Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
And so far the analysis has not even been challenged.

everyone just ignores my posts entirely.

[Whaleboy]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deviant

adj, Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.

n, One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

characterized by deviation (as from a standard of conduct)

We see here that "deviation" requires some other subjective frame of reference from which to say that something deviates from it. It is relative, you are not making an objective argument of deviation, and since we are all different individuals you will fail to do so in any case.

As for genetics, I would hold that since homosexuality is present in other mammal species, it has not been evolved out over thousands of mammal generations, plenty of time to do so and it is the sort of thing that would be evolved out relatively quickly were it useless or malignant.

You misunderstand what I mean by context. The situation you describe is very different to todays world of 6.3 billion people and in BOTH cases, sex is not a biological necessity in order to survive and for reasons, some differing, some the same, homosexuality is not out of the question. I'd like my new hat please .

Again with your eugenics you are saying effectively with your imposed subjectivism "your gene is inferior to mine and thus be eliminated because it is different". Of course you'll disagree specifically since it makes you sound bad but you cannot make an objective argument for that to be the case.

I don't care what they do. They do not have the Deviant gene.

Ignoring your preceding logic which is about as watertight as a sieve, what about a genetic disorder that prevents one or both people in a hetero marriage from being fertile? How long will this take before you come out and admit that your views are based upon a fear of anal penetration? I doubt you have the same fervour regarding lesbian couples .

And whoever says the term "homosexual love" is barking up my tree. There is no such thing as "homosexual love." There is "homosexual pride infatuations," there is "homosexual attractions." Love is between men and women because dammit, their sex WINK WINK produces something.

Ok now you're talking out of your arse. Who the hell are you to tell people why, how and with whom they should fall in love?

NO MY TOASTER DOESN'T MAKE BABIES. But if we can't distinguish my toaster ,or my dinner selection, from my relationships, then we are LOST and must be evacuated immediately.

Don't you think there is a little difference between a consenting, conscious adult with free will and an inanimate object?

My GOD

You sound like you need him . Ignore the movies, Vaseline and spit doesn't work.

[Whaleboy]

everyone just ignores my posts entirely.

And Tass's, Kuci's, mine, mitchells...

For so many wildly different people to agree this guy might be missing a few chromosomes!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Seconded

I still remember the "state-sponsored murder" thread

What was this?

[Whaleboy]

What was this?

Remember when you said "state sponsored murder is an oxymoron" and I posted a picture of some slaughtered Hungarian Jews from 1944? No hard feelings? . Enough of this threadjack...

[Kuciwalker]

It is an oxymoron murder is illegal killing, not a moral term.

[Whaleboy]

If you define murder as something down to the legal statute of the state, so be it, I define it as something more philosophical, namely the forceful killing of one by another. As a result, genocide, the Holocaust etc is is murder by my definition. We can debate semantics and definition here, I happen to find mine more consistent since the state is far too arbitrary and has no properties to regulate or specify that definition but that would be spam

[Nubclear]

I destroy the capitalist pigs in the name of the People's Socialist Union of Tassagrad

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Sex isn't a biological luxury, it's a requirement. Gay marriage is the former, obviously. There ain't no disputing that.

Did you start this thread because you're upset a gay man rejected your sexual advances?


I can't really see any point to it- even Zylka at his most deranged makes more sense than you have so far.

Let me explain it to you- homosexuality for gay men and lesbians, isn't compulsory- there are gay and lesbian celibates. No one forces them to have sex, just like ther are celibate heterosexuals in the same position.


If there were but two gay men and a woman left in all the world you're not exactly setting out with a great breeding stock are you?

Unless you want blind banjo players and Habsburg jaws all around.

Now you may be unaware of this, but plenty of gay men and lesbians have had sex with people of the opposite sex.

It doesn't make them any more unhomosexual, than it would make heterosexuals who take part in same sex sexual activity gay- there's performers in porn who are gay for pay, and are who are married or have girlfriends.

I don't know of any gay man or lesbian who regards their sexuality as a luxury- what a ludicrous proposal.

-Mmm. want some caviare to go with that Bollinger sexuality you've just opened? No, thanks, too luxurious for me.

Sex might be luxury I'd forego if I were stuck naked on Annapurna in the face of an avalanche.

Or in a room with you for a week.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
If you define murder as something down to the legal statute of the state, so be it, I define it as something more philosophical, namely the forceful killing of one by another. As a result, genocide, the Holocaust etc is is murder by my definition. We can debate semantics and definition here, I happen to find mine more consistent since the state is far too arbitrary and has no properties to regulate or specify that definition but that would be spam

How can you have killing without application of some sort of force?

[Whaleboy]

How can you have killing without application of some sort of force?

You can't and thus all forceful killing of humans is murder. And before you say it, I will: War and capital punishment is murder. Is murder wrong in some circumstances. The jury is out, and sitting in a different court. Bon nuit!!

[Kuciwalker]

You can't and thus all forceful killing of humans is murder.

All killing is forceful. Forceful killing is an oxymoron.

And so basically you're saying all killing is murder - which makes the term "murder" useless - why not just say killing when you mean what we mean be killing and murder when you mean what everyone else means by murder?

[Whaleboy]

All killing is forceful. Forceful killing is an oxymoron.

No. According to your logic peaceful killing would be an oxymoron (a self-contradictory phrase) but your logic ignores consentual killing, for example voluntary euthanasia. So where voluntary euthanasia or suicide (forceful is traditionally used to mean against the will of the beholder) is killing, as in, to kill, it is not murder, which is forceful killing.

The term "murder" is already useless as a means to say some form of killing is objectively bad. The logic of murder applies to all forceful killing which begs the question of whether all murder is wrong, which is another story. Now we can spam this thread, or you can set up a thread in the tomorrow (it's 03.30am here) where we can debate this properly, otherwise continue this through PM no? I doubt it would serve any purpose, we'll just be skirting through our assumptions. You reasoning is fine, you're assumptions aren't from my perspective. From your perspective I assume my reasoning appears solid but my premises do not, but if you do with to debate them I will join you, after sleep .

[Japher]

Homosexuality is a trait that is carried on the Y chromozone, so as long as the lady doesn't have any gay uncles everything should work out fine. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


No. According to your logic peaceful killing would be an oxymoron (a self-contradictory phrase)

I meant redundancy

but your logic ignores consentual killing, for example voluntary euthanasia. So where voluntary euthanasia or suicide (forceful is traditionally used to mean against the will of the beholder) is killing, as in, to kill, it is not murder, which is forceful killing.

Ah, so you meant forceful to mean coerced.

The term "murder" is already useless as a means to say some form of killing is objectively bad.

1) yes, that's the point

2) when did you stop being a relativist?