Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[Whaleboy]

Then what the hell is it? Not genetic?

Deterministic in either case, and in that case, pwned . A safe bet is that it is something in all of us that possible events of our life or situations bring out.

Otherwise we don't last long mating with toasters.

Well at least your not winking

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Then what the hell is it? Not genetic?

For being a complete idiot, your grasp of basic logic is impressive.

[Ben Kenobi]

What's right for me is not right for them, but our respective positions in this regard are equally right for each other. I know I sound like i'm making the same regurgitated relativism again but I doubt you can find a more applicable context.

Regurgitated relativism?

I'll remember that. It gives you a very good metaphor.

Indeed, and we could list a thousand consequential reasons against it but still not deduce an "ought" from them. You'd want something inductive, an intent, but then basic utilitarianism and subjectivism would kick in to render it "is" and deductive on the basis of the subjectivism anyway! Hume rules!

You caught my meaning perfectly.

I think that may be the case for some people, for others it is not. There are people for whom sex is akin to having a hug, making them feel wanted. For others it's nice to feel close to someone, if not anyone specific. For others still it is a complex equation of psychosexual premises and security reason.

I think that this is a very good analogy, in how when love and sex become separated, the intimacy becomes lost. You don't form the same connection as you would otherwise, and if you start out desiring that connection, you will want to keep the first connection intact.

That means nothing. Same goes for religion, opinion, or any feature of identity.

Sure it does. It leaves option 4 available, as the best of all other options.

I hold the two to be essentially unrelated though people can combine them as they wish. For example, the idea of sex with someone I loved to produce a kid would frankly scare, me, I'd prefer to use a condom.

And that proves my point. You are holding something back from your partner, you are frightened by having a kid so you make sure you wear your rubbers. Don't you think that she picks up on this as well?

Some can get greater pleasure for indulging yourself now, others prefer anticipation, but neither are more true than each other, again its personal preference alone that decides. Raphael or Michealangelo?

No, not really. It's much more fun when you don't have to worry about the unintended consequences because you are already prepared for them. Especially if you want them and don't have to hold back at all.

[Wiglaf]

most people here mate with their right hand.....

I rest my case

But they are not BIO - LOGICALLY - DEVIANT because they probably like WO-MEN which helps make babies

A safe bet is that it is something in all of us that possible events of our life or situations bring out.

And that's how humanity gets this far? Something in our lives makes us gay or straight? It's purely determined on an individual basis, Nope I doubt it. Try instinct!

:Well at least your not winking

I apologize, I felt like Mating was a PG-13-type word, will not do so again, thanks. ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Excellent point. You are always holding something back in contraception, in saying that you want to have sex with someone, yet you do not trust them enough to have children with them.

Oh what rot.


It's entirely perfectly possible for two consenting intelligent informed people to wish to have the pleasure and intimacy of sex without the burden of a child, and if you assert that a child ISN'T a burden, then I suggest you volunteer for a four a.m. feed and try to experience post natal depression and the cost of raising a child.

Not every woman wants the joy of sex indissolubly linked to a pregnancy- perhaps if you ran the risk of being pregnant you might possibly get an inkling why.


It is only your opinion that sexual relations should somehow be inevitably soldered to the possible production, after nine months, of a child.

It has nothing to do with trust, but an awful lot to do with getting to know someone on one of the most profoundly revealing and intimate levels- sharing what can be a sublime experience with a person you love.

It can, if you're gay, be an expression of friendship- a reaffirmation of the bonds that link people who aren't a couple, but share a great level of intimacy.



Of course it can also be a quick knee trembler in a bus shelter in Wigan, but that's the sacred and profane nature of human sexuality- everything from Larry Flynt's 'Hustler' to Hadrian's great love for Antinous.


Now please stop making assertions like that- they serve only to make you look a tad naive.

[Ben Kenobi]

Always? So whenever you have sex with a condom, you're saying you dont trust that person to have your kid?

Yup. I'll stick with my statement since you have shown this to be true in your own experience.

I'm sorry but thats tenuous at best, and I think a lot of people in that position would not agree,

Then why not scrap the condoms? Just go at it, and enjoy the ride.

That may be your view on it, but you're still subjective in this, and yet present your view as universal.

No, I'm not being subjective. Lacking evidence to the contrary, I think my points make sense.

Forgive me but I question your experience in such things. Sex is different every time with every different person, to use your analogy, it is not merely duct tape, but a worldly range of fabrics, among whom yes will be duct tape.

Duct tape is used in the analogy for two reasons. When you first pull it off, in breaking up with someone you love, it is abominably painful. Secondly, over time, and partners, it wears down. So the analogy actually confirms what you are saying here, that it will not be the same with the second lover as the first.

The more times you have sex thinking you were in love, in my experience this is, the harder it is to commit next time you think you are in love. Sex with someone random does not do that to me.

Which confirms again what I am trying to say here. It hurts when you break up, and it is harder to form another attachement later.

Now, as for your second point, sex with someone random is a symptom of the first. You have already lost that connection, and have worn down to the point where it doesn't seem to matter much at all. The stickiness is no longer there.

...as a general rule BK, I think you should question these "old wives tales" a little more, analogy and metaphors are nothing without reasoning to back it, so it is subject to the same critical analysis.

Granted, but it's an analogy that works well based on experience. I can give you many other arguments, but they are founded on other bases and presuppositions, that you may find less palatable.

[chequita guevara]

I guess anal, oral, and manual sex also show you don't trust a person then.

[Whaleboy]

I think that this is a very good analogy, in how when love and sex become separated, the intimacy becomes lost. You don't form the same connection as you would otherwise, and if you start out desiring that connection, you will want to keep the first connection intact.

Do you need love to be intimate? I would suggest yes, but its silly to say it is a necessary condition, i.e. they are intimate ergo they are in love.

Sure it does. It leaves option 4 available, as the best of all other options.

Refresh my memory, option 4?

And that proves my point. You are holding something back from your partner, you are frightened by having a kid so you make sure you wear your rubbers. Don't you think that she picks up on this as well?

Ummm, psychoanalyses as a means of debating is a shoddy practise to start with, and that's when you're right specifically, let alone right generally (or in a universal case as you make yourself out to be). You could apply that same reasoning were I to ejaculate without her after having sex without a condom, would you still disapprove? And before you say there is a risk of pregancy with the pulling out technique, the same goes for condoms.

I don't think people use protection because they are frightened per se of having kids, and thus holding back, they do so because it is not in their best interests to do so, whereas it is in the best interests to have sex. Suppose I am poor, without the means to raise a child, but am in love with my girlfriend. We both want to have sex, and are in love, and upon reading your posts, deciding you'd approve that we are in love, we have sex, but use a condom.

I think it is woefully fallacious in any existential sense to suggest that one should take an action only if one is prepared to accept all of the consequences (which would seem the natural progression of your argument), since that would render the unforeseen consequences of many of our actions that we are still responsible for unaffordable.

No, not really. It's much more fun when you don't have to worry about the unintended consequences because you are already prepared for them. Especially if you want them and don't have to hold back at all.

For you, perhaps. Congratulations! . For me, no. Your way, while it works brilliantly for you, would be horrific in my life and I will stop taking you seriously the moment you suggest that I should attempt to emulate your life on the grounds that it is superior somehow.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's entirely perfectly possible for two consenting intelligent informed people to wish to have the pleasure and intimacy of sex without the burden of a child,

I suppose then the dumb ones can't experience the sheer joy of sex, can they?

and if you assert that a child ISN'T a burden, then I suggest you volunteer for a four a.m. feed and try to experience post natal depression and the cost of raising a child.

Compared to the blessings? It seems to me that the ones who find children to be the biggest burdens are the ones without kids.

Not every woman wants the joy of sex indissolubly linked to a pregnancy- perhaps if you ran the risk of being pregnant you might possibly get an inkling why.

I'm sure some would not, but I'm sure you have a much greater experience than I do in matters of pregnancy.

It is only your opinion that sexual relations should somehow be inevitably soldered to the possible production, after nine months, of a child.

Not inevitable. If there were, they would be no infertility.

It has nothing to do with trust, but an awful lot to do with getting to know someone on one of the most profoundly revealing and intimate levels- sharing what can be a sublime experience with a person you love.

And this has nothing to do with trust? It sure does where I'm from.

It can, if you're gay, be an expression of friendship- a reaffirmation of the bonds that link people who aren't a couple, but share a great level of intimacy.

So for gays it's a form of greeting, like a handshake or a pat on the back to exchange affection between friends? Thanks for enlightening us, Molly.

Now please stop making assertions like that- they serve only to make you look a tad naive.

Better naive than jaded.

[Wiglaf]

It can, if you're gay, be an expression of friendship- a reaffirmation of the bonds that link people who aren't a couple, but share a great level of intimacy.

Of course it certainly can't continue the species, which does not seem to occur to you as a biological screwup, regardless of the intimacy it shows.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I suppose then the dumb ones can't experience the sheer joy of sex, can they?

No, because they believe that sex is reserved for marriage and procreation.

[Whaleboy]

Yup. I'll stick with my statement since you have shown this to be true in your own experience.

I think not. I'll tell you what my experiences are, and I'll appreciate it if you dont strawman me for your own ends.

Then why not scrap the condoms? Just go at it, and enjoy the ride.

Then nine-months later, lives are ruined, not least the kids. Great idea there BK , the Papacy must be proud!

No, I'm not being subjective. Lacking evidence to the contrary, I think my points make sense.

Evidence to the contrary. That you can trust a person completely and not want a child? That lack of trust in a person to have your child is not necessarily the reason to use a condom? It's not a question of evidence to the contrary, and you know it. It is a question of showing your arguments to be flawed, since you attempt to show them to be universal, all I need do is provide one example to the contrary, or demonstrate a flaw in your reasoning thus. My experience provides the former, your inability to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions is the latter . They may make sense to you of course, but to me they demonstrate that you actually know disturbingly little about people, and too reliant upon scripture instead of trying to put yourself into other peoples shoes without being judgemental.

Duct tape is used in the analogy for two reasons. When you first pull it off, in breaking up with someone you love, it is abominably painful. Secondly, over time, and partners, it wears down. So the analogy actually confirms what you are saying here, that it will not be the same with the second lover as the first.

Lover being operative. Casual sex is the fabric. I will willingly say that in my own life (which I dont pretend to be a general rule) I have found it harder to commit after a relationship i thought might turn out to be serious, than a fling.

So the analogy actually confirms what you are saying here, that it will not be the same with the second lover as the first.

Different fabric, its never the same, you're a very unlucky man if you find it to deteriorate for you with each new relationship .

Now, as for your second point, sex with someone random is a symptom of the first. You have already lost that connection, and have worn down to the point where it doesn't seem to matter much at all. The stickiness is no longer there.

I call BS seeing as how that is completely a product of your own imagination with no reference to exposure of that practise or its incumbant understanding. Promiscuity need not necessarily mean lack of connection, like I said, different fabrics, different adhesives.

Granted, but it's an analogy that works well based on experience. I can give you many other arguments, but they are founded on other bases and presuppositions, that you may find less palatable.

My pallette is irrelevant, or rather, I'll find the argument with the fewest fallacies more palletable than its fallacious alternative.

[Whaleboy]

BK please do us all a favour, step back and think for a second "are my arguments necessarily correct for all, or just correct for me? Do they apply over and above all others universally, to the point where what works for other people, even though it may be different to my own argument, is false when faced with mine?"

If you are describing yourself, as all philosophy I like is, then say so! "This is what it is like to be Ben Kenobi". Descriptive. Don't preach, be prescriptive, on that basis. Lest I think you were Kant Incarnate, and long for the good old days for even Kant, the sheltered man and thinker he was, thought it through some.

[Whaleboy]

Of course it certainly can't continue the species, which does not seem to occur to you as a biological screwup, regardless of the intimacy it shows.

But it doesn't occur as a biological, or psychological screwup. It seems the natural consequence of that persons life. Unless you believe we to be no more in terms of our aims and nature than an amoeba, in which case no-one would care and let it be anyway!

[Ben Kenobi]

I would suggest yes, but its silly to say it is a necessary condition, i.e. they are intimate ergo they are in love.

No, not when you make the argument that intimacy is greater with love than without.

Refresh my memory, option 4?

Celibacy among everyone is option 3, while option 4 is one of the gay men changing his preferences to make love to the woman he loves.

You could apply that same reasoning were I to ejaculate without her after having sex without a condom, would you still disapprove? And before you say there is a risk of pregancy with the pulling out technique, the same goes for condoms.

Same motivation regardless.

they do so because it is not in their best interests to do so, whereas it is in the best interests to have sex.

Why is it in their best interests to have sex, when as you have said, they are not mature enough to take care of children, and they do not trust their partner enough to raise children together?

Suppose I am poor, without the means to raise a child, but am in love with my girlfriend. We both want to have sex, and are in love, and upon reading your posts, deciding you'd approve that we are in love, we have sex, but use a condom.

I think that b is either an excuse, or a valid reason why they would not end up together in the end. Why not get married, if you are in love with your girlfriend?

I think it is woefully fallacious in any existential sense to suggest that one should take an action only if one is prepared to accept all of the consequences (which would seem the natural progression of your argument), since that would render the unforeseen consequences of many of our actions that we are still responsible for unaffordable.

Couple things here. First of all, pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of unprotected sex, so you need to show why it is a natural extension of my argument that we must al be held responsible for all the unforseen consequences to our actions.

Secondly, one can make the argument, that one could be held responsible even if your actions were unforeseen, though to a lesser degree than if you could reasonably have been expected to foresee the consequence of your actions.

Your way, while it works brilliantly for you, would be horrific in my life and I will stop taking you seriously the moment you suggest that I should attempt to emulate your life on the grounds that it is superior somehow.

Why would you take me seriously if I said anything else, that my life will not work for you?

Think about that whaleboy.