problems AS causes. The question is: Is homosexuality wrong. I don't know, but AS is. It is harmful. I'm simply pointing this out in the argument. Debating UTIs from AS, for me, is not any more productive than discussing not earing a shield while you weld. | Jinx wrote: |
horseatingweeds:
So you are saying that homosexuality is wrong because there is a danger to the people who engage in that lifestyle.
By that logic, it would also be wrong to skydive (about 30 deaths per year), Scuba Dive (140 deaths per year), drive a car (more than 40,000 deaths per year), go swimming (7,000 drowning deaths per year), boating (around 1,000 deaths per year), ride a bicycle (800 deaths per year), or heck, even going outside would be immoral (1,200 deaths from bee stings, 80 deaths from lightning strikes per year).
Life is risky. Everyone dies eventually. Sometimes love is the only thing that makes it all worthwhile. |
I'm simply pointing out that AS, part of some homosexual's lifestyle, is harmful to the body. You logic here is false. I'm not saying everything that involves risk is wrong. I would have to say that for your above to apply.
A better derivative of your post would be skydiving without a reserve, Scuba Diving more than two hours, driving a car from the back seat, swimming in a suit of armor, boating after drinking, riding a bick on the freeway, or going outside in a lightning storm waving a long metal rode.
All of THESE activities would be a risk and could lead to insight into the morality of what they are involved with.
You could also point out that all of these activities are a privilege of modern society. Is skydiving a natural lifestyle? No. Anyway, skydiving is safer than AS. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| I don't understand your need to Debate this part of the argument Bikerman, unless you are simply misunderstanding the logic. |
The logic is simple as I thought I pointed out. Without some sort of statistical or epidemiological numbers you cannot possibly make statements like :-
| Horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Thus, without antibiotics and condoms, privileges of a modern society, AS is not a option for someone who will live for very long. |
That was the point I made, and the ONLY point I made. It is an over-generalisation, unsupported by evidence and refuted by many examples, some of which I cited.
Without some idea of the actual risk of infection it is impossible to make statements like :
| Horseatingweeds wrote: |
| I don't see how you could do it for long and not get a UTI, it would be amazing. |
An analogous statement would be: "I don't see how you could smoke for long and not get lung cancer". The point is that you CAN. Sure, the risk of lung cancer is higher if you smoke - much higher - but lung cancer is by no means inevitable.it's not wrong to be gay, doesn't make you less person...
if gays wanna be gay let them be gay (wow, did i just say that 
)
just giving my opinion I'm a huge fan of the "it's a choice" argument.
Do straight people choose to like the opposite sex? Or does it just happen? Can't that be applied the other way, that is to say, that gay people do not choose to like members of the same sex, it just happens?
People can be gay as much as they want. I will probably react different to a person that is gay but I will try to not show it. I know it's normal to be a gay and if everybody was gay we would not have so many kids which is good.
You know bikerman, you'd be embarrassed if you had any idea. The FACT that if you engage in AS you will most likely get a UTI is something I know from experience in the medical community. You don't want to do any valid research? You want to bring up false arguments found on pro-gay website? Fine.
With all of the physicians I know, actual working doctors seeing 100s of patients a week, this includes urology, would treat this part of the argument as totally ridiculous. I'm not wasting any more letters on it. There are a thousand other points that could be much more productively argued than whether or not AS gives you UITs
I'm almost tempted, due to my own arrogance in wanting to show-you-up, to bother someone for you, get you some study from somewhere. But what would this accomplish? For one it would distract someone with better things to do, relieving suffering and such. Actually, my main hesitation is the questions they might wonder..... Better yet, what if I explained this whole argument to my successful friends, "Yeah hay, so I was online the other day, having a discussion about if being gay is wrong, and I'm having difficulty with a fellow who won't believe that AS will cause UTI. Do you know any actual online-able sources of evidence I can give him so he'll stop bothering me and focus on a more productive area of the discussion, perhaps an area not treated as fact?"
Yeah - then they'd really start to worry about me....
| Peterssidan wrote: |
| People can be gay as much as they want. I will probably react different to a person that is gay but I will try to not show it. I know it's normal to be a gay and if everybody was gay we would not have so many kids which is good. |
This discussion's veered of into loopy-vill again. Maybe I'll let things air out for a while.... I was talking to a gay chap (I'll call him Fred) on Friday about blood donation. He isn't allowed to donate because he's gay. He says that he practices safe sex with his only partner (who seems to be monogamous too) and has been tested, but he still accepts that the medical establishment are correct to look at him as a member of a group as well as as an individual.
He is aware that the statistics make him a high risk, even if his behaviour doesn't. That's just the way it is, others like him are high risk (My mate Alan, who is a very promiscuous gay, for example, is lucky to be alive). One of the other guys in the pub asked Fred why he doesn't just not tell the blood collectors and Fred replied that that would be immoral and probably illegal.
Whether Fred's sexual orientation is wrong or not (it's not, IMO) it carries with it a risk; but so does riding a motorbike.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| I'm almost tempted, due to my own arrogance in wanting to show-you-up, to bother someone for you, get you some study from somewhere. But what would this accomplish? For one it would distract someone with better things to do, relieving suffering and such. Actually, my main hesitation is the questions they might wonder..... Better yet, what if I explained this whole argument to my successful friends, "Yeah hay, so I was online the other day, having a discussion about if being gay is wrong, and I'm having difficulty with a fellow who won't believe that AS will cause UTI. Do you know any actual online-able sources of evidence I can give him so he'll stop bothering me and focus on a more productive area of the discussion, perhaps an area not treated as fact?" |
I previously asked you to produce any such study and since you failed to do so I regard your comments with scepticism. I have searched for such studies and found nothing which would support your contentions.
I have never said that AS is not a possible cause of UTI as you well know. I merely pointed out that AS does not inevitably lead to UTI as you repeatedly state. If you have some evidence to support your views then produce it - anecdotes about medical friends don't really cut much ice.Just noticed your nick, Bikerman. The comment in my previous post "but so does riding a motorbike" wasn't intended personally. 
I used to ride a bike. | Bru, stuffce wrote: |
| Just noticed your nick, Bikerman. The comment in my previous post "but so does riding a motorbike" wasn't intended personally. I used to ride a bike. |
No offence taken | Bikerman wrote: |
I previously asked you to produce any such study and since you failed to do so I regard your comments with scepticism. I have searched for such studies and found nothing which would support your contentions.
I have never said that AS is not a possible cause of UTI as you well know. I merely pointed out that AS does not inevitably lead to UTI as you repeatedly state. If you have some evidence to support your views then produce it - anecdotes about medical friends don't really cut much ice. |
I think actual experience treating patience cuts a little more ice than some arbitrary website with a graph or % that you seem to find so credible. With the size of this whole argument, it's odd that you focus on this small little part of a single point. If you don't want to accept that UTIs are inevitable for someone having consistent AS, fine, look at the numerous other physical problems it causes, it supports my original point, that AS will kill you off, most likely, without moder medicine and devices.
Also, I explained why I'm not going to go out of my way to produce a study. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| I think actual experience treating patience cuts a little more ice than some arbitrary website with a graph or % that you seem to find so credible. With the size of this whole argument, it's odd that you focus on this small little part of a single point. If you don't want to accept that UTIs are inevitable for someone having consistent AS, fine, look at the numerous other physical problems it causes, it supports my original point, that AS will kill you off, most likely, without moder medicine and devices. |
It's a fallacious argument :- some patients indulging in AS require treatment for UTI, ergo AS inevitably leads to UTI....I don't think so.
| Quote: |
| Also, I explained why I'm not going to go out of my way to produce a study. |
Ahh yes - because it would distract your medical friends from vital work and might cause them to question why you wanted such material...that was your reason wasn't it? Hmmm... | Bikerman wrote: |
It's a fallacious argument :- some patients indulging in AS require treatment for UTI, ergo AS inevitably leads to UTI....I don't think so. |
No Bikerman, the men who get UTIs have AS. Unless they have had surgery and or a wiener tube. I give up on trying to educate you though. You're obviously more concerned with proving yourself than finding any truth. I I've said, this is a small part of a single point in a much larger argument.
Just look at the flow of thing. You've brought the whole discussion down on fighting this obvious fact.
Here will this make you feel better? Ok Bikerman, UTIs are no concern for people having AS. Somehow, through a phenomenon not yet understood, the penis can be shoved into the rectum for a duration of time on a regular basis without the huge amount of dangerous bacteria there in invading the urethra and migrating into the lower and upper urinary track.
Can we get on with the conversation now? Now that you are right and I am wrong, yet no variables have changed, AS is still damaging and dangerous, far more than sex, and unnaturally so, causing injury, but, of course, not infection....I suppose that now would be a bad time to point out that AS is also responsible for some colonic conditions, in men as well as women. Semen is quite acidic when it breaks down and repeated exposure to delicate mucous membranes can damage them, causing various problems including diverticulitis and colonic fistula. This is in addition to the risk of accidental tearing of the membranes.
| Bru, stuffce wrote: |
| I suppose that now would be a bad time to point out that AS is also responsible for some colonic conditions, in men as well as women. Semen is quite acidic when it breaks down and repeated exposure to delicate mucous membranes can damage them, causing various problems including diverticulitis and colonic fistula. This is in addition to the risk of accidental tearing of the membranes. |
No, I have no problems with this. I am not an advocate of AS (in fact I have no personal experience of it) and I have never sought to make the case that AS is safe. I sought only to refute the claim that repeated unprotected AS is inevitably fatal without antibiotic intervention. Neither would I, of course, advocate unprotected anal sex, just as I would never advocate unprotected vaginal sex, since both carry risks of infections, some of which, as we know are potentially fatal. | Bru, stuffce wrote: |
| I suppose that now would be a bad time to point out that AS is also responsible for some colonic conditions, in men as well as women. Semen is quite acidic when it breaks down and repeated exposure to delicate mucous membranes can damage them, causing various problems including diverticulitis and colonic fistula. This is in addition to the risk of accidental tearing of the membranes. |
Yes, there is a myriad of dangers involving AS well outside of VD. It as obvious as a blue-light special but saying so is not politically correct. I mean, you wouldn't eat a sandwich on the toilet.
I think the conclusion here is that AS is not a sustainable activity outside of the benefits of a modern society. The rectum of otherwise healthy people NOT participating in AS has problems on its own. Many non-AS people have a hand full on problems with it doing it intended job.
I think the controversy comes from the male homosexual community. Here the rectum is basically taking the place of the vagina and the fact that AS required significant medical support discredits the validity of the lifestyle.
My Conclusion Thus Far:
AS is wrong, harms people.
Male homosexual relationships without AS and female homosexual relationships seem valid in a strong society needing minimal new members to sustain its productivity.
Male AS relations are counter productive and harmful, not unlike many vices such as obesity.
Question:
Usually, I've found that homosexuality is validated by the notion that a homosexual is more or less a person with a mental switch thrown contrary to normal sexuality. A man being attracted to a man.
So, where does AS come in? To women, the act of being penetrated is highly sexual. Is this the case for the homosexual - as if the man has the same urges as a woman? This would seem than that a homosexual feels more like, say, a woman in the body of a man.
Or possibly, is the rectum being substituted for a vagina? in this case I don't understand. A woman in a man's body would not seem to desire penetrating such. If we follow the switch theory, a man feeling sexually attracted to other men, I still don't understand the desire for AS. Is it basically regular male sexuality that finds the male physic attractive and AS is serving as a vaginal substitute?
further, are male homosexuals actually finding the anatomy involved in AS stimulating? This would be difficult to explain... | Quote: |
Quote:
Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say.
Um, nooooooo. It does not. It says that homosexual acts may be a
SIGN of someone who is sinful. And to quote Indi (which is something I honestly agree with
him on, believe it or not), "Getting drunk is bad. People sometimes put lamp shades on their
head when they're drunk. That doesn't mean that putting a lamp shade on your head is bad
too." Apply the same logic. Sin is wrong. Sometimes those who sin carry out homosexual
acts. That doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong. |
Sorry Jess for taking you off the topic guidlines but I have to make a clarification here.
Actually, the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong.
In Leviticus 18:22, it is clearly stated that " you shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."
Romans 1:26-27 says: "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10. " Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (meaning that homosexuality is wrong because it says that they will go to hell. It doesn't say that they are sinners and that being gay was something that did other than sinning. It says that homosexuality was their sin)
Back under guidelines, I have to ask: If it were intended for men to marry men and women to mary women, why on earth are they unable to naturally reproduce and have children together?
I would also like to point out that until the 1970's, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Just thought that to be interesting.
God Bless!Of course it isn't wrong to be gay. Homosexuality can be considered as normal. Anyone who feels diffrent must be having trouble with accepting certain things. It isn't sinfull to be a homosexual. I do not understand the problem religion has with it. If a god created us, he created homosexuals as well. By calling it sinfull you are telling me god is blaming those people for his mistakes? Yeah, right...
There is nothing wrong with being gay, it is of all timelines and it happens everywhere on the world. Not accepting it is only a sign of beign narrow minded, nothing else.
If God saw it as normal, he wouldn't have said in the Bible that it is wrong.
| Quote: |
| If a god created us, he created homosexuals as well. By calling it sinfull you are telling me god is blaming those people for his mistakes? Yeah, right... |
Say you did believe in God. If you don't , just pretend for a minute that you do. If you have read the account of creation in Genesis, it will tell you this : "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27. It is Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve, okay?
God Bless! | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| If God saw it as normal, he wouldn't have said in the Bible that it is wrong. |
The bible didn't drop out of the sky. It was written by "faulty" humans like us. And besides, don't you agree that it is kind of hypocritical to make a mistake (namely creating homosexuals as you claim to be wrong) and then blame those people for your mistakes?
| Quote: |
| Say you did believe in God. If you don't , just pretend for a minute that you do. If you have read the account of creation in Genesis, it will tell you this : "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27. It is Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve, okay? |
And no, I do not believe in god. So the book of Genesis has no meaning to me. Even if it had, there are numerous translation faults that have been made upon which christians like to point once they can't win an argument. Who says the translation made a little mistake here. And btw. Genesis only says god created man and woman to his image, a bit strange there as I imagine he would only have one image but yet he succeeded in making two diffrent looking humans, that aside however, I cannot find anything in the part you quoted which says people shouldn't love people of the same sex.
Anyway, don't even understand why I am replying to this as it says: All religion aside.
No, being homosexual isn't wrong. It is of all ages and is seen everywhere.And i ask yet again:
| Indi wrote: |
| What happened to "all religion aside"? |
--------------------------------
If you want to make a religious case for hating human beings that just happen to be gay, go for it. But why not make a new thread instead of pissing all over this one?
Frankly i would welcome a thread on the Christian Bible's perspective on homosexuality. i would take advantage of it to clear up some misconceptions i see flying around here. This thread clearly intends to seek out non-religious answers to the question, if any. Why is respecting that impossible? | Quote: |
| And no, I do not believe in god. So the book of Genesis has no meaning to me. Even if it had, there are numerous translation faults that have been made upon which christians like to point once they can't win an argument. Who says the translation made a little mistake here. And btw. Genesis only says god created man and woman to his image, a bit strange there as I imagine he would only have one image but yet he succeeded in making two diffrent looking humans, that aside however, I cannot find anything in the part you quoted which says people shouldn't love people of the same sex. |
Mistake number one: the bible said that God created man in His own image. This doesn't mean that He created a carbon copy of Himself. We do not look like God. In the beginning we were perfect until Adam and Eve sinned.
Mistake number 2: was my mistake. I left out the second verse I was going to add in . Genesis 2:24 says that: "therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Note it doesn't say man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his husband.
| Quote: |
What happened to "all religion aside"
|
I didn't start the thread off into this direction, all I did was clarify someone elses thoughts. They mentioned the Bible. | Quote: |
| The bible didn't drop out of the sky. It was written by "faulty" humans like us. |
Note: It wasn't written by humans, it was written down by humans, inspired by God. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | What happened to "all religion aside"
|
I didn't start the thread off into this direction, all I did was clarify someone elses thoughts. They mentioned the Bible. |
Then they were wrong to mention it, and you should have pointed that out rather than continuing the crime. Don't they teach that two wrongs don't make a right in Sunday School?*
If you're so concerned that people "misunderstand" the Bible's position on homosexuals (or anything), make a thread and discuss it. Don't discuss it in a thread that clearly forbids it.
*My bad, they don't teach that all. (<wrong>sin</wrong> and <wrong>brutal execution of a person/god</wrong> = <right>"salvation!"</right>) | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | | The bible didn't drop out of the sky. It was written by "faulty" humans like us. |
Note: It wasn't written by humans, it was written down by humans, inspired by God. |
It was written by men. Very ordinary men of the time period.I dont care if someone is gay, whether it is wrong or right is not for me or any of you to decide. But if you are gay, dont expect to reproduce which is what I believe is the basis of life. No reproduction, no life.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| I dont care if someone is gay, whether it is wrong or right is not for me or any of you to decide. But if you are gay, dont expect to reproduce which is what I believe is the basis of life. No reproduction, no life. |
Why, exactly, should a gay person not expect to reproduce?
Are you going to stop them?just look at our anatomy, men are obviously not supposed to have sex with other men. Men fit with women, physically, not men. Just look aids and stuff.
I don't see a problem with it. If you're attracted to members of your own sex and that makes you happy, then so be it. It's your life, not mine, and I'll leave you be.
| Indi wrote: |
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | I dont care if someone is gay, whether it is wrong or right is not for me or any of you to decide. But if you are gay, dont expect to reproduce which is what I believe is the basis of life. No reproduction, no life. |
Why, exactly, should a gay person not expect to reproduce?
Are you going to stop them? |
My apologies, I didn't see the man with a vagina behind you</sarcasm>Yeah, I definitely have to agree with you there Bryan_Bezzle. There is no way that two
people of the same sex can reproduce together. They could adopt, or have a surragate
mother carry a child for them(in the case of the two males) or they could have invitro(girls),
but there is no way on earth that they could naturally by having sex. It just ain't natural.
Nor is it natural that a woman would get pregnant witouth even having sex and gives life to a boy. Yet, you believe that. This is not on topic though but simply a point to show that you don't always believe in natural things.
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
Yeah, I definitely have to agree with you there Bryan_Bezzle. There is no way that two
people of the same sex can reproduce together. They could adopt, or have a surragate
mother carry a child for them(in the case of the two males) or they could have invitro(girls),
but there is no way on earth that they could naturally by having sex. It just ain't natural. |
How does one explain an entire book of unnatural events? | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | I dont care if someone is gay, whether it is wrong or right is not for me or any of you to decide. But if you are gay, dont expect to reproduce which is what I believe is the basis of life. No reproduction, no life. |
Why, exactly, should a gay person not expect to reproduce?
Are you going to stop them? |
My apologies, I didn't see the man with a vagina behind you</sarcasm> |
</ignorance>, actually.
There appear to be many things that you do not see, but that is because you are not looking properly. Why, for example, would you even dream of a man with a vagina? It's not necessary for a gay person to reproduce. Why not an ordinary woman (for a gay man) or ordinary man (for a gay woman)? That's all a gay person would need to reproduce.
Let's assume for the moment that a gay man will never in his entire life touch a woman in a sexual way. That's a little silly to assume, but it seems to be what you believe. Let's assume also that a lesbian will never in her life touch a male in a sexual way.
They can still breed.
How? you ask.
Answer: if you would take a moment to join us here in the 21st century, you will discover that we have found a number of ways around requiring actual copulation as a means of producing babies. Our gay man can go into a room with an empty cup and a magazine and come back out with a full cup, a magazine i would not be interested in touching and a smile. Next day the lesbian goes into a room with a doctor and the contents of said cup, and comes out with an empty cup and a smile... and a bun in the oven.
Voilà: homosexual reproduction... without even requiring them to "act heterosexual" (which, of course, they could obviously do, and i fail to see why you see that).
So i ask again: why should a gay person not expect to reproduce... unless you intend to do something to stop them?
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
Yeah, I definitely have to agree with you there Bryan_Bezzle. There is no way that two
people of the same sex can reproduce together. They could adopt, or have a surragate
mother carry a child for them(in the case of the two males) or they could have invitro(girls),
but there is no way on earth that they could naturally by having sex. It just ain't natural. |
So what? Who cares if a gay person's method of conception does not fall into your definition of "natural"? It's possible, isn't it? So why shouldn't they expect to breed?What he means is that two gay people cannot naturally (ie. without the use of external resources) reproduce together, by means of sexual intercourse.
if homosexuality is supposed to be considered natural and normal, then what about sex with animals? why is that not normal? Im not saying they both are the same, because they are not. But Im saying that both of these things used to be considered unnatural and perverted... nowadays somehow homosexuality is becoming accepted... so who says sex with animals, or children, will not be? that's what is gonna happen if we start accepting everything because we are afraid of being called ignorant, old-fashioned etc.
| Quote: |
| Nor is it natural that a woman would get pregnant witouth even having sex and gives life to a boy. Yet, you believe that. This is not on topic though but simply a point to show that you don't always believe in natural things. |
If you believed in the Bible, which you obviously don't you would know that it was God that caused her to be with child. Since you don't, how do you think Jesus was born? He was a real person. You will probably say that Mary just got some with Joseph before they were married and all. Even though you don't believe the Bible to be the truth, how can you explain Mary not being stoned after she became pregnant? During that time, that was the penaltyif youbecame pregnant before you were married. God's hand had to have been on her or she would have been dead. | Quote: |
| So what? Who cares if a gay person's method of conception does not fall into your definition of "natural"? It's possible, isn't it? So why shouldn't they expect to breed? |
It isn't natural biologically. Technically, in the case of one of the homo parents, the kid wouldn't trully be theirs because it isn't carrying the genes of that parent. Why? because you can't smash two eggs together or two sperm together and create a child. Biologically it is impossible. Thus it is unnatural. Just as if a woman can not get pregnant by her own husband and she does invitro or whatever route they take (besides simply having sex with another guy other than her husband) it isn't considered to be natural because the pregnancy wasn't caused by having sex. It was caused in a labratory. Same thing applies to homos trying to have children. If it is done in a lab it isn't a natural pregnancy. I am not saying that hetero couples who know that it will be hard to get pregnant shouldn't get married, because most couples can get pregnant on their own. But no gay couple can have sex and get pregnant together. Period. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| What he means is that two gay people cannot naturally (ie. without the use of external resources) reproduce together, by means of sexual intercourse. |
Thats all I'm saying. Im sorry Indi, you can call names all you want but what I mean by my statements is the fact that a homosexual couple cannot reproduce together. Yes they can use surrogate mothers or use artificial insemination but -- doesn't work neither does 00. Only -0. And I'm sorry but if I love my partner I want her to have my child. If I was a woman I'd like to have his child. Homosexual couples do not have that privilege. Like I originally stated, If that is their choice it is not for us to judge them, but the fact is they cannot have each others child. </right> [correct="Bryan_Bezzle"]Thats all I'm saying. Im sorry Indi, you can call names all you want but what I mean by my statements is the fact that a homosexual couple cannot reproduce together. Yes they can use surrogate mothers or use artificial insemination but -- doesn't work neither does 00. Only -0. And I'm sorry but if I love my partner I want her to have my child. If I was a woman I'd like to have his child. Homosexual couples do not have that privilege. Like I originally stated, If that is their choice it is not for us to judge them, but the fact is they cannot have each others child.[/correct]
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | | So what? Who cares if a gay person's method of conception does not fall into your definition of "natural"? It's possible, isn't it? So why shouldn't they expect to breed? |
It isn't natural biologically. Technically, in the case of one of the homo parents, the kid wouldn't trully be theirs because it isn't carrying the genes of that parent. Why? because you can't smash two eggs together or two sperm together and create a child. Biologically it is impossible. Thus it is unnatural. Just as if a woman can not get pregnant by her own husband and she does invitro or whatever route they take (besides simply having sex with another guy other than her husband) it isn't considered to be natural because the pregnancy wasn't caused by having sex. It was caused in a labratory. Same thing applies to homos trying to have children. If it is done in a lab it isn't a natural pregnancy. I am not saying that hetero couples who know that it will be hard to get pregnant shouldn't get married, because most couples can get pregnant on their own. But no gay couple can have sex and get pregnant together. Period. |
Again, it's also not biologically natural for a woman to give birth without any sexual intercourse (assuming we're leaving out modern advances, as you seem to want to do). You can't have different standards and pick and choose how you wish to define things just to fit your point. There is no biology when dealing with God, so the idea that God explains the birth is not acceptable. It's not biologically possible to have a baby without sexual intercourse, therefore it is unnatural. All of this is based on what you've said in your posts. Yet you seem to continue to deny the birth of Jesus as Christianity puts it is unnatural. It is. Period.What you don't understand is that Mary was not performing adultery with other women, and suddenly became pregnant. That is unnatural. She was a normal woman, who, without sexual intercourse with any MAN or WOMAN, became pregnant because God made her. Not another man/woman.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| What you don't understand is that Mary was not performing adultery with other women, and suddenly became pregnant. That is unnatural. She was a normal woman, who, without sexual intercourse with any MAN or WOMAN, became pregnant because God made her. Not another man/woman. |
Will you explain to me how that is biologically natural? That seems to be his argument...that it isn't right to be homosexual because you can't reproduce in a biologically natural way. It's also not biologically natural to give birth without sexual intercourse. Like I said, you can't pick and choose what statements you want to apply to certain topics just to prove your point. | liljp617 wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | What you don't understand is that Mary was not performing adultery with other women, and suddenly became pregnant. That is unnatural. She was a normal woman, who, without sexual intercourse with any MAN or WOMAN, became pregnant because God made her. Not another man/woman. |
Will you explain to me how that is biologically natural? That seems to be his argument...that it isn't right to be homosexual because you can't reproduce in a biologically natural way. It's also not biologically natural to give birth without sexual intercourse. Like I said, you can't pick and choose what statements you want to apply to certain topics just to prove your point. |
I think he was already explaining that it is not natural. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | What you don't understand is that Mary was not performing adultery with other women, and suddenly became pregnant. That is unnatural. She was a normal woman, who, without sexual intercourse with any MAN or WOMAN, became pregnant because God made her. Not another man/woman. |
Will you explain to me how that is biologically natural? That seems to be his argument...that it isn't right to be homosexual because you can't reproduce in a biologically natural way. It's also not biologically natural to give birth without sexual intercourse. Like I said, you can't pick and choose what statements you want to apply to certain topics just to prove your point. |
I think he was already explaining that it is not natural. |
Neither of the mentioned anything about the birth of Jesus being unnatural. They have simply said it was put forth by God and acted as if that ended the discussion. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| What he means is that two gay people cannot naturally (ie. without the use of external resources) reproduce together, by means of sexual intercourse. |
Oh, is that what he means? i normally assume that most people mean what they actually say. He said (to paraphrase) that homosexuals should not expect to reproduce.
He still hasn't explained why.
| LimpFish wrote: |
| if homosexuality is supposed to be considered natural and normal, then what about sex with animals? why is that not normal? Im not saying they both are the same, because they are not. But Im saying that both of these things used to be considered unnatural and perverted... nowadays somehow homosexuality is becoming accepted... so who says sex with animals, or children, will not be? that's what is gonna happen if we start accepting everything because we are afraid of being called ignorant, old-fashioned etc. |
This argument has already been answered at least a half-dozen times. -_-
Once again:
- It doesn't matter what is natural or not. "Natural" is an artificial distinction created by people.
- It doesn't matter what "society" considered "unnatural", "perverted" or wrong. Your society may make those claims... but so what? Other societies have accepted homosexuality without complaint. And some societies say women should be treated like property. What "society" says is not the correct way to determine right from wrong.
- Sex with animals and children is wrong:
- not because it is "unnatural"
- not because society says it is "wrong"
It is wrong because neither animals nor children can make a fully informed consent to the sex. Sex with animals and children is always rape, because it is always done without consent, and that is why it is wrong. By contrast, sex between two consenting adults is never rape, no matter what the sexes of the participants.
If you think homosexuality is comparable to child or animal rape, then you are being "ignorant, old-fashioned etc.". There is no reason to compare those things except bigotry, because they have absolutely nothing else in common.
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | | So what? Who cares if a gay person's method of conception does not fall into your definition of "natural"? It's possible, isn't it? So why shouldn't they expect to breed? |
It isn't natural biologically. Technically, in the case of one of the homo parents, the kid wouldn't trully be theirs because it isn't carrying the genes of that parent. Why? because you can't smash two eggs together or two sperm together and create a child. Biologically it is impossible. Thus it is unnatural. Just as if a woman can not get pregnant by her own husband and she does invitro or whatever route they take (besides simply having sex with another guy other than her husband) it isn't considered to be natural because the pregnancy wasn't caused by having sex. It was caused in a labratory. Same thing applies to homos trying to have children. If it is done in a lab it isn't a natural pregnancy. I am not saying that hetero couples who know that it will be hard to get pregnant shouldn't get married, because most couples can get pregnant on their own. But no gay couple can have sex and get pregnant together. Period. |
So what? So a gay couple can't produce a child together. How do you go from that to saying gay people should not expect to reproduce?
To show you how stupid your argument is, consider a heterosexual brother and sister. They can't (or at the very least, they shouldn't) produce a child together. Are you going to tell them they shouldn't expect to reproduce? Absurd. All they have to do is go reproduce with other people. Same for gays.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | What he means is that two gay people cannot naturally (ie. without the use of external resources) reproduce together, by means of sexual intercourse. |
Thats all I'm saying. Im sorry Indi, you can call names all you want but what I mean by my statements is the fact that a homosexual couple cannot reproduce together. Yes they can use surrogate mothers or use artificial insemination but -- doesn't work neither does 00. Only -0. And I'm sorry but if I love my partner I want her to have my child. If I was a woman I'd like to have his child. Homosexual couples do not have that privilege. Like I originally stated, If that is their choice it is not for us to judge them, but the fact is they cannot have each others child. </right> |
So because homosexuals can't have children the way you have children, you say they shouldn't expect to have a child at all? Isn't that pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry?
Here's the facts: homosexuals are perfectly capable of having children. While they can't have them with a partner of the same sex as them (yet!), there is no law - natural or otherwise - that says they have to. A gay man can have a child with a straight woman, or a gay woman.
Therefore, there is no reason to say homosexuals should not expect to have children. QED.
All of the objections so far boil down to "but that's not natural" and "but that's not the way i would do it". The answer to both of those objections is the same. Who cares? | Quote: |
aames_prov356 wrote:
Quote:
So what? Who cares if a gay person's method of conception does not fall into your definition of "natural"? It's possible, isn't it? So why shouldn't they expect to breed?
It isn't natural biologically. Technically, in the case of one of the homo parents, the kid wouldn't trully be theirs because it isn't carrying the genes of that parent. Why? because you can't smash two eggs together or two sperm together and create a child. Biologically it is impossible. Thus it is unnatural. Just as if a woman can not get pregnant by her own husband and she does invitro or whatever route they take (besides simply having sex with another guy other than her husband) it isn't considered to be natural because the pregnancy wasn't caused by having sex. It was caused in a labratory. Same thing applies to homos trying to have children. If it is done in a lab it isn't a natural pregnancy. I am not saying that hetero couples who know that it will be hard to get pregnant shouldn't get married, because most couples can get pregnant on their own. But no gay couple can have sex and get pregnant together. Period.
Again, it's also not biologically natural for a woman to give birth without any sexual intercourse (assuming we're leaving out modern advances, as you seem to want to do). You can't have different standards and pick and choose how you wish to define things just to fit your point. There is no biology when dealing with God, so the idea that God explains the birth is not acceptable. It's not biologically possible to have a baby without sexual intercourse, therefore it is unnatural. All of this is based on what you've said in your posts. Yet you seem to continue to deny the birth of Jesus as Christianity puts it is unnatural. It is. Period. |
I already stated before:
| Quote: |
| I am not saying that hetero couples who know that it will be hard to get pregnant shouldn't get married, because most couples can get pregnant on their own. But no gay couple can have sex and get pregnant together. |
Most couples can get pregnant on their own,because it is biologically possible, but there are those who can't and medicine can help that, just like someone who can't breathe on their own, both being acceptable. What I am saying is that because no gay couple can get pregnant , because it is biologically impossible.
| Quote: |
| Yet you seem to continue to deny the birth of Jesus as Christianity puts it is unnatural. It is. Period.[/ |
Never said that the birth of Jesus Christ wasn't unnatural, but stranger things have happened. What about women who are completely unable to get pregnant, who can't afford to have fertility treatments, that get pregnant for the fist time even after like ten years of trying? I have a best friend who is a living example of that. Her mother was unable to have children because of a genetic disorder that prevents women from having children. At over forty years old, which is a rare time to get pregnant any how, she found out that she was pregnant. That is just as unnatural.
| Quote: |
| (assuming we're leaving out modern advances, as you seem to want to do). |
If you read my other posts, I mentioned that they could get pregnant by means of invitro or a surrogate mother. It is not natural for hetero couples to get pregnant that way either. I said that as well. Hetero couples can get pregant naturally, but not all. But in the case of the homos, none can get pregnant without the help of modern day science. Homos are not biologically compatible for each other. That is all there is to it.
| Quote: |
| There is no biology when dealing with God, so the idea that God explains the birth is not acceptable. |
God created biology (man discovered it, but God created it) so your point is?
God Bless! | Quote: |
| So because homosexuals can't have children the way you have children, you say they shouldn't expect to have a child at all? Isn't that pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry? |
Because they cannot have a child naturally, my point is is that the whole union in itself is unnatural. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | | So because homosexuals can't have children the way you have children, you say they shouldn't expect to have a child at all? Isn't that pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry? |
Because they cannot have a child naturally, my point is is that the whole union in itself is unnatural. |
A point which you base on what's in the bible while the entire point of this discussion/thread was the put the religion aside. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | | So because homosexuals can't have children the way you have children, you say they shouldn't expect to have a child at all? Isn't that pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry? |
Because they cannot have a child naturally, my point is is that the whole union in itself is unnatural. |
Your definition of 'natural' is highly suspect. Do animals behave 'unnaturally'? Homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom. What exactly do you mean be 'natural' and 'unnatural'? Natural is generally taken to mean 'present in the natural world', or 'a product of nature'. Since animals (including man) are a product of 'nature' via evolution, it seems to me that we are using a concept that cannot apply, since any animal (including man) is, by definition, natural.
If you mean 'unnatural' to apply to a man-made concept or idea then there is also a large problem. The whole notion of marriage is, by that metric, unnatural. | Indi wrote: |
Once again:
[list=1][*]It doesn't matter what is natural or not. "Natural" is an artificial distinction created by people.
[*]It doesn't matter what "society" considered "unnatural", "perverted" or wrong.
|
I do not agree, and many other with me. Who are you to say that it doesn't matter? Are your opinions more worth than anyone else's? I say it does matter. It is no artificial distinction. A man and womans genitals fit together, obviously that is how we are designed. it's as easy as that. A mans genitals and orifice for letting out poop however, are not meant for that common purpose.
And btw, I live in one of the most homosexuality-accepting socities on earth I would think.
The bottom line is that a group of people who does not think there is any universal truth will never agree with a group who think there is, which is the case here. | LimpFish wrote: |
I do not agree, and many other with me. Who are you to say that it doesn't matter? Are your opinions more worth than anyone else's? I say it does matter. It is no artificial distinction. A man and womans genitals fit together, obviously that is how we are designed. it's as easy as that. A mans genitals and orifice for letting out poop however, are not meant for that common purpose.
And btw, I live in one of the most homosexuality-accepting socities on earth I would think.
The bottom line is that a group of people who does not think there is any universal truth will never agree with a group who think there is, which is the case here. |
Indi did not say that it does not matter - neither did I, although I do tend to think that. The point was that the distinction of 'natural' and 'unnatural' does not matter since it is a man-made distinction which has no real meaning. The question which interests me is why YOU think it matters so much. Why are you so concerned about the private activities of consenting adults?
PS - We were not 'designed', we evolved. | Quote: |
| What you don't understand is that Mary was not performing adultery with other women, and suddenly became pregnant. That is unnatural. She was a normal woman, who, without sexual intercourse with any MAN or WOMAN, became pregnant because God made her. Not another man/woman. |
Was this aimed towards me? | Quote: |
aames_prov356 wrote:
Quote:
So because homosexuals can't have children the way you have children, you say they shouldn't expect to have a child at all? Isn't that pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry?
Because they cannot have a child naturally, my point is is that the whole union in itself is unnatural.
A point which you base on what's in the bible while the entire point of this discussion/thread was the put the religion aside. |
That is not based on the Bible. That is based on biology itself. Which, if you didn't realize is not a Bible. | Quote: |
Your definition of 'natural' is highly suspect. Do animals behave 'unnaturally'? Homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom. What exactly do you mean be 'natural' and 'unnatural'? Natural is generally taken to mean 'present in the natural world', or 'a product of nature'. Since animals (including man) are a product of 'nature' via evolution, it seems to me that we are using a concept that cannot apply, since any animal (including man) is, by definition, natural.
If you mean 'unnatural' to apply to a man-made concept or idea then there is also a large problem. The whole notion of marriage is, by that metric, unnatural. |
Are you saying we should start behaving like animals? The way you are stating what you are, it sounds to me like we should be. We aren't animals. So why are you comparing us to them. We may be classified in the same family as apes, but it doesn't mean that we are animals. What I am stating by it is that is unnatural to yes, as to apply to man made. Marriage isn't man made. I don't see how you think it is. | Quote: |
I do not agree, and many other with me. Who are you to say that it doesn't matter? Are your opinions more worth than anyone else's? I say it does matter. It is no artificial distinction. A man and womans genitals fit together, obviously that is how we are designed. it's as easy as that. A mans genitals and orifice for letting out poop however, are not meant for that common purpose.
And btw, I live in one of the most homosexuality-accepting socities on earth I would think.
The bottom line is that a group of people who does not think there is any universal truth will never agree with a group who think there is, which is the case here. |
Exactly what I have been trying to say all along. Thankyou for agreeing! | Quote: |
| PS - We were not 'designed', we evolved. |
If we evolved as you stated, then we evolved in such a way that male and female fit together in a way that -- and 00 don't.
As for what you stated about even animals being homosexual, I have something to add. Do you think that the other animal that is being- well you know- likes it? I live on a farm and I have seen male cats as well as bulls together and the other generally doesn't like another male on top of them. The only reason animals do that is because they don't know any better; they are simply releasing their sexual desires on a male, because there are no females around. THey don't know what they are doing. Humans do, on the other hand. | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Are you saying we should start behaving like animals? The way you are stating what you are, it sounds to me like we should be. We aren't animals. So why are you comparing us to them. We may be classified in the same family as apes, but it doesn't mean that we are animals. What I am stating by it is that is unnatural to yes, as to apply to man made. Marriage isn't man made. I don't see how you think it is. |
It was you that introduced the word 'natural'. I personally do not believe that it is either useful or informative to describe human actions as natural or unnatural. We are animals, that is something you find impossible to accept but is true regardless. Science is not a popularity contest. It does not require you or anyone else to believe it in order to be correct.
Marriage is clearly a man-made institution. It is a legal contract made between two people and sanctioned by the state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | Your definition of 'natural' is highly suspect. Do animals behave 'unnaturally'? Homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom. What exactly do you mean be 'natural' and 'unnatural'? Natural is generally taken to mean 'present in the natural world', or 'a product of nature'. Since animals (including man) are a product of 'nature' via evolution, it seems to me that we are using a concept that cannot apply, since any animal (including man) is, by definition, natural.
If you mean 'unnatural' to apply to a man-made concept or idea then there is also a large problem. The whole notion of marriage is, by that metric, unnatural. |
Are you saying we should start behaving like animals? The way you are stating what you are, it sounds to me like we should be. We aren't animals. So why are you comparing us to them. We may be classified in the same family as apes, but it doesn't mean that we are animals. What I am stating by it is that is unnatural to yes, as to apply to man made. Marriage isn't man made. I don't see how you think it is. |
You can't be serious? 
| Indi wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | What he means is that two gay people cannot naturally (ie. without the use of external resources) reproduce together, by means of sexual intercourse. |
Oh, is that what he means? i normally assume that most people mean what they actually say. He said (to paraphrase) that homosexuals should not expect to reproduce.
He still hasn't explained why.
| LimpFish wrote: | | if homosexuality is supposed to be considered natural and normal, then what about sex with animals? why is that not normal? Im not saying they both are the same, because they are not. But Im saying that both of these things used to be considered unnatural and perverted... nowadays somehow homosexuality is becoming accepted... so who says sex with animals, or children, will not be? that's what is gonna happen if we start accepting everything because we are afraid of being called ignorant, old-fashioned etc. |
This argument has already been answered at least a half-dozen times. -_-
Once again:
- It doesn't matter what is natural or not. "Natural" is an artificial distinction created by people.
- It doesn't matter what "society" considered "unnatural", "perverted" or wrong. Your society may make those claims... but so what? Other societies have accepted homosexuality without complaint. And some societies say women should be treated like property. What "society" says is not the correct way to determine right from wrong.
- Sex with animals and children is wrong:
- not because it is "unnatural"
- not because society says it is "wrong"
It is wrong because neither animals nor children can make a fully informed consent to the sex. Sex with animals and children is always rape, because it is always done without consent, and that is why it is wrong. By contrast, sex between two consenting adults is never rape, no matter what the sexes of the participants.
If you think homosexuality is comparable to child or animal rape, then you are being "ignorant, old-fashioned etc.". There is no reason to compare those things except bigotry, because they have absolutely nothing else in common.
| aames_prov356 wrote: | | Quote: | | So what? Who cares if a gay person's method of conception does not fall into your definition of "natural"? It's possible, isn't it? So why shouldn't they expect to breed? |
It isn't natural biologically. Technically, in the case of one of the homo parents, the kid wouldn't trully be theirs because it isn't carrying the genes of that parent. Why? because you can't smash two eggs together or two sperm together and create a child. Biologically it is impossible. Thus it is unnatural. Just as if a woman can not get pregnant by her own husband and she does invitro or whatever route they take (besides simply having sex with another guy other than her husband) it isn't considered to be natural because the pregnancy wasn't caused by having sex. It was caused in a labratory. Same thing applies to homos trying to have children. If it is done in a lab it isn't a natural pregnancy. I am not saying that hetero couples who know that it will be hard to get pregnant shouldn't get married, because most couples can get pregnant on their own. But no gay couple can have sex and get pregnant together. Period. |
So what? So a gay couple can't produce a child together. How do you go from that to saying gay people should not expect to reproduce?
To show you how stupid your argument is, consider a heterosexual brother and sister. They can't (or at the very least, they shouldn't) produce a child together. Are you going to tell them they shouldn't expect to reproduce? Absurd. All they have to do is go reproduce with other people. Same for gays.
| Bryan_Bezzle wrote: | | HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | What he means is that two gay people cannot naturally (ie. without the use of external resources) reproduce together, by means of sexual intercourse. |
Thats all I'm saying. Im sorry Indi, you can call names all you want but what I mean by my statements is the fact that a homosexual couple cannot reproduce together. Yes they can use surrogate mothers or use artificial insemination but -- doesn't work neither does 00. Only -0. And I'm sorry but if I love my partner I want her to have my child. If I was a woman I'd like to have his child. Homosexual couples do not have that privilege. Like I originally stated, If that is their choice it is not for us to judge them, but the fact is they cannot have each others child. </right> |
So because homosexuals can't have children the way you have children, you say they shouldn't expect to have a child at all? Isn't that pretty much the dictionary definition of bigotry?
Here's the facts: homosexuals are perfectly capable of having children. While they can't have them with a partner of the same sex as them (yet!), there is no law - natural or otherwise - that says they have to. A gay man can have a child with a straight woman, or a gay woman.
Therefore, there is no reason to say homosexuals should not expect to have children. QED.
All of the objections so far boil down to "but that's not natural" and "but that's not the way i would do it". The answer to both of those objections is the same. Who cares? |
You are ridiculous. I am stating that within a gay couple lets say men for example, they cannot have each others child and the same goes for a gay couple of women they can not have each others child. I don't care what you say from now I'm not posting again on this thread I thought I had it right when I said it is not for us decide right or wrong so you can just chill and take the rod out of your rectum. I already said they can have children i.e. surrogate mothers and artificial insemination what I meant was they cannot have each others child. Take your bigotry and apply it to someone who actually cares that you are too emotionally unstable to understand what someone is trying to say and quit telling me what I am trying to say. Any gay person would read this and understand that I just stated a fact. I'll admit in my first post I should have said "together" but like I said after that, if you didn't read into that then that is what I meant. Homosexuals should not expect to reproduce with their partners. You happy? scratch that..I do not care | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| You are ridiculous. I am stating that within a gay couple lets say men for example, they cannot have each others child and the same goes for a gay couple of women they can not have each others child. I don't care what you say from now I'm not posting again on this thread I thought I had it right when I said it is not for us decide right or wrong so you can just chill and take the rod out of your rectum. I already said they can have children i.e. surrogate mothers and artificial insemination what I meant was they cannot have each others child. Take your bigotry and apply it to someone who actually cares that you are too emotionally unstable to understand what someone is trying to say and quit telling me what I am trying to say. Any gay person would read this and understand that I just stated a fact. I'll admit in my first post I should have said "together" but like I said after that, if you didn't read into that then that is what I meant. Homosexuals should not expect to reproduce with their partners. You happy? scratch that..I do not care |
Well, I think you are getting angry needlessly. This is a philosophy (and religion) forum and therefore one must expect people to pick-up on details of a particular argument or point. When someone points out a weakness in your argument/position it is not constructive to hurl abuse at them, rather it is better to develop your point rationally and calmly. I do not believe that Indi would seek to contradict your point that gay couples are not capable of having a child within that relationship but the point was made within the wider context of a debate about whether gay people can have children. Indi's point* (and my own) has been that this is a meaningless distinction and it is frequently used by bigots as an argument for the 'unnatural' nature of gay couples.
*Here I am taking a liberty by 'speaking' for Indi and I would like to point out that I may be wrong and that I have no reason or authority to do so...It's just the way I read the debate. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| You are ridiculous. I am stating that within a gay couple lets say men for example, they cannot have each others child and the same goes for a gay couple of women they can not have each others child. I don't care what you say from now I'm not posting again on this thread I thought I had it right when I said it is not for us decide right or wrong so you can just chill and take the rod out of your rectum. I already said they can have children i.e. surrogate mothers and artificial insemination what I meant was they cannot have each others child. Take your bigotry and apply it to someone who actually cares that you are too emotionally unstable to understand what someone is trying to say and quit telling me what I am trying to say. Any gay person would read this and understand that I just stated a fact. I'll admit in my first post I should have said "together" but like I said after that, if you didn't read into that then that is what I meant. Homosexuals should not expect to reproduce with their partners. You happy? scratch that..I do not care |
As i keep saying... who cares? Homosexuals cannot expect to reproduce with "their partners" (i'm not sure why you automatically presume monogamy, but whatever), but so what? That doesn't make homosexuality wrong or unnatural. Brothers cannot expect to reproduce with their sisters... does that mean being siblings is wrong or unnatural?
Even further, does that mean that loving your siblings is wrong or unnatural? No, it just means that you love your siblings in a way that doesn't have to do with breeding.
So why can't the same be true for homosexuals? Why do they have to be in a monogamous relationship that must ultimately produce offspring? (Aside from the fact that you seem to believe that the only "natural" kind of relationship is a monogamous breeding partnership... which is categorically false.) Why can't they just find comfort - physical and otherwise - in another person without requiring children be the result? What's so unnatural about that? What's wrong about that?
| Bikerman wrote: |
Well, I think you are getting angry needlessly. This is a philosophy (and religion) forum and therefore one must expect people to pick-up on details of a particular argument or point. When someone points out a weakness in your argument/position it is not constructive to hurl abuse at them, rather it is better to develop your point rationally and calmly. I do not believe that Indi would seek to contradict your point that gay couples are not capable of having a child within that relationship but the point was made within the wider context of a debate about whether gay people can have children. Indi's point* (and my own) has been that this is a meaningless distinction and it is frequently used by bigots as an argument for the 'unnatural' nature of gay couples.
*Here I am taking a liberty by 'speaking' for Indi and I would like to point out that I may be wrong and that I have no reason or authority to do so...It's just the way I read the debate. |
All true, but i'm actually going a step farther.
Not only am i saying that homosexuals are perfectly capable of breeding (just not with people of the same sex), i am challenging this whole ridiculously closed-minded idea of "natural".
Everyone that has agreed with Bryan_Bezzle's argument so far has made one implicit assumption that has so far gone unchallenged: the idea that the only "natural" relationship is a monogamous breeding relationship. Of course if you define that as the only "natural" relationship, then homosexual relationships are automatically "unnatural". But does that definition actually have an rational meaning?
i say no, because:
- Anyone who has studied the animal kingdom and human history knows that monogamous relationships are most certainly not natural.
- Humans are social creatures, so any social grouping they make is natural for them. That includes groups of friends, extended family units and... homosexual pairings.
- Not every intimate human interaction has to be about making babies.
- Natural is a functionally meaningless term that is too vague to make any sense.
- Unnatural does not equal wrong or bad.
And that's just a short list. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | What you don't understand is that Mary was not performing adultery with other women, and suddenly became pregnant. That is unnatural. She was a normal woman, who, without sexual intercourse with any MAN or WOMAN, became pregnant because God made her. Not another man/woman. |
Will you explain to me how that is biologically natural? That seems to be his argument...that it isn't right to be homosexual because you can't reproduce in a biologically natural way. It's also not biologically natural to give birth without sexual intercourse. Like I said, you can't pick and choose what statements you want to apply to certain topics just to prove your point. |
I think he was already explaining that it is not natural. |
Im sorry I know im posting again in this but Indi I apoligize you have things screwed up. The only time I ever said the word natural is in this post ive quoted above and that was just to point out Halfbloodprince said "That is unnatural" and the other poster said "explain to me how that is biologically natural" My argument has never been about natural or unnatural. From the beginning I wanted to point out that a gay couple could not have each other's child. Did I finally clear that up for you? | Indi wrote: |
All true, but i'm actually going a step farther.
Not only am i saying that homosexuals are perfectly capable of breeding (just not with people of the same sex), i am challenging this whole ridiculously closed-minded idea of "natural".
Everyone that has agreed with Bryan_Bezzle's argument so far has made one implicit assumption that has so far gone unchallenged: the idea that the only "natural" relationship is a monogamous breeding relationship. Of course if you define that as the only "natural" relationship, then homosexual relationships are automatically "unnatural". But does that definition actually have an rational meaning?
i say no, because:
- Anyone who has studied the animal kingdom and human history knows that monogamous relationships are most certainly not natural.
- Humans are social creatures, so any social grouping they make is natural for them. That includes groups of friends, extended family units and... homosexual pairings.
- Not every intimate human interaction has to be about making babies.
- Natural is a functionally meaningless term that is too vague to make any sense.
- Unnatural does not equal wrong or bad.
And that's just a short list. |
Well, here we are 'singing from the same non-supernatural song sheet'. I completely concur. The whole notion of 'natural' and 'unnatural' was introduced to the 'gay debate' by religious bigots in order to open a potential line of attack on gay rights. The argument was always fundamentally flawed.
Firstly it contains the implicit assumption that 'natural' is 'good'. Given the behaviours we commonly observe in the animal kingdom that is a highly dubious assumption and contradicts fundamental tenets of the Christian religion (love thy neighbour for example).
Secondly, as you point out, the distinction is meaningless. 'Natural' is a human term which is funtionally meaningless. What exactly is 'un-natural'?
