NationStates Jolt Archive

You really should read more history stories. Sometimes, the exact reason they do/did it, was to ensure that that their offspring would sit on the throne (protecting genetic heritage lines) instead of their rival’s offspring.

The example is about as perfect as animal to human correlation examples can get. Trying to pretend like we know 'why' a lion does what it does is a pointless exercise. A new leader killing it’s rivals offspring to build a stronger position for it’s own offspring describes both Lion and Human behaviors.

Um no. One is a case of maximizing social power under a certain system of government, namely monarchy. The other is born out of a biological imperative to mate. Unless you are suggesting that there is a biological imperative for humans to set up monarchies (in which case about ten generations of Americans have succeeded spectacularly at being unnatural), then there is no real correlation between the two.

Let me be more clear in my articulation of "nature". It is naturally the case that men set up societies, because men are political animals by nature. It is also the case that men seek to divide up goods and services in that society in a way that benefits them, because that is a part of being a naturally political animal; politics at its simplest is deciding who gets what in some manner. But this does not necessarily entail infanticide: there are many ways of dividing up goods in society without resorting to it, and many of those options are often preferable to those that do entail it. That is because man is of a different kind of animal than a lion: lions at best have an appetative soul, whereas man has a rational faculty that intrinsically recoils from practices that the purely appetative soul would heartily endorse given the appropriate circumstances.

To give an example, humans seem by nature to have an inner compulsion to save children; it is quite common for three or four adults to risk their own lives to save one child. This is a practice that cuts across cultural norms and barriers. From a purely biological standpoint, does this make any sense? Not really, or at least not as much as the lion practice of abandoning cubs she can't feed. Why then do we do it? Probably because we have different natures than lions, and our nature compels us to save children out of all measure for the actual cost/benefit analysis.

You're not really going to try and pretend that there are no human mother's that have abandoned their children or killed them outright due to severe impoverishment are you?

Nor are you thinking of all the 'don't get between an animal and her cubs' lessons, some as old as from the beginning of stories themselves.

Additionally, female and male lions have both have been known to protect the pride’s young from hyenas and other lions when danger presents itself. The behaviors of protection and of inter-species infanticide are common to both them and us.

Well the USian thing was getting to be too much so heres a new old argument to get condescending to each other over:

Parents are suing a school for reading a gay-themed fairy tale called King and King to students.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060427/us_nm/rights_gays_massachusetts_dc




So trying to indoctrinate kids into showing tolerance is wring? They also call two guys kissing in a fairy-tale sex education but when a prince kisses a princess in a fairy-tale they say nothing?

What say you?
Silly catholics. I still don't see what's wrong with promoting peaceful tolerance of people who choose to lead alternative life styles. And there is nothing federally morally wrong with these books, so if they pass a law banning it, they might as well throw the First Amendment out the window.

You're not really trying to pretend that there are no human mother's that have not abandoned their children or killed them outright due to severe impoverishment are you?

Nor are you thinking of all the 'don't get between and animal and her cubs' lessons from the beginning of stories themselves. Female and male lions have both have been known to protect the pride’s young from hyenas and other lions. The behaviors of protection and infanticide are common to both them and us.

*Sigh*

The fact that some oaks get sick does not suggest that it is in the nature of an oak to be healthy or sick. It indicates, especially in conjunction with the observation that sick oaks perish and strong oaks flourish, that the natural tendency of a good oak is to be healthy, but some oaks fail in their purpose and nature.

Our nature is to be happy and rational, since happiness is always what we do things for the sake of and no other, and rationality is the only way we can truly know what will make us happy and no other. No rational person would ever commit infanticide, because no rational person would conclude that infanticide would make them happy. The fact that there are people who commit infanticide doesn't detract from this thinking, as just like sick oaks, there are people who through ignorance or disability fail to develop their nature as it should as well.

Does that make it clearer?

No rational person would ever commit infanticide, because no rational person would conclude that infanticide would make them happy. The fact that there are people who commit infanticide doesn't detract from this thinking, as just like sick oaks, there are people who through ignorance or disability fail to develop their nature as it should as well.

Does that make it clearer?

Close enough for me. I’ll agree. Some behaviors, no matter how common or 'natural' are the result of an illness or sickness or just possibly a good old fashioned 'brokenness.' I'll agree with your assessment, we don't all develop as we should (for reasons unspecified) sometimes we are broken and our ‘nature’ is to do things not good for others and ourselves.

How ironic that one of the great iconic Christian hero Kings, Richard Lionheart, enjoyed his fair share of sodomy.
How ironic that frigin everyone enjoyed their share of sodomy untill very recently. Im amazed at how few people know how recent a development homophobia is

f*** christianity. honestly, i've dealt with way to much crap from right-wing christian fundamentalist nazis. keep your beliefs to yourselves, jerk offs.

Close enough for me. I’ll agree. Some behaviors, no matter how common or 'natural' are the result of an illness or sickness or just possibly a good old fashioned 'brokenness.' I'll agree with your assessment, we don't all develop as we should (for reasons unspecified) sometimes we are broken and our ‘nature’ is to do things not good for others and ourselves.

You are contradicting yourself all over the place. You have tried to argue that homosexuality is unnatural. That is clearly wrong. It is also rather irrelevant because -- as we've tried to explain to you -- natural/unnatural doesn't equal good/bad.

You've given no reason why homosexuality is "not good for others and ourselves." This is simply false.

You've given no evidence that homosexuality is "the result of an illness or sickness." This is simply false.

What, pray tell, is "brokeness" in a human? How should we all develop? What is your basis for these judgments other than your own prejudices?

I'm going to explain this using small words, so maybe you'll get it. (Actually, I don't imagine you will, but I'll try anyway.)

Gay. people. are. human. They are part of society. They will be in people's faces regardless of what you want. That includes kids. Get the fuck over it.

True, one of my parent's friends when I was growing up was gay, I knew he was gay and I'm not gay, hey in australia the Mari Gras is a festival celebrating gays, kids see that all the time.

You are contradicting yourself all over the place. You have tried to argue that homosexuality is unnatural. That is clearly wrong. It is also rather irrelevant because -- as we've tried to explain to you -- natural/unnatural doesn't equal good/bad.

You've given no reason why homosexuality is "not good for others and ourselves." This is simply false.

You've given no evidence that homosexuality is "the result of an illness or sickness." This is simply false.

What, pray tell, is "brokeness" in a human? How should we all develop? What is your basis for these judgments other than your own prejudices?

Contradicting myself? No. You are assigning to me things I've not said or done, that is not me contradicting myself, that is you building a strawman and throwing red herrings at it.

Someone else called it unnatural, I defended their wordage. Someone else said illness and sickness causes us to do things not good for us, I agreed. I never once said 'natural is good' and 'unnatural is bad' you must be thinking of someone else’s arguments as I've stated all along that 'natural' is irrelevant as an example of ‘okay behavior’ and I've cited examples of unfavorable 'natural' behavior that we should not emulate to make my point.

As to brokenness, I’ve simply agreed that sometimes our behavior, even when common and ‘natural’ is a result of erroneous choice making capabilities beyond our control (and that reference was to infanticide being common but never good, by someone else’s assessment of evaluating the good and the bad of it and the how it could come about.

Perhaps you could try to read the entire conversation before you embarrass yourself with false accusations and misunderstandings.

Contradicting myself? No. You are assigning to me things I've not said or done, that is not me contradicting myself, that is you building a strawman and throwing red herrings at it.

Someone else called it unnatural, I defended their wordage. Someone else said illness and sickness causes us to do things not good for us, I agreed. I never once said 'natural is good' and 'unnatural is bad' you must be thinking of someone else’s arguments as I've stated all along that 'natural' is irrelevant as an example of ‘okay behavior’ and I've cited examples of unfavorable 'natural' behavior that we should not emulate to make my point.

As to brokenness, I’ve simply agreed that sometimes our behavior, even when common and ‘natural’ is a result of erroneous choice making capabilities beyond our control (and that reference was to infanticide being common but never good, by someone else’s assessment of evaluating the good and the bad of it and the how it could come about.

Perhaps you could try to read the entire conversation before you embarrass yourself with false accusations and misunderstandings.

Meethinks thou dost protest too much. If you are embarassed by your own words that is not my fault.

As you say, you "defended the wordage" that homosexuality is unnatural. That position has been shown to be absurd.

You as you say "cited examples of unfavorable 'natural' behavior that we should not emulate." By your own admission, the behavior you cite is natural -- whether or not it is desirable -- so that doesn't support your alleged thesis that homosexuality is unnatural.

In fact, you now appear to be conceding that homosexuality is natural, but you bizarrely allege that it can still be "a result of erroneous choice making capabilities beyond our control." You'll have to explain how something can be a choice and at the same time beyond our control.

You implied that homosexuality is "not good for others and ourselves" and that homosexuality is "the result of an illness or sickness," yet you refuse to defend these implications. Are you granting that they are false or are simply evading debate?

Perhaps if you had a view that held together you wouldn't find yourself embarassed by your own assertions.

Oh, please. People quote the Bible out of context constantly, and this is just another supreme example of that abhorrent practice. If we took the Bible literally, a woman who committed adultery by the Old Testament would be stoned to death in public.

The Bible has passed through so many pairs of hands and been translated so often that it is doubtful that the original text and intent of it has survived.

Further, I think organized religion is by far the most sinful group of predominently evil men on the planet. This is not to say that your local parish priest has any idea the level of corruption in the hiearchy of his religion, nor is it entirely impossible that some people have a genuine calling to the clergy.

History is replete with examples of egregious sins committed in Christ's name by high church officials.

That being said, I think Wiccans have said it best with their Rede.

"Do as ye will, and do ye no harm."

Oh, and for your information, Hark...anything other than missionary sex for procreational purposes either has been or can be defined as "sodomy." So remember that when you go down on your girlfriend, or your girlfriend goes down on you and performs oral sex.

I am so sick of people who think sodomy is only anal intercourse between two men. Read your state and local laws from before the time that the Supreme Court of the United States struck down all of the sodomy laws (Lawrence vs Texas).

JC

I'm sorry, it's not my fault people ignored what the bible says and pretended that sodomy means "anal sex".

I'm sorry, it's not my fault people ignored what the bible says and pretended that sodomy means "anal sex".

<sigh>

The Bible is NOT the literal word of God, it never was and it never will be. It is the word of God as reported (or testified) by the people who wrote it. The Bible offers many fine moral and ethical lessons and CAN BE an excellent framework for living a good life. It just sticks in my craw when these people who sin AS MUCH OR MORE than the rest of us tell us WE ARE unworthy, ungodly and unChristian.

For crying out loud, a Nazi is the Pope! Ran me right out of the Roman Catholic Church, he did. Especially when he and his biretta wearing, Cardinal cronies start preaching about gays being intrinsically disordered (read here: subhuman) and the gay population of the Church is STAGGERINGLY high.

What good the Bible does is often undone by lying twits who worm their way politically into a church hiearchy and unload their particular brand of prejudice, hatred and general nastiness on a populus that SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

My point is that ‘nature’ is not a good excuse to force us to accept bad behaviors.

Then you are arguing against a strawman, since no one has every suggested that it is.

The difference is that, unlike you, not all people think that a homosexual finding a loving relationship is a "bad behavior".

It’s interesting that you’ve chosen a specific animal and a specific behavior that we can directly correlate to brain biology (hypothalamus) in the animal in question. We have every reason to speculate that this behavior can be modified via drugs given during fetal development and/or possibly genetic medications for after birth modification, perhaps even ‘corrective surgery’ and most certainly breeding practices. Why would you choose this animal and it’s behavior to equate to human homosexuality? So far as I know, we are no closer to thinking that human male homosexual attraction can be modified or measured in any of the same methodologies.

Actually, we are rather close to thinking human male homosexual attraction can be correlated in much the same way, considering that the brain biology of homosexual males can be shown to be closer to that of heterosexual females than to heterosexual males.

Meanwhile, we often use animal studies to try and describe similar behaviors in human beings. Does a correlation in animals prove one in human beings? Of course not, but it does suggest one, just as studying the workings of genes and hormones in animals suggests similar responses in human beings. We aren't exactly going to take human mothers and inject hormones into their wombs to try and and alter sexaulity.

Breeding practices in humans have also been correlated to male homosexuality. Birth order, for instance, has a very strong correlation. The more older male brothers a guy has, the more likely it is that he will be gay. This is attributed to a possible immune effect in the mother - that because her immune system essentially becomes chimerized from each son, her immune system somehow alters the biology of the later sons.

Meanwhile, I didn't "choose this animal and it’s behavior to equate to human homosexuality"? I didn't equate the two - I simply responded to a poster who mentioned the existence of homosexual sex among these animals and expanded on the detail. In fact, I pointed out that there was a large difference between sexaulity in these animals and in human beings - as the unusual action is refusing homosexual sex, not having it.

The burden of proof is on you.

This is real life, Kievan. This is not a courtroom. In real life we are supposed to seek the facts. Sometimes in the course of seeking out facts we discover things unpleasant or different from our personal beliefs. Your view is very much on the way to being outmoded. The facts as best we know them right now are that gays are born with the biological imperative to be attracted to the same sex. Despite arguments that homosexuality is a CHOICE, the uncomfortable fact is that position is erroneous. Geneticists, psychiatrists, psychologists and other people who specialize in the genetics of human behavior have long been on the same page for that basic fact. The American Psychiatric Association took homosexuality off of the list of abnormal behavior and psychiatric disorders officially in 1974. Since then, extensive studies have been conducted, one of the more recent ones being the reaction to male pheromones in sweat. Heterosexual females and homosexual males were exposed unknowingly to male pheromones and both reacted biochemically and biologically the same way...with intense attraction. The control group, heterosexual males, did not react with attraction (intense or otherwise) when exposed to the pheromones. However, the study did not stop there, heterosexual males were exposed to female pheromones and reacted with intense attraction, along with the female homosexual group who reacted similarly. Needless to say the homosexual males did not react with any level of attraction.

The conclusions of this study was another confirmation that sexual attraction is biochemical and rooted deeply in biology and that homosexual males and females reacted with attraction when exposed to the pheromones of the same sex.

The study of human sexuality was pioneered in the 1950's with Kinsey, and has been growing exponentially since. 50+ years later we can say with a high degree of certainty that homosexuality is a biological imperative, not a conscious choice. The information is freely out there for you to access, and any good University website can at least give you pointers to where you need to go to find study results.

That is my challenge to you. Go out and seek the results of legitimate studies. Studies that give hard scientific evidence, not anecdotal results doctored by those with a political axe to grind. Do not send me studies conducted by Bob Jones University, nor Oral Roberts. Oddly enough, Catholic Universities like Boston College and Notre Dame do not discriminate...these are legitimate institutions of higher learning.

On a side note, since 1967, the year of the Stonewall Riots, homosexuals have slowly and painfully been struggling for simple parity, equal treatment in the United States, attitudes have been changing. There will always be people like yourself that simply cannot accept homosexuals in any way. Rather sad considering that you likely know and affiliate with gays everyday. Most of us make no big deal of our sexuality, but we note people like yourself who not only have no understanding of us, but hate us. Kind of like a real life "ignore" list. Right now the struggle to take the final steps towards institutional equality in employment, housing and having our committed relationships recognized in some form legally are being taken. Time is on our side, we will win simply with the passage of time now. Your argument that we are ravening demons and evil will soon be looked upon as statitical oddities, and you will be reduced to precisely what you should be. Statistical obscurity. That's evolution, old son. Enjoy it.

For these reasons and many, many more I suggest to you that if you are unwilling to seek out the information that is out there for your consideration, then you deserve to drown in the ignorance you revel in.

You know nothing and ignorance is bliss.

This is simply appalling. I consider myself a devout Christian, but I see nothing- nothing- wrong with homosexuals. They are no different than other people, except usually nicer. As to people who say it's "sinful," wake up, idiots. We're ALL sinners. Why judge others when we should be judging ourselves!?

Poeple like you renew my faith in Christianity. I hope your God blesses you.

<sigh>

The Bible is NOT the literal word of God, it never was and it never will be. It is the word of God as reported (or testified) by the people who wrote it. The Bible offers many fine moral and ethical lessons and CAN BE an excellent framework for living a good life. It just sticks in my craw when these people who sin AS MUCH OR MORE than the rest of us tell us WE ARE unworthy, ungodly and unChristian.

For crying out loud, a Nazi is the Pope! Ran me right out of the Roman Catholic Church, he did. Especially when he and his biretta wearing, Cardinal cronies start preaching about gays being intrinsically disordered (read here: subhuman) and the gay population of the Church is STAGGERINGLY high.

What good the Bible does is often undone by lying twits who worm their way politically into a church hiearchy and unload their particular brand of prejudice, hatred and general nastiness on a populus that SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

Just for fun, what do you think my stance on homosexuality/sexuals is, based on my previous posts?

Just for fun, what do you think my stance on homosexuality/sexuals is, based on my previous posts?

Considering after going back and reading the one post by you I found (admittedly I could have missed posts you made), I simply cannot make a fair assessment of your position.

Considering I have read quite a number of well written posts by you on other topics it would behoove me not to guess either.

You certainly don't strike me as a troll, spammer or flamer.

So what is your position on homosexuals and homosexuality?

JC

I have to get this out of the way:

YOU ARE NOT COOL OR INTELLIGENT BY SAYING "STRAWMAN"

I'm sorry, it's not my fault people ignored what the bible says and pretended that sodomy means "anal sex".

"Sodomy" actually comes from the hebrew word "S'dom" meaning burnt.

"I was concerned that I had not broached this topic with my young child yet and I was concerned that the point of view that was being presented was different from our family's personal moral values," Robin Wirthlin told a news conference.


Curious. What point of view was being presented, other than the one that gay people exist?

Perhaps the story should've ended "And they got toasted in Hell ever after," then Mr. Wirthlin would've been satisfied with the story's moral stance.

I wonder if I ever raise a child in the USA, would I be able to raise a lawsuit if I disagreed with the way the American Revolution was being taught to my child: i.e., the rebels were portrayed as the 'right' side.

"I was concerned that I had not broached this topic with my young child yet and I was concerned that the point of view that was being presented was different from our family's personal moral values," Robin Wirthlin told a news conference.


Curious. What point of view was being presented, other than the one that gay people exist?
You have to understand how the fundies see this.

See, they are the ones teaching their kids that men are brutal beasts who only want to have sex with women, and women are stupid weak vessels who have no value other than procreation.

If their children find out that there is an alternative to heterosexuality, they KNOW the kids are going to jump right on it (no pun intended).


Perhaps the story should've ended "And they got toasted in Hell ever after," then Mr. Wirthlin would've been satisfied with the story's moral stance.

Well yeah. If the kids hear that it is possible for marriage to be founded on love, respect, and mutual enjoyment of companionship, then how are we going to convince them to enter loveless, purely-procreative unions with the wife/husband that we pick out for them?


I wonder if I ever raise a child in the USA, would I be able to raise a lawsuit if I disagreed with the way the American Revolution was being taught to my child: i.e., the rebels were portrayed as the 'right' side.
No, but you can sue the schools if they fail to point out that America wins every single war, always, and that all of our enemies are faceless hives of gay atheist communist abortion doctors.

No, but you can sue the schools if they fail to point out that America wins every single war, always, and that all of our enemies are faceless hives of gay atheist communist abortion doctors.


Hahahaha, its funny cos its true!!

Do gay animals go to heaven?

Hahahaha, its funny cos its true!!

Do gay animals go to heaven?

Yes, but only through the back door.

Can anyone here tell me why the hell Christians place so much emphasis on homosexuality? Why the interest in something so inconsequential today and insignificant in the Bible?

Anyone? :confused:

Well, not to suggest that one post can encapsulate the entire answer to that question, I believe that part of it is because the church benefits from the cultural tradition of heterosexism, which generally tends to prop up male-dominance. Equality for gay people- ergo homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality- undermines the supremacy of the man + woman dynamic, which is often manipulated so as to make men the superior partners. The entire 'idea' of homosexuality threatens rigid conceptions of sexuality and gender roles ("masculinity" and "femininity") and so threatens the power and privelage of "straight men," who are resistent to losing the power they've long had over... well, pretty much everything.

Yes, but only through the back door.
You made me spit coffee all over my desk. I demand that you buy me a new keyboard.


:)

Considering after going back and reading the one post by you I found (admittedly I could have missed posts you made), I simply cannot make a fair assessment of your position.

Considering I have read quite a number of well written posts by you on other topics it would behoove me not to guess either.

You certainly don't strike me as a troll, spammer or flamer.

So what is your position on homosexuals and homosexuality?

JC

I think they're A-OK.

Close enough for me. I’ll agree. Some behaviors, no matter how common or 'natural' are the result of an illness or sickness or just possibly a good old fashioned 'brokenness.' I'll agree with your assessment, we don't all develop as we should (for reasons unspecified) sometimes we are broken and our ‘nature’ is to do things not good for others and ourselves.

No, our nature is always to do the virtuous thing, because virtue is the thing that makes us happy. Our natural inclination is to do good and avoid evil, to use Thomas Aquinas' formulation. The problem is not that our natures are broken, but that oftentimes we don't know what the virtuous act is; i.e. we are unclear about what will make us happy. In the absence of that knowledge, we often act, and set up patterns of action, that are both evil and unnatural. That being said, there is no clear indication that homosexuality is either evil or unnatural, and many people definately seem happy when they practice it in the context of a loving relationship. As such, I don't see it as unnatural.

I'll take the Summa Theologica over City of God any day of the week.

No, our nature is always to do the virtuous thing, because virtue is the thing that makes us happy. Our natural inclination is to do good and avoid evil, to use Thomas Aquinas' formulation. The problem is not that our natures are broken, but that oftentimes we don't know what the virtuous act is; i.e. we are unclear about what will make us happy. In the absence of that knowledge, we often act, and set up patterns of action, that are both evil and unnatural. That being said, there is no clear indication that homosexuality is either evil or unnatural, and many people definately seem happy when they practice it in the context of a loving relationship. As such, I don't see it as unnatural.

I'll take the Summa Theologica over City of God any day of the week.
As will I! I'm so sick of this attitude that humans are innately icky bad sinful critters who will do evil unless we are somehow restrained. Especially since "sinful" activities include everything from eating the wrong kind of food to kissing the wrong consenting adult to wearing the wrong kind of hat.