|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Bible-based Christians
AKA: No True Christian.
That, but also possibly not actually Christian. I'm pretty sure that Christ himself was not overly keen on the idea of blindly following a static text, and was more about being, well, loving to people.
Russ, and his philosophical ilk, are probably more-accurately described as Leviticans. Essentially, a distorted perversion of an otherwise functional religion.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Once again, Russ flaunts his ignorance, this time of biology. Russ, if you're going to use big fancy technical words like "reproductive strategies" and "species", you need to understand that the non-reproductive members also form part of the reproductive strategy of the species. So, for example, corvids have helpers at the nest. This is an example of cooperative breeding, which has been observed in birds, mammals, fish and insects. The non-reproducers are contributing to the success of the reproducers, so they are helping the species continue even though they have no offspring of their own.
I'll repeat that for you: the non-reproducers are contributing to the success of the reproducers, so they are helping the species continue even though they have no offspring of their own.
But of course, you weren't really talking about species and reproductive strategies. You were just trying to use your little pea brain to figure out yet another way to say there's something terribly awful and horribly wrong with anyone who isn't mating and having vast numbers of offspring. It's like you're the walking, talking embodiment of an Irish joke.
The reproductive strategy of bees, termites and ants is to turn one female into a massive egg-laying machine and stop every other female from having any children.
Someone remind me again why not having reproductive sex is "unnatural"?
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Once again, Russ flaunts his ignorance, this time of biology. Russ, if you're going to use big fancy technical words like "reproductive strategies" and "species", you need to understand that the non-reproductive members also form part of the reproductive strategy of the species. ....
I'll repeat that for you: the non-reproducers are contributing to the success of the reproducers, so they are helping the species continue even though they have no offspring of their own.
But of course, you weren't really talking about species and reproductive strategies. You were just trying to use your little pea brain to figure out yet another way to say there's something terribly awful and horribly wrong with anyone who isn't mating and having vast numbers of offspring. It's like you're the walking, talking embodiment of an Irish joke.
Ants are the great counter example to the Fundament stupidity that if every member of a species isn't a breeding heterosexual the species will go extinct.
For a family with what Russ thinks is a suboptimal strategy where a tiny fraction of ants have sex they are spectacularly successful. They've managed to have a very large amount of the animal biomass of the animal kingdom.
Hey Russ, Biology is one of the many things you know nothing about. Couldn't you keep your suboptimal ignorance in private at home and not scare the kids with it and not mention it in public. Is your inability to understand modern science sheer nastiness, or were there a lot of defective gene copies that happened when you were made?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
In wolf communities, IIRC, breeding is usually just for the upper ranks.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you want to say that homosexuality is a sub-optimal reproductive strategy, without implying personal disapproval, then say it's a sub-optimal reproductive strategy.
I don't see homosexuality as a strategy. I see it as possibly something like one of your other suggestions - the outcome of a relatively-common failure in the copying of a gene.
Given that you're happy further down the thread to call 'heterosexuality' a strategy, I think you're being inconsistently pedantic here.
quote:
Once we've established what homosexuality is, only then is there a sound basis for thinking about the moral questions around it.
This seems to me an example of scientism. The idea that some description cast in scientific format is what homosexuality is.
Surely what homosexuality is is the lived experience of homosexuals? You can try to work out the causal routes as to how sexuality is determined, and the roles played by genes, other biological factors, and upbringing. But none of that is what sexuality is. Homosexuality is how it plays out in the lives of people. And to find out what it is, you have to talk to those people.
quote:
And the answers I'm suggesting are along the lines that
- those whom nature has left unequipped for heterosexual relations should (in the absence of a cure) be tolerated in whatever harmless style of personal life they choose
- but those who are not thus unequipped should be encouraged to hold marriage and family as good (whilst equally being tolerated in choosing for themselves how they live, following their own talents and aptitude without harming others).
There are some weasel words up there. For example, in previous posts you've used the phrase 'behind closed doors' to characterise 'harmless style of personal life'.
Do you mean 'don't ask, don't tell'?
I personally wouldn't use 'tolerance' to describe 'don't ask, don't tell' polices. Don't ask, don't tell, is merely mitigated intolerance.
And in what way are people who think marriage between two men or two women is good not thinking that marriage between a man and a woman is good?
If same-sex couples decide to adopt or have children with technological assistance, is that not also a good thing?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For example, in previous posts you've used the phrase 'behind closed doors' to characterise 'harmless style of personal life'.
Do you mean 'don't ask, don't tell'?
I personally wouldn't use 'tolerance' to describe 'don't ask, don't tell' polices. Don't ask, don't tell, is merely mitigated intolerance.
Yes - I'm certain he does. 'Keep it hidden and we'll say nothing, just don't make us acknowledge it or cause our children to know anything about it'.
That way keeps it homosexuals in the closet and encourages a culture of shame.
Now the beam of shame is now pointing the other way and Russ and his homophobic friends do not like it. They want to be seen as good people who would never advocate inequality.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
but those who are not thus unequipped should be encouraged to hold marriage and family as good (whilst equally being tolerated in choosing for themselves how they live, following their own talents and aptitude without harming others).
Without harming others. (I missed this initially as I don't bother to read all of your drivel. But I do read Dafyd's reasoning)Without harming others. Did you know that most paedophiles are heterosexual? Not sure of the figures, but I would be willing to wager that most domestic abuse is by heterosexuals as well.
So what harm do homosexuals do that is unique to them? OTT home decoration? Encouraging women to wear trousers and sensible shoes?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Dafyd has picked out that phrase from Russ, which is both farcical and chilling, 'once we've worked out what homosexuality is'.
This is chilling because dehumanized. Imagine saying, 'once we've worked out what women are'. Why not meet some women, or meet some gays?
It's a very detached, even cut-off view of people, as if you could assess them mechanically, in the laboratory. It avoids contact. Maybe Russ thinks that gay is contagious.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Shipmate
# 11406
|
Posted
Hi,
One thing I would like to ask Russ is this. A lot of your arguement as to why homosexuality is a bad thing (or defective as you would put it) is that it does not allow for reproduction. I think this misses the fact that many gay people do have children. Whether this is from a previous relationship, medical assistance or adoption is irrelevant, they still are parents. I would be suprised if you would say that a heterosexual couple who had children by one of the above methods didn't really count as parents or that the children were not really theirs. Yet your repeated references to gay people as being outside the 'optimal reproductive strategy' seems to imply this. I know a few people up-thread have mentioned this but so far I don't think you have addressed this point. If I have missed it please point me to the relevant response.
--------------------
One day I will think of something worth saying here.
Posts: 96 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Dafyd has picked out that phrase from Russ, which is both farcical and chilling, 'once we've worked out what homosexuality is'.
This is chilling because dehumanized. Imagine saying, 'once we've worked out what women are'. Why not meet some women, or meet some gays?
It's a very detached, even cut-off view of people, as if you could assess them mechanically, in the laboratory. It avoids contact. Maybe Russ thinks that gay is contagious.
Well, if I have sex with another gay man doesn't that define me as gay?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Dafyd has picked out that phrase from Russ, which is both farcical and chilling, 'once we've worked out what homosexuality is'.
I don't think it's dehumanising in its intended usage, but deferment. and it is an attempt to justify the position without seeming like a bigot.*
I spoke to an American who said he was opposed to equal marriage because he thought it would negatively effect him in taxation. i.e, marriage, and it's changed tax structure, causes a burden on the system.**When I replied that this was more a reason to limit all marriage rather than prohibit particular groups, he just kept replying that he wished to see a cost/benefit analysis. He was, in my opinion, attempting to reassign motive and postpone the conversation until never.
*Assuming Russ posts in earnest, of which I am not convinced.
**Not certain this is accurate, but it is irrelevant regardless.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I spoke to an American who said he was opposed to equal marriage because he thought it would negatively effect him in taxation. i.e, marriage, and it's changed tax structure, causes a burden on the system.**When I replied that this was more a reason to limit all marriage rather than prohibit particular groups, he just kept replying that he wished to see a cost/benefit analysis. He was, in my opinion, attempting to reassign motive and postpone the conversation until never.
Tell him that when the Australian Government started recognising same sex couples (as de facto, not as married), it saved the Government money.
I know this because I was involved in collating the costings. And because there were conservative people IN the government at the time that tried the "oh, we'd love to be progressive, but maybe we can't afford it" line of argument.
Of course, what happened was that when the figures were made public, I had to sit and listen while some people in the homosexual community sniped and said the next government was only recognising same sex couples because money would be saved. Which was not true.
[ 02. October 2015, 14:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The reproductive strategy of bees, termites and ants is to turn one female into a massive egg-laying machine and stop every other female from having any children.
Naked mole rats operate that way as well.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Well, if I have sex with another gay man doesn't that define me as gay?
Not always.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
How do you feel about the word "retard"?
Where I come from it's a verb, with the stress on the second syllable.
Americans seem to feel the need for a related noun ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In wolf communities, IIRC, breeding is usually just for the upper ranks.
Not sure if it is a rank thing but some wolves seem predisposed to form packs, while others are content to act as " uncles" or"aunts" to an existing litter. They basically babysit the pups while mom and dad take turns hunting. It might be a temporary or long term arrangement.
Like with the bee thing, This makes me wonder if gayness is a collective evolutionary trait. Perhaps a response to overpopulation-- more kids means more of a need for caregivers.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Dafyd has picked out that phrase from Russ, which is both farcical and chilling, 'once we've worked out what homosexuality is'.
This is chilling because dehumanized. Imagine saying, 'once we've worked out what women are'. Why not meet some women, or meet some gays?
It's a very detached, even cut-off view of people, as if you could assess them mechanically, in the laboratory. It avoids contact. Maybe Russ thinks that gay is contagious.
Well, if I have sex with another gay man doesn't that define me as gay?
No. It defines you as MSM -- a man who has sex with men. That's not the same thing as gay. Prisoners can be MSM without being gay. Same for sailors, British schoolboys according to some stories, and so on. But they are most definitely not the same thing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Dafyd has picked out that phrase from Russ, which is both farcical and chilling, 'once we've worked out what homosexuality is'.
This is chilling because dehumanized. Imagine saying, 'once we've worked out what women are'. Why not meet some women, or meet some gays?
It's a very detached, even cut-off view of people, as if you could assess them mechanically, in the laboratory. It avoids contact. Maybe Russ thinks that gay is contagious.
Well, if I have sex with another gay man doesn't that define me as gay?
No. It defines you as MSM -- a man who has sex with men. That's not the same thing as gay. Prisoners can be MSM without being gay. Same for sailors, British schoolboys according to some stories, and so on. But they are most definitely not the same thing.
That's what I thought. Sexuality and sexual preference isn't therefore "contagious".
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Imagine saying, 'once we've worked out what women are'.
I'm almost there. I just need to find the one right answer to "Does my butt look big in this?"
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Did you know that most paedophiles are heterosexual?
Do you have a source for that ?
If a man who is sexually attracted to women has a heterosexual orientation, a man who is sexually attracted to men has a homosexual orientation, and a man who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children has a paedophile orientation, then your statement doesn't seem to make sense.
The same distinction between sexual acts and sexual orientation applies to paedophiles as to everyone else.
Or do you mean is that the incidence of what we might call MSC - paedophile acts without paedophile orientation - is much higher than the incidence of paedophile orientation ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Source quoted here:
quote:
Dr. William C. Holmes, Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, authored a study in the December 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association that indicated that 98 percent of all male perpetrators who had sexually abused boys were identified in their families and communities as heterosexual.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
for example, corvids have helpers at the nest...
...The non-reproducers are contributing to the success of the reproducers, so they are helping the species continue even though they have no offspring of their own.
The link you give refers to crows delaying their own reproduction in order to assist with the survival of their kin.
Are you putting forward the theory that homosexuality in humans is a successful reproductive strategy along similar lines ? That the additional aid that Orfeo gives to his siblings because he is gay enhances their own reproductive chances to an extent that outweighs the loss of his own genes to posterity ? That nature has decided that his destiny is to be a supporter of the other children in his family ?
I guess putting forward any theory at all is a step forward from just hurling insults.
Or are you once more arguing against something I haven't said ? I haven't said that gays are bad for not contributing to the continuation of the species; I've said that they are blameless people with a defective sexual desire because that desire is such as to not contribute to the continuation of the species which is the purpose of sexual desire.
"Helpers at the nest" doesn't require gay crows.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That the additional aid that Orfeo gives to his siblings because he is gay enhances their own reproductive chances to an extent that outweighs the loss of his own genes to posterity ? That nature has decided that his destiny is to be a supporter of the other children in his family ?
Fucking hell. I thought we'd already smacked you with the clue bat over this.
The hint is in the word 'sibling'. Orfeo's genes are not lost.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't see homosexuality as a strategy.
Given that you're happy further down the thread to call 'heterosexuality' a strategy, I think you're being inconsistently pedantic here.
Not at all. This is part of what we're arguing about. Whether having a small percentage of homosexuals in the mix is part of Nature's plan for humanity, or conversely whether it's a failure mode of the human reproductive system (in a similar way to various relatively-common birth defects).
To say that because it happens it must be part of the plan is the "appeal to nature" fallacy which quetzal referred to.
quote:
quote:
Once we've established what homosexuality is, only then is there a sound basis for thinking about the moral questions around it.
This seems to me an example of scientism. The idea that some description cast in scientific format is what homosexuality is.
Surely what homosexuality is is the lived experience of homosexuals?
No again. I believe that there is an objective reality here. If all the deaf people get together and agree that they'd prefer people to think that deafness isn't an impairment it's just a different and equally-good way of being human, that doesn't change the fact of what deafness is.
And the same is true of homosexuality. Counselling may change the attitudes of gay people. Legalisation changed their "lived experience". Neither changes the biological facts.
If it is a matter of objective reality then I could be proved wrong by future scientific discoveries, and I acknowledge that.
We're arguing the appropriateness of a medical paradigm (homosexuality is a condition that it may someday be possible to cure or prevent) versus a theological paradigm (homosexuality is a sin because it is against the will of God) versus a political paradigm (homosexuals are a sociological group who have been oppressed in the past and are struggling for equal rights).
And yes, applying any paradigm outside its appropriate area can come over as "chilling" or sinister.
quote:
And in what way are people who think marriage between two men or two women is good not thinking that marriage between a man and a woman is good?
If you think that two persons of the same sex can marry then you think that marriage is no more than civil partnership.
quote:
If same-sex couples decide to adopt or have children with technological assistance, is that not also a good thing?
If same-sex couples can offer children everything that a married couple can, (and my understanding is that the evidence to date supports this) then yes.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Are you putting forward the theory that homosexuality in humans is a successful reproductive strategy along similar lines ? That the additional aid that Orfeo gives to his siblings because he is gay enhances their own reproductive chances to an extent that outweighs the loss of his own genes to posterity ? That nature has decided that his destiny is to be a supporter of the other children in his family ?
Yeah, because maybe some of us are not so relentlessly individualistic and selfish as you and can grasp things like what a "relative" is. Or a "family". Maybe my genes can recognise the striking resemblance between me and my nephew, just like most people could when he was about 6 months old and all these jokes/remarks were made about how he must be mine.
You moron. And I thought I'd made it sufficiently clear I'd had enough of being your gay poster boy for your pathetic illustrations of nonsensical propositions.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Nature's plan for humanity ...
Yep, doesn't know a thing about biology.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If a man who is sexually attracted to women has a heterosexual orientation, a man who is sexually attracted to men has a homosexual orientation, and a man who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children has a paedophile orientation, then your statement doesn't seem to make sense.
What's a paedophile orientation? Is there such a thing? Do you have any evidence that anybody who works in the fields of human sexuality uses such a term?
quote:
Whether having a small percentage of homosexuals in the mix is part of Nature's plan for humanity,
Nature doesn't plan. It's not a person. People plan. Nature is just a collective noun for everything that happens in the biosphere. The biosphere doesn't plan.
quote:
And yes, applying any paradigm outside its appropriate area can come over as "chilling" or sinister.
What it comes over as is Category Error.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Are you putting forward the theory that homosexuality in humans is a successful reproductive strategy along similar lines ? That the additional aid that Orfeo gives to his siblings because he is gay enhances their own reproductive chances to an extent that outweighs the loss of his own genes to posterity ? That nature has decided that his destiny is to be a supporter of the other children in his family ?
Forget orfeo - it is highly unlikely that his current living conditions greater resemble the environment in which human sexuality evolved. Imagine instead a group of a few dozen primates, almost all of them close kin to the rest of the group, trying to survive in a pre-technological and highly competitive environment. Child bearing and rearing is, of course, a survival necessity, but it is also (compared to most mammals), a high risk, materially costly, long-term, labour intensive activity. Is it plausible that this group of primates could improve their survival prospects if they could somehow ensure that a small but significant proportion of their adult members would channel their sexual instincts and energies in a non-reproductive direction, so that their other resources were always available to be deployed on providing for the group's other needs?
That's a 'group selection' rationale for homosexuality. If true, homosexuality is an adaptive trait, not a defect. There are problems with it: although the non-reproducing individuals are certainly helping to propagate "their genes" in the general sense, those specific genes that influence homosexuality are, naturally, more likely to be found in those that do not procreate than those that do, and therefore, however useful to the group as a whole, will tend to decrease in frequency. But that is not necessarily insurmountable if there is no one 'gay gene', but instead homosexuality results from a combination of several genes, all of which occur throughout the population.
Alternatively, homosexuality may be the result of gene-level selection. A gene (or set of genes) that helps to build that part of the brain that decides what is and isn't perceived as sexually attractive and influences the behavioural response might be excellent at producing a highly-motivated desire the fuck the potentially fertile in 95% of the bodies it finds itself inhabiting, and thereby might out-perform all of its rivals for chromosome space, even though in 5% of cases it builds a brain with a non-reproductive sexual response. Nothing has gone wrong in those cases - the gene might be faithfully transcribed and expressed in all its host bodies, and is successful one because it plays the odds better than the alternatives. Homosexuality would be neither a defect, nor, in itself, an adaptation, but is rather the consequence of an adaptive trait, like the blind spot in a mammalian eye. It's "supposed" to be there - it's not caused by something going wrong, but is built into an extremely effective design, but doesn't itself do anything of direct value.
Alternatively, homosexuality may be the result of a recurrant mutation with no discernible selective value at group, individual or gene level. It would be maladaptive, in that the individual with the mutation is significantly less likely ever to reproduce. The problem with that explanation is that homosexuality occurs rather too frequently for that to feel intellectually satisfying as an account.
All those three alternatives, and probably quite a few more, are possible. All of them could potentially have resulted in a primate species ending up pretty much where we are now. And as far as I know, no one currently knows which for them is true. Or if there's something that's true in all of them. Or if none of them are true and the real explanation is something that no one has yet thought of. I'd love to know. It would be fascinating. What I don't see is how the true explanation, whatever it happens to be, would make the slightest bit of difference to what counts as ethical behaviour by gay people, or in any way affect their rights and freedoms, or the way that I should treat them.
The question "What is morally best for us as human beings now?" is only tangentally related to the question of "What makes for reproductive success in our current environment?" and not at all related to the question of "What was a good reproductive strategy 100K-1M years ago when we were evolving to our current form?". You seem to be suggesting that we should treat happy, healthy, well-adjusted, functional members of society as broken, on the unproven, and somewhat speculative, basis that they have a trait that would have been deleterious in hominids living in a completely different social environment, and possibly not even belonging to anything we would recognise as our own (modern) species. How can you not see that as bullshit?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Given that you're happy further down the thread to call 'heterosexuality' a strategy, I think you're being inconsistently pedantic here.
Not at all. This is part of what we're arguing about. Whether having a small percentage of homosexuals in the mix is part of Nature's plan for humanity, or conversely whether it's a failure mode of the human reproductive system (in a similar way to various relatively-common birth defects).
There are several steps that we're arguing about, and you need to establish all of them.
You need firstly to establish that there's some way of objectively characterising homosexuality according to which it can be described as a failure of the reproductive system, and then you have to establish that this has some normative significance such that it's meaningful to call it a defect that can be cured.
Inability to ejaculate or inability to receive eggs into the womb wall are defects in the reproductive system. Clearly, homosexuality is not a defect in the same way; there isn't anything that the homosexual wants to do that they can't do. So even if it means that one's genes aren't going to be passed on, calling it a defect from any perspective other than that of the genes looks like a leap of logic. Even a "genes are reality" pundit like Dawkins doesn't go that far.
(And even then you haven't got near establishing your further claims that children should be taught about heterosexual sex first, or that permanent faithful relationships between people of the same sex oughtn't to be called marriage.)
Let's use your example of deafness.
Suppose a deaf person thinks that the deaf community is a different and equally good way of being human. I'm sure even such a person would agree that considered as an organ for hearing their ear is defective. They don't think it follows that being deaf is a defective way of being human: either because they find, for example, the other senses become more sensitive to compensate (the blind theologian John Hull testified that his appreciation of hearing and smell improved such that he didn't miss being sighted); or else because they find that the cultural workarounds for deafness have themselves got intrinsic value, such that the deaf culture is a valuable way of being human. (Or obviously both.)
The point is that even if we concede that homosexuality is considered from the point of view of reproduction a defect, it doesn't follow that being a homosexual is a defective way of being human.
quote:
quote:
Surely what homosexuality is is the lived experience of homosexuals?
No again. I believe that there is an objective reality here. If all the deaf people get together and agree that they'd prefer people to think that deafness isn't an impairment it's just a different and equally-good way of being human, that doesn't change the fact of what deafness is.
From your and my perspective, the lived experience of homosexual people is what it is regardless of what we think it is, and in that sense is an objective fact for us.
(Although personally I think the words 'objective' and 'subjective' almost always muddy the water when introduced into these discussions.)
quote:
If it is a matter of objective reality then I could be proved wrong by future scientific discoveries, and I acknowledge that.
As I say, imagining that the stuff that could be proved wrong by future scientific discoveries is the only objective level, or is the stuff that is of moral importance, is scientism. Which I don't believe in any other context, and certainly don't believe in this one.
quote:
quote:
And in what way are people who think marriage between two men or two women is good not thinking that marriage between a man and a woman is good?
If you think that two persons of the same sex can marry then you think that marriage is no more than civil partnership.
Or I think civil partnership is no less than marriage.
What do you think civil partnership is?
If you think that civil partnership is a purely legal arrangement to sort out inheritance, rights to consent by proxy in the event of incapacity, and so on, then clearly most people think marriage is more than that. But then most gay people think their civil partnerships are more than that, which is why many of them were campaigning for their civil partnerships to be recognised as marriages.
So far the only reason you've alleged for your contention is that a man and a woman have genitals of a shape that is necessary but not sufficient for fertility. That's a funny thing to find especially valuable, to say that a relationship in which it's a feature is significantly more than a relationship in which it isn't. If we celebrate a couple's ruby wedding anniversary and regard their marriage as something to admire and imitate, we aren't celebrating how well their genitals fit together. So what qualities do you think we're celebrating in a marriage that means same-sex relationships don't count?
You have incidentally not answered my question about 'don't ask, don't tell.'
[ 04. October 2015, 17:18: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
The Gospel According to Jim The Least
Two men were brought before Jesus by Keepers of the Law, who said, “These men are Jews who have lived among the Greeks and Romans. They are Roman citizens and under Roman guard. They say that they have been married by Roman authorities as man and wife are, and that since their union is chaste and permissible under Roman Law, it ought to be permissible under Jewish law. The Law says that they have committed abomination and shall surely be put to death. What do you say?”
Jesus said, “You have heard it said that men having sex with men is an ‘abomination’, but I say unto you, ‘It is mere perversion.’ You shall not kill them, for their perversion is incurable, and not in their power to control. You are to love them, forgive them, but never accept their sexual desire for one another as normal, nor permit them to organize politically lest they argue their case and win.”
“No!” cried the crowd. “It is abomination! Stone them!”
The Roman guards seized Jesus, the men, and the Chief Priests and brought them to trial before Simona Erina for rioting.
“This man Jesus says he is King of the Jews,” the guards told Erina. “These two men here now live as man and wife under Roman Law as Roman citizens. They have asked their Chief Priests to conform Jewish Law, which punishes their union with death, to Roman Law, which does not. Jesus said that they are not to be put to death, but shamed for life as ‘perverts.’ This incited a crowd to riot, so we have brought them here for you to judge what is to be done.”
Erina asked the men, “Your leaders have said that you are ‘perverts.’ If our doctors can cure you of your perversion will you submit to it, leave each other, marry and have children?”
“No,” said the men. "We would rather die as we were born than die apart under any circumstance.”
“Remarkable!” said Erina. “Greater love than this I have not seen in Israel.” She turned to Jesus. “Jesus,” she said, “why do you call these men ‘perverts’?”
“Because their natural sexual desire, a pleasurable impulse whose purpose is the perpetuation of the Children of God, has been stripped of its essential, substantive purpose, which is procreation, not pleasure.”
“Indeed,” Erina responded. “Fetch me Charlicus Darwinicus,” she commanded. A bearded man appeared and was asked if the “substantive” purpose of sexual desire was procreation. He was also asked for his view on “perversion” of natural urges.
“Well ‘substantively’ or essentially, the purpose of sexual desire in humans is to ensure overpopulation, not simple steady-state continuation. In women, it has to be strong enough to repeatedly risk death in order to produce a surplus of children to outstrip disease, natural disaster, starvation, and war. In men, it must be strong enough to divert them from self-interest to the care, feeding, and protection of mates and their surplus of progeny. Importantly, overpopulation resulting from sexual desire makes aggression and war inevitable, producing the strongest, cleverest, and best organized warriors. In a world of peace, freedom from disease, and limited resources, sexual desire can be considered a perversion; it no longer serves its original purpose, which is overpopulation.”
“Jesus?” Erina asked. Jesus gave no answer. “Very well. Fetch me Sigmoidicum Freudendum.”
Another bearded man appeared and was asked the same question as Darwinicus. “Funny you should ask this, just as I am finishing my theories on ‘sublimation.’ In essence it posits that the very foundation of civilization is the ‘perversion’ of sexual desire. My theory is that heroic achievements in all areas, from Music, to Art, to Science, to Politics, to Literature, are all based upon ‘perverting’ sexual desire from its original intention, which is to produce exponential increases in population, to producing other societal ‘goods.’ Without the excessive urge of sexual desire, nothing could produce the pyramids or the Temple of Jerusalem. At least so it seems to me.”
Erina turned to address Jesus. “I have heard of your preaching, and much of it is good. Have you not said that your Kingdom is not of this world? Have you not said that you recognize only two commandments as essential, namely to love the source of all goodness, leading to love of others? Do you still feel compelled to shame these men with the insult of ‘perversion’?”
Jesus turned to the crowd and said, “Surely this woman is a Child of God. Her name is no longer Simona, but Petrina, and on this Rockette I will build my Church.”
Jesus went out and solemnized the union of the men in secret, knowing that his time to risk all for the Kingdom had not yet come. He went about performing miracles, healing the sick, raising the dead, and leaving those who need no physician to heal themselves, as Mother Nature intended.
He that hath ears to hear, let them hear.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Welcome back, Jim!
And what an epic entrance!
[ 07. October 2015, 05:55: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Part of the pile of fallacy that Russ is spouting in his defective way is that a homosexual can't have children.
The fact is, putting a penis in or near a vagina and ejaculating isn't all that hard, even for homosexuals. The difference is between a homosexual doing it and a heterosexual doing it is that the homosexual is doing it only when he wants to procreate and is not using potential procreation as an excuse for sexual pleasure as so many hypocritical heterosexuals do.
study shows teenage LGBT teens have a higher rate of pregnancy
So now that we've dismissed the claim of non-reproductive ability, why don't you come up with some other bogus excused for your miserable bigotry. "maybe future science will show it's bad" isn't going to cut it.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
You make a very good point there Palimpsest. I was very infertile and needed all sorts of medical help to conceive and carry my two boys.
But it's not my heterosexuality which was defective - it was my tubes, the plumbing! In fact, they were so defective I had them all removed 10 years ago. I've never felt better. Am I no longer heterosexual? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 07. October 2015, 07:42: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Part of the pile of fallacy that Russ is spouting in his defective way is that a homosexual can't have children.
The fact is, putting a penis in or near a vagina and ejaculating isn't all that hard, even for homosexuals.
An earlier mental rough draft of my "epic" re-entrance had me challenging the spaceship thought experiment. I have every confidence that the 50/50 gay men/women would sit down, and agree to perpetuate the race by any means necessary. If they had the technology to go to another planet, they could easily bring along an artificial insemination kit if it were true that their sexual desire was so perverted that they could not overcome revulsion to different-sex coupling, even if the partner was literally "the last person on earth."
But alas, it appears that the author of the spaceship experiment has "gone fishing" in the words of his directory entry.
Can it be that an Epic Poster really left over The Principal of the Thing when in the heat of argument on this thread, they are certain that an Admin issued an undeservedly sharp instruction to translate a Latin pun, prompting an appropriate faux gracious offer to overlook the transgression followed by an equally appropriate en garde that failure to accept such grace would be followed by an appeal to the tribunal of The Styx where he was rebuffed? The question here is not what would Jesus do. The question is what would the Pharisees do?
A fond hello to all and a salute to Erin, in whose honor my post was written. I like to think that somewhere, somehow, she is smiling and glad that she forgave my many transgressions as I struggled toward spiritual healing on this board.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
While it's brilliant to see you posting again, JimT, discussing host and admin rulings is still done, and only done, in Styx. That particular thread is open, and available for anyone to comment in.
DT
HH
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You make a very good point there Palimpsest. I was very infertile and needed all sorts of medical help to conceive and carry my two boys.
But it's not my heterosexuality which was defective - it was my tubes, the plumbing! In fact, they were so defective I had them all removed 10 years ago. I've never felt better. Am I no longer heterosexual?
I think you are forgetting the wisdom of the dear, departed Bingo. All powerful God could rectify your issue, because you are ordered to procreation. Sadly, all powerful God could not do so for the homosexuals S/He created.
So your plumbing not working to design is not a defect, but homosexuals working as designed are.
JimT,
If the quality of your first two posts since return are indicative of the future; well met and welcome back.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
While it's brilliant to see you posting again, JimT, discussing host and admin rulings is still done, and only done, in Styx. That particular thread is open, and available for anyone to comment in.
DT
HH
Acknowledged; I recall the rule. Thank you for your kind patience and my apologies.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
JimT,
If the quality of your first two posts since return are indicative of the future; well met and welcome back.
Thank you for your re-welcoming words. I do not know if I will find the time to post as much as I would like; I've lurked very lightly and intermittently for several years as I was getting my PhD and doing postdoctoral work in molecular biology. It takes 150% of one's time, but this particular thread, and its fallout, are something for which I simply felt compelled to make time.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Woohoo!
A big welcome back from me too, JimT.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Don't you be beguiled by his charming invective or his tempting insight, for fundamentally JimT is a heartless viper. For what else could you describe somebody who you might think of as a comrade, and who lives a mere hour away, but never bothers to meet you in person?
-sob-
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Jim T, I'm very glad you're back.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Barnabas,
Thank you and nice to see you.
RooK,
I never thought I was worth your attention, and freaked out when someone on my campus wanted to meet me just to see me and see who I was. Plus, I feared that if you met me in person you would be disappointed, because you would see that I'm a "warm fluffy Christian" and not the vulgar crusty Apostate that I overplay so often. And you ought to know that I moved 700 miles away 7 years ago. I'll PM you.
Moo,
So nice to see you, you "tough old bird." I see you've past 80. Wonderful!
Before this breaks out into an All Saints welcome back thread (maybe I should just go say hello), I want to say hello to Russ, who was called here.
Russ,
I remember you as the kind, honest, and sincere person that you project on this thread. For myself, I see you struggling to be honest without giving more offense than is necessary while still telling the truth. Struggle on my friend. Not being gay myself, I don't quite feel the sting of your insistence on the use of "perversion" in describing your philosophical position. This is especially so because you seem somewhat conflicted over whether you should or should not hold so firmly in both your thoughts, feelings, and words.
But what I will pass along is that nothing is more devastating to a child than to be rejected by their parents for being abnormal and somehow "evil."
My parents wanted their children to all be normal, God-fearing, Bible-believing, soul-saving Soldiers of the Cross, like all the other normal people they know. But none of us are. None, of 5.
What were the results? One of us wet the bed until they were married. Once of us was a heroin addict. One struggled with thoughts of suicide. One had a nervous breakdown in their freshman year of college. One cannot live without Prozac. If you are curious, I was the "thoughts of suicide" one. My mother's problem was much more serious: she thought herself possessed by demons for a number of things not the least of which was her inability to speak in tongues and a homosexual experience she had while in a Pentecostal Bible College. I came to The Ship an a special board called "Ungodly Fear" before the turn of the century, howling about these things. It embarrasses me to recall all of it.
My window into the gay world comes from a childhood friend who "came out" during college years. I went through many of the thoughts that you are now having Russ, and simply knowing this person helped me to see homosexual love and behavior as a "minority, but arguably normal" mode of life that should be accepted and not changed or cured. If children truly do have an incurable, sick perversion, and cannot see it themselves; if they argue that they are normal and need no healing, then of course you must love them but not accept them. It is a horrifying prospect for all. But many of us are no longer horrified at the prospect and are convinced that homosexuality is not one of these things. Not because it is trendy or politically correct, but it is the reality based on gay people we've come to know well. Perhaps some of us are sympathetic as well because we believe we have had analogous experiences.
To the Aristotelean Thomists Remaining on The Ship,
What is the primary purpose of a penis? Is it not the disposal of urine? Or do you ejaculate more than you urinate? If like most of us you urinate more than you ejaculate, are you not perverting the vessel that carries the Essence of the Kingdom of Heaven with your urine? Females do not do so. If an operation could be performed upon you, to give you a separate vent for your urine, as women have, would you consent to the operation? If homosexual men sometimes foul the outsides of their penises with feces, why is it that God ordained that you should daily foul the insides with urine? Was this perhaps the real curse in the Garden of Eden? Did a feminine God really give men a defiled sexual organ, and force them to listen to the cries of labor from their beloved female mate, because it was a male snake that charmed the woman into disobedience? Answer! Answer I say! Hosts, back me up! Make them answer! Hah! No answer! I win! The Truth is Served, and I have it, not them! Not the losers! I want a badge, like an Eagle scout badge. I want to put it on my web site, my Facebook page, and on my LinkedIn. Nobody knows Science and Religion better than me! Are you kidding me? My mother and my father's Puritan families came to the US in the 1630s! I have a PhD in molecular biology! If I say something is true, it is! If I give a link read the son of a bitch yourselves and tell me that I'm wrong. Hosts included. Yeah, you heard me.
Is that enough Goliath calling out the Israelites to send a Champion with enough stones in their pouch (see what I did there RooK...stones in the pouch...I kill me) to put one right between my fucking eyes? Go ahead! I dare you girlie little wussies!
But please don't send FCB. I really like him because he sounds like a nice guy and suggested Catholic colleges for my nephews, who are Catholic. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
When oh when will the Catholic church abandon Aristotle's division of the universe into Substance and Accident, and recognize that it is made of matter and something that transcends matter, we know not what? When will it stop demanding answers acceptable to an Aristotelean view of the world, which I'm not sure even the Greeks understood. Even FCB struggles with it. He said so once on a thread.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
To the Aristotelean Thomists Remaining on The Ship,
What is the primary purpose of a penis?
Speaking as an Aristotelean Thomist, at least in some moods, I don't think Aristotelean Thomists are committed to thinking that a penis has to have a primary purpose. For that matter, I don't think our sexuality has to have a primary purpose.
If it's not clear from the thread, I disagree with what is usually taken to be the Aristotelian Thomist position on same-sex sexual relationships.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Like with the bee thing, This makes me wonder if gayness is a collective evolutionary trait. Perhaps a response to overpopulation-- more kids means more of a need for caregivers.
Interesting idea, but the fact that human children do better with more caregivers (in the sense of surviving) doesn't necessarily equate with the idea that homosexuality is the way to get them. The same theory has been advanced about menopause, such that post-reproductive age women have been suggested to improve survivability of children. As far as I know the menopausal idea hasn't shown any data in comparative studies.
I think it's just as likely that homosexuality may have helped men work together on hunting trips or in war. It solidified the bonds between the men. Though I don't think this theory is likely either.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Don't you be beguiled by his charming invective or his tempting insight, for fundamentally JimT is a heartless viper.
So long as he's an erudite and insightful viper, the Hell board will welcome him with open arms.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So long as he's an erudite and insightful
He'd be very nearly the first, so...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Welcome back, Jim! And your story-telling is in fine form!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
To the Aristotelean Thomists Remaining on The Ship,
What is the primary purpose of a penis?
Speaking as an Aristotelean Thomist, at least in some moods, I don't think Aristotelean Thomists are committed to thinking that a penis has to have a primary purpose. For that matter, I don't think our sexuality has to have a primary purpose.
But do they think sex does? That seems to be what our resident (and former) Aristotelian Thomists are pushing.
(BTW is there a non-Aristotelian Thomist? Wouldn't that be an oxymoron?)
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Interesting idea, but the fact that human children do better with more caregivers (in the sense of surviving) doesn't necessarily equate with the idea that homosexuality is the way to get them.
I don't think anybody was claiming it was a necessary equation. It was put forth as a theory.
quote:
I think it's just as likely that homosexuality may have helped men work together on hunting trips or in war. It solidified the bonds between the men. Though I don't think this theory is likely either.
If only 5% of men are gay, how does that solidify hunting parties, which seem unlikely to have had sexuality tests before you could join one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
(BTW is there a non-Aristotelian Thomist? Wouldn't that be an oxymoron?)
Perhaps a fan of the movie "Tommy"?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
And you ought to know that I moved 700 miles away 7 years ago.
You are such a bitch.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
