Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[Wiglaf]

I do not speak Italian, but I will do my best here:

Caviar and luxury are metaphors that serve to confuse the reader, so let's avoid them.

All I know is, gay marriage is a luxury. Homosexuality obviously exists. I didn't mean to dispute that. At least not right now.

[Ancyrean]

Wiglaf, your arguements are based on convictions that easily produce their own counter arguements. Let's for a second jump on your train of thought and see where it takes us.

If I'm not mistaken, your primary reason here is to express your dislike of man-to-man sexual relationships. You go further from this act of expression into trying to prove it to everyone else that your dislike is logical and therefore must be followed by everybody else, including homosexual males. To prove the universal applicability of a dislike is arguementatively a non-starter.

You try to give substance to this approach by arguing that heterosexual sex must be the only norm of sex because it has biological function. But sex is not only functional, it's also a way of expressing love (or even affection), among other things. So your emphasis on function has an implication that sex must not be done for pleasure. On the other hand, if you would concede sex can be for pleasure, and as such acceptable between hetero couples, how would you defend against a gay saying he does it for pleasure, without recourse to function?

You try to reinforce your (essentially) functional point by pointing out the absurdity of having sex with a toaster (toaster=luxury, having sex with toaster=no babies, having sex with another male=no babies, ergo having sex with another male=luxury). You thereby weaken your own arguement, because then it gives your rhetorical opponents the opportunity to point it out to you that your approach is not deductive, but inductive (it's like in the misassumption: cats are animals, dogs are animals, hence cats are dogs ).

From there, you expose your whole arguement to fresh direct fire by saying that there must be "homosexual pride infatuations" or "homosexual attractions" instead of love, all the while conceding the theoretical possibility that homosexuality might be the result of a deviant gene. If it is the result of such a gene, then for the possessors of that gene the love they feel for another male would be true enough (since they are genetically dispossessed to "love" another male).

There's more to it. You're entitled to your dislike of male-male sex. But the way you put it is in a way to convince gays that they are wrong and in a way their whole life is a fallacy. Even if we assume (for the sake of arguement) that homosexuality is a 'deviation', it's unreasonable to expect that the gays of the world would suddenly say "yeah, wow I didn't see it like this, so I repent".

Also, would it be true if one assumes that you probably base your dislike and your arguement on religious teachings? You are again entitled to accept homosexual relationships as sinful, if you choose to. But it would be wrong to assume everybody shares your religious conviction, however from the heart it is to you.

Therefore, in a nutshell, you need a whole better case than to try prove homosexuality is despicable, because 'despicable' is subjective, and it's unrealistic expecting gays to say their lives are a deviation. They won't do that

On a lighter note, what about lesbians? Well I can't think of a straight guy who would not be turned on by two kissing chicks And is there a straight guy who doesn't imagine being in the same bed with two bisexual girls?

Kissing chicks

[Wiglaf]

On the other hand, if you would concede sex can be for pleasure,

I don't care why people, you know, DATE, WINK WINK, but I do care that their DATING WINK WINK has some ultimate biological function or implication. Gay stuff NUDGE NUDGE has none of this.

Argument is not spelled "Arguement."

And if homosexuals have a deviant gene, they must be dealt with like all diseased people. Quarantined, sued, given tax deductions, arrested, etc. The rule of law must be upheld.

[KrazyHorse]

Wiggy's the man.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I don't care why people, you know, DATE, WINK WINK, but I do care that their DATING WINK WINK has some ultimate biological function or implication. Gay stuff NUDGE NUDGE has none of this.

What's the reason for this worshipping of some "ultimate biological function"?

Originally posted by Wiglaf
And if homosexuals have a deviant gene, they must be dealt with like all diseased people. Quarantined, sued, given tax deductions, arrested, etc. The rule of law must be upheld.

Rule of law? Which law is saying that diseased people "must be quarantined, sued, given tax deductions, arrested, etc."?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

I plan to have kids later, or at least am as open to it as possible. Gay people are not, making me not gay, therefore maybe you should check your facts.

Can anyone prove to you that you are contacting us from Uranus?


Yes.

I know several lesbian mothers, and three gay fathers.

That is, the lesbians CONCEIVED AND GAVE BIRTH.

The gay men either donated sperm, or put their whizz wangs in a lady person's front bottom.

I think that may have couched it in phraseology that can penetrate the several layers of integument wrapped around your alien bonce.

As for the rest of your drivel about gay sexuality being a luxury or gay marriage being a luxury, you've failed to prove either, except by your own Bizarro world logic, so have fun sending those communications from Uranus.



I think they're a hoot.




(P.S. Are you Obi Gyn's dark side? Or his warlock familiar?)

[Agathon]

If you pick A, you are terminating the species through your homosexuality, a clearly immoral and illegal act...

1. I don't know of any laws that make fathering children mandatory.

2. It's not clear that it's immoral. Some people think that we only have obligations to presently existing persons or those future persons whose existence we are responsible, or future persons who are likely to come into existence independently of our actions.

If you deny these limited forms of responsibility for future generations, you end up with bizarre situations in which people have to spend all their time having children because the more people exist in the future, the more overall happiness there can be (subject to empirical constraints of course, but it is reasonably clear that utilitarian considerations with respect to future people would require massively increased fecundity).

In a more theoretical sense, you are discouraging a culture of life and reducing the evolutionary potential of the species significantly.

3. I don't understand what the first really means, or that the second has any ethical import at all.

4. Even if you pick A, it does not mean that you have to stop being a homosexual. Many gay men father children without turning themselves into straights. Presumably, the desire to father children can overcome one's ordinary sexual proclivities (the flip side is those straight men who have found themselves inadvertently aroused during homosexual assaults - a very taboo subject). So it's a false dilemma.

If you pick B, you are essentially arguing that homosexuality is a sexual luxury and not a biological requirement, in essence reducing the practice to deviance.

5. I don't understand what "deviance" means here. How can you prove that homosexuality is not an evolutionary adaptation to deal with overcrowding, yet keep those evolutionary benefits that societies with stable pair bonds or enjoy?

And I don't think that a normal sex life is a luxury.

[Last Conformist]

Watch out! It's the baby-eating liberal again! Garlic now!

[The Vagabond]

Development of human society, as well as of any other biological entity, is inherently based upon big numbers (of individuals and traits). If in your mental experiment you imagine that there is only a limited number of individuals, or you single out a certain trait and imagine that all the individuals possess it, this has nothing to do with reality.

[Az]

The ethical thing to do, of course, is doing everything to continue the procreation of the species. This has nothing to do with the current world.

[Whaleboy]

The ethical thing to do, of course, is doing everything to continue the procreation of the species. This has nothing to do with the current world.

Why? I thought you would advocate making people happy now?

[Whaleboy]

Ah, so you meant forceful to mean coerced.

No, I mean imposed. To be existentialist about it, the decision is not made by the free will of the beholder, but the free will of the killer, or then kills that person against their will; forcing themself upon them etc etc. We can deduce then that the responsibility for that murder is the killers, not the bullet since the latter clearly has no free will.

1) yes, that's the point

The point is that the definition of murder is XYZ and it is a fallacy to say XYZ = bad, we have only established a definition of murder which can *then* be debated.

2) when did you stop being a relativist?

I didn't. Going on from my definition I would say that all forceful imposition of one relative upon another (person upon person) is fallacious in the human context. Suppose we are debating it, my "murder is fallacious in given context" against you "murder isn't necessarily wrong" * then in that context, the one of the debate, they are equally valid.

*I don't know that that is your opinion I'm making assumptions that you'd take a utilitarian route.

[Heresson]

In the situation described in the first post, sex of gays with the women is recommended. It's kind of investition, after 16-18 years, they may get new fellows to play with if they get tired with themselves.

[Heresson]

Also, the women may get a fellow and do not trouble the gay couple anymore

[Whaleboy]

Firstly, wtf, secondly, wtf?