Post Reply
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
4 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2010 - 5:35PM #31
Yavanna
Posts: 3,149

Mar 28, 2010 -- 11:17AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Mar 23, 2010 -- 9:46PM, Sirronrex wrote:


Mar 23, 2010 -- 6:30AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Whereas there are objective reasons to think homosexuality could be disordered.



Please elaborate on these "objective" reasons.


Based on all the posts I've read of yours over the years, I don't believe you're capable of objective reasoning in regards to sexuality.





Trying to say that sexual attraction and the sex drive aren't ultimately about reproduction in a two-gender species that reproduces sexually is the very definition of being unable to think objectively, IMO.


Over the years, virtually every argument I've heard from your side of the fence has been subjective. In a nutshell "it feels right to me/us. Therefore, it can't be abnormal." Or "sex feels good, therefore, it must be primarily for pleasure, and reproduction is just a side effect."


Sorry, that's not objectivity. It is, in fact, quite the opposite.


 




 


You know, there is another species on this planet that has evolved to have sex soley for the purpose of pleasure. That species is the dolphin. Clearly, objectively and naturally, the sex drive might have originated for the purpose of species propogation, but species can evolve to have sex for reasons beyond this.

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gloaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.
- J.R.R. Tolkien
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2010 - 8:00AM #32
REteach
Posts: 13,556

Mar 28, 2010 -- 11:14AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

For the most part, the "science" you refer to are the social, or "soft" sciences. Not only are they very new, they are also quite fluid. Just as many ideas of Freud and other founders of the social sciences are today considered quaint, today's supposistions in those feilds could very well be turned upon their heads and considered quaint in another 50 years or so.




You are wrong.  I am talking about measurable phyisiologic changes, such as otoacoustic emissions and finger length ratios.  Things that are physiologic, measurable, testable, not fakable.  Measurements that are proxies for testosterone exposure and response in utero.  You just wish they were soft sciences. 

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2010 - 10:07AM #33
Tudobem
Posts: 173

I'm wondering, ReTeach, why it is that some will always try to put the worst case scenario on gays-lesbian scientific research as well as biblical exegesis?


St Augustine had his principle of using the most charitable construction on interpretations of texts and Jesus had the Golden Rule of treating folks with respect.


Why, ReTeach, is it so friggin' hard for some to give up their bias against gays-lesbians, I wonder?  


Just sayin'...

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2010 - 12:59PM #34
REteach
Posts: 13,556

Well, for me it was having to admit that what I had done was wrong and hurt others.  Maybe it helps to think of themselves as good or right, instead of having done harm to others.

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2010 - 1:19PM #35
MarcosRamos
Posts: 171

to be honest, for me, it was I was just a big jerk and I didn't want to go against the prevailing anti-gay attitudes so common... as common as dirt... 


I believe some just like to feel smug and superior... maybe to antagonize like teasing a dog behind a fence, others are bullies who see gays/lesbians as easy targets


some just like the "sport" or arguing 


who knows?  some may even have some sort of latent attraction to the subject of sex


it varies


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2010 - 2:13PM #36
Sirronrex
Posts: 2,675

Mar 28, 2010 -- 11:17AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Mar 23, 2010 -- 9:46PM, Sirronrex wrote:


Mar 23, 2010 -- 6:30AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Whereas there are objective reasons to think homosexuality could be disordered.



Please elaborate on these "objective" reasons.


Based on all the posts I've read of yours over the years, I don't believe you're capable of objective reasoning in regards to sexuality.





Trying to say that sexual attraction and the sex drive aren't ultimately about reproduction in a two-gender species that reproduces sexually is the very definition of being unable to think objectively, IMO.


Over the years, virtually every argument I've heard from your side of the fence has been subjective. In a nutshell "it feels right to me/us. Therefore, it can't be abnormal." Or "sex feels good, therefore, it must be primarily for pleasure, and reproduction is just a side effect."


Sorry, that's not objectivity. It is, in fact, quite the opposite.




Even if you had your Ph. D. in Biological sciences and a Ph. D. in Sexology, you would still be a heterosexist bigot.


You know absolutely nothing about what you speak...except maybe where you're "supposed" to stick your penis.


 


I've been watching this new program on Discovery channel called "Life". You could learn a thing or two by paying the slightest bit of attention.


If what you say were true, then EVERY instance of sexual activity in both animals and mankind would result in reproduction. As it is, it doesn't result in reproduction more often than it does. If reproduction were the primary role of sex, then animals (including humans) would never have sex with one another unless the female were fertile...which is very obviously not the case.


In one of the episodes of "Life", they filmed a species of snake that hybernates. Interestingly, the males of this species awake from their winter sleep about 2 weeks before the females. This is so they will have time to bask in the sun and gather enough energy to mate. Being cold-blooded reptiles, they can only gather heat and energy from the sun. That is, unless they are a male that doesn't hear the alarm clock. Males that awaken at the same time as females are quite clever. They recognize they are at a disadvantage for mating because they have not garnered enough energy as the others. As a response to this, these late-awakening male snakes will excrete the same female pheromone as the female snakes. This causes the other male snakes to wrap themselves around these males exactly as if they were females waiting to be impregnated. But what happens is that these late-blooming males steal the warmth and energy from the other males, and are able to acclimate to the same level of energy as the other males in just a few hours (as opposed to the weeks it took the other males). Once energized, these males then mate with the females. In many cases, it is these males that are successful in passing on their genes, and not the snake who awoke on time.


In the example above, homosexuality is beneficial in procreation.


Where in your "thesis" and/or "objective reasoning" have you taken this into account?


How many other species have adapted homosexuality as part of the procreation process?


 


 


You wrote:


Trying to say that sexual attraction and the sex drive aren't ultimately about reproduction in a two-gender species that reproduces sexually is the very definition of being unable to think objectively


So you believe sexual attraction and sex drive in humans is ultimately about reproduction?


If so, how do you explain the countless number of children born to people who had no sexual attraction whatsoever for the person they impregnated or were impregnated by?


How do you explain the countless number of pregnancies that result from rape? Do you believe rape is a form of "sexual attraction" or "sex drive"? Do you believe rape is about sex?


 


A gay man is married to a straight woman, and is not sexually attracted to her in any way. They have offspring together. Please explain how sexual attraction and/or sex drive had anything to do with reproduction in this example. Conversely, a gay man is married to another gay man and they are sexually attracted to each other in every way. They do not reproduce any offspring. Please explain how sexual attraction and/or sex drive ultimately results in offspring given this example.


If the ultimate result of sexual attraction and the sex drive are reproduction, then why isn't reproduction the end result in MOST cases? You do understand that reproduction is not "the norm" or is it even close to the mean. Sexual attraction does not result in reproduction more often than it does. Don't believe it? How many young boys were sexually attracted to Farah Fawcett in her heyday? How many boys do you think masturbated to that famous poster? How many times did it result in reproduction?


 

I've been on a journey to nowhere...
and know that's the best place to be...
now...here...




If my faith isn't leading me inward, then my faith is leading me astray.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2010 - 3:35PM #37
Janeiro
Posts: 46

Sexual activity for us straights IS MOSTLY about pleasure and although it is obviously vital for off-spring it is HARDLY the primary reason we enjoy sexual activity.  As every school boy knows getting laid is his primary preoccupation during those teen years of sexual discovery. Sexual pleasure is something that is one of life's GREAT JOYS.  Having kids?  Yes, of course; but sex is sex and sexual pleasure.  If it feels good, we do it... in spades!


"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.  For your love is better than wine." Song of Songs 1:2.


The Bible contains passages that condone incest, rape, adultery and a father offering his daughters to strangers for sexual gratification.  It's soft on prostitution and polygamy.  It criticizes male-on-male eroticism, but not female-on-female eroticism.  Sons of Songs highlights sensual delight and it makes 38 metaphorical references to male and female genitals including oral sex (hardly a pro-creative sexual activity!).  


Proverbs also highlights the delights of sensual sexual activity with no thought of making babies.  "Let thy fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.  Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times, and be thou ravished always with her love.  And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?" Proverbs 5:18, 20


The argument that gays/lesbians are not procreating off-spring and thus their sexual pleasure is somehow not legitimate overlooks the simple fact that we straights are also happy with sexual pleasure and not procreating off-spring.  In fact our sexual activity is mostly about pleasure.  And certainly for women past child bearing years, her sexual pleasure continues.  Also most young women nowadays do not want children to interfere with their sex lives.  Why else would the majority of females be on the pill or use some other form of birth control.  And why do straight males use condoms?


There may be arguments to be made about same-sex activity, but the one about non-pro-creative sex is specious. We straights mostly enjoy sex for it's sheer feel goodness too!

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook