Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[Ben Kenobi]

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?"

My life has not always been the way it is now. This argument convinced me, and I am sure, has convinced others. It is not my argument, I did not conceive it, and as I said, a friend whom I hold in high esteem in these matters proffered it as a good argument.

So if it doesn't work for you, fine. But don't accuse me of a subjective opinion when I have cited the author.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

Ah, to be a fool, in the eyes of the wise.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

You said how you felt, that's all I used.

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

So then put it off until you are ready.

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.

There are exceptions, and I'm surprised that someone as clever as you has not already seen them.

Sure, I'm judgmental. I believe that there is an absolute truth, that applies to all people at all times. What constitutes that truth is an excellent question, to which I offer my best shot.

You are free to disagree with me on what constitutes the absolute morality, but to skitter behind the cloak of relativism is neither honest nor productive.

It's a waste of my time.

If you are willing to abandon relativistic presuppositions, then we can have a constructive debate. Otherwise it is pointless for me to debate you because you will never change your mind.

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.

Which I have argued is predicted by the model I suggested.

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

I can't say from the aspect of sex in my own experience. I'd rather not have to break up afterwards.

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.

Product of my own imagination? I assure you I am not nearly so creative. Stick to dogma, I prefer.

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

The foundation of the analogy rests on Christian principles. If you are open, I will go more deeply into these, but why should I bother when you are not open?

As it is, it is an analogy that fits with people's experiences, and therefore, seems to bring out some truth.

[Whaleboy]

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

I didn't make that argument. I said according to the HoN that would probably be the case on the island, but ultimately they are both neutral.

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.

While I concur that sexuality and identity is not set in stone, I do not believe it to be so fluctuant as to be under ones control. I am bisexual. At times I wished I was heterosexual at other times I wished I was homosexual, before I came to accept who I was. I couldn't change it though, I am attracted to who I am attracted to. Gay people can't just click their fingers and decide to be turned on by women. Would you consider it possible for you to randomly come to a decision "i'm going to stick my dick in another mans anus" and be able to carry it out? I doubt it. Why is it any different for gay men, all of whom I know are genuinely not attracted to women, just as you are not attracted to men (I assume ).

Same motivation regardless.

So you would say he should ejaculate inside her, and that whether or not he wears a condom is irrelevant to your argument?

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?

Basic egoism. We always act in our own bests interests, consciousless, subconsciously. Basic determinism, we are what our lives make us, and the golden child thus of that which has cast us. To follow on from that metaphor, we're all gold . However, I shall fire off a possible example. It would make them closer, and happier as a couple. I think we have established that the issue of trust is irrelevant here, you'd be well advised not to push it as a strawman of my argument, though as a ridiculum of yours I suppose I shall inevitably have to tolerate it.

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?

So you can't be a couple if you don't have the means to raise kids? Perhaps they know they will not be together forever but want to enjoy what they have now, which in now way diminishes how they feel at the moment. I guess you don't believe such a relationship to be valid, which again speaks volumes of your experience in this matter.

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.

It seems less foreseen as a consequence, instead as rather a possible consequence (like friction burns) when one takes a blanket measure against it, so the logic of unforeseen consequence applies on the basis of probabilities and intent. No intent, low probability would be one existentialist option, there are others of course, including total responsibility and no responsibility.

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.

Very true, but you'll have a hard time justifying that the action should not be taken on that basis, consequentially let alone intentionally!!

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

Because you present it in a neutral state. A fallacy is a fallacy, but you're laying it plain to see without the additional fallacies inherent to trying to preach it others. Do I attempt to preach my way to you, instead of defending it from your preachings, or picking holes in your reasoning in that neutral case? I should like to apologise if it ever seemed so, for that is not my intent, and I like to think that people take me seriously regardless. Consider yourself invited by the party. The drinks are on the table, please leave the cloak of dogmatism by the stand or with one of the many servants...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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

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

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

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

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.


Better naive than jaded.

How odd you should use dumb to mean stupid, and how offensive.

Well....


Do you have any children?

Are you now or have you ever been married?

Are you now or have you ever been gay?

Seems to me the one who opines about and attempts to dictate sexual behaviour the most is the one least experienced to do so.


It's not that I find children to be a burden, but I'm well aware that the reasons given by many women and men as to why they don't wish to have children is because of the burdensome nature of childrearing.

But then tell us again- how many do you have?


With regards to trust, I think you were stating that people who used contraception lacked trust- my example showed that this was flawed thinking, that in fact trust could be at the heart of a loving sexual relationship, and that reproduction was not the sole reason for sexual intimacy.

But then you as much admitted this yourself in an earlier thread when talking about having sex with a future partner when she wasn't ovulating.

If she's not ovulating, you aren't going to be having sex for the purposes of reproduction, or with that as a distinct possibility. You'll be doing it for pleasure.
Bad Obi Gyn.


But remind me, once more- you have fathered how many children?



Now I've told you before- I can't speak for all gay men (and I can't speak for lesbians) but at least in my experience sexual intimacy between friends can be a wonderful way to reaffirm the bonds that link us.

Perhaps if you weren't heterosexual you might understand- and wouldn't make snide remarks about subjects you aren't qualified to speculate on.



Now just how many offspring have you produced exactly?




As to your implication of my being jaded- I call b.s.

You simply don't appreciate the difference between insight and knowledge acquired through experience and that which is purely speculative or the result of religious dogma.


Now just in case we forget- your brood numbers how many?

[Ben Kenobi]

I didn't make that argument. I said according to the HoN that would probably be the case on the island, but ultimately they are both neutral.

Whoa..

Hold on. Do you believe that sex with love is more intimate than sex without?

From your own experience, the fact that you have a harder time after you break up from sleeping with someone you love than from a casual encounter seems to speak for this.

While I concur that sexuality and identity is not set in stone, I do not believe it to be so fluctuant as to be under ones control.

Consider this. You can control whether you act on these desires or not. Whether the desires can in themselves be overcome is a very good question. There are people who do assert that this has happened, on either side of the spectrum.

Gay people can't just click their fingers and decide to be turned on by women. Would you consider it possible for you to randomly come to a decision "i'm going to stick my dick in another mans anus" and be able to carry it out? I doubt it. Why is it any different for gay men, all of whom I know are genuinely not attracted to women, just as you are not attracted to men (I assume ).

Nope, I'm not attracted to men, nor do I say that one can simply click their fingers and decide who will turn them on. It's a slower process of change, but I do believe that it is possible to change one's desires.

And I admit this both ways. It would be possible to change my preference, given the time and effort, but that would require my cooperation, as it would from the other side.

So you would say he should ejaculate inside her, and that whether or not he wears a condom is irrelevant to your argument?

If you can think of a purpose of withdrawing other than to prevent conception, then I will have to modify my argument. Otherwise, I'm looking more at the motivations behind the use of contraception and withdrawal rather than just their use.

So you can't be a couple if you don't have the means to raise kids? Perhaps they know they will not be together forever but want to enjoy what they have now, which in now way diminishes how they feel at the moment. I guess you don't believe such a relationship to be valid, which again speaks volumes of your experience in this matter.

Now, don't go there. I'm still in love with someone who I don't think I will end up marrying. Are we a couple? Not really. But does that mean we have to be apart? No. We still see each other when we can, and we keep in touch. We wait for better times.

Basic egoism. We always act in our own bests interests, consciousless, subconsciously. Basic determinism, we are what our lives make us, and the golden child thus of that which has cast us.

How do you explain altruism?

How do you reconcile determinism with free will? I don't think people are motivated solely by their own best interests, particularly in these areas of love. In fact, I would find it rather cold if the woman I married, I did so only for my best interests, and not also for hers.

It would make them closer, and happier as a couple.

Does getting closer to someone always make you happier? I can think of lots of cases, where in the lack of trust, that it does not.

I think we have established that the issue of trust is irrelevant here, you'd be well advised not to push it as a strawman of my argument, though as a ridiculum of yours I suppose I shall inevitably have to tolerate it.

It's not irrelevant. It's an essential part of any intimate relationship, to trust your better half. Otherwise, it's not going to work and things are going to fall apart.

It seems less foreseen as a consequence, instead as rather a possible consequence (like friction burns) when one takes a blanket measure against it, so the logic of unforeseen consequence applies on the basis of probabilities and intent. No intent, low probability would be one existentialist option, there are others of course, including total responsibility and no responsibility.

Anyone who talks to you about sexual intercourse, even with a condom, has to also acknowledge the potential for pregnancy. It isn't an unforseen consequence, especially when you make preparations to prevent the occurance, and you make these preparations because you fear having a child.

please leave the cloak of dogmatism by the stand or with one of the many servants

Which is why I have tried to present things in a more neutral manner, in an analogy which seems to fit the experience of people and to illuminate truth.

But how can you discuss truth with someone who does not acknowledge it's existence?

[Ben Kenobi]

How odd you should use dumb to mean stupid, and how offensive.

Well....

Hey, I'm deaf, so I call prior privilege.

Do you have any children?

As many as you do.

Are you now or have you ever been married?

Just as often as you have.

Are you now or have you ever been gay?

I have had many happy times in my life.

Seems to me the one who opines about and attempts to dictate sexual behaviour the most is the one least experienced to do so.

On matters of pregnancy, and motherhood, you stand as a respected authority.

But then tell us again- how many do you have?

As many as you.

trust could be at the heart of a loving sexual relationship, and that reproduction was not the sole reason for sexual intimacy.

Right, neither point to which I disagree with. However, that says nothing on my point that one shows greater trust in making love to someone wanting to have their children, than you do when using contraception.

But then you as much admitted this yourself in an earlier thread when talking about having sex with a future partner when she wasn't ovulating.

So? Why should anyone be required to have sex during their fertile period.

If she's not ovulating, you aren't going to be having sex for the purposes of reproduction, or with that as a distinct possibility. You'll be doing it for pleasure.
Bad Obi Gyn.

So are you saying that all sex must result in children?

But remind me, once more- you have fathered how many children?

As many as you.

Now I've told you before- I can't speak for all gay men (and I can't speak for lesbians) but at least in my experience sexual intimacy between friends can be a wonderful way to reaffirm the bonds that link us.

Perhaps if you weren't heterosexual you might understand- and wouldn't make snide remarks about subjects you aren't qualified to speculate on.

No, it's just that I find it interesting that to me, a handshake would suffice.

Now just how many offspring have you produced exactly?

Same as you.

As to your implication of my being jaded- I call b.s.

As valid as you calling me naive.

You simply don't appreciate the difference between insight and knowledge acquired through experience and that which is purely speculative or the result of religious dogma.

You are jaded. At least admit when I hit the mark.

Now just in case we forget- your brood numbers how many?

As many as yours.

[Ming]

I think some people need to chill...

DISCUSS THE TOPIC... NOT THE POSTERS

[Agathon]

You only just saw this thread?

I was reading it and wondered where you'd got to.

Why are you still a relativist WB?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Hey, I'm deaf, so I call prior privilege.

So? Why should anyone be required to have sex during their fertile period.

So are you saying that all sex must result in children?

You are jaded. At least admit when I hit the mark.

Having one disability is not licence to mock or belittle others- what a bizarre notion.

And if you recall, in the other thread you were the one arguing that sexual intercourse be irrevocably linked to the possibility of reproduction- not me, or anyone else.

We were the ones arguing against it.

Have you forgotten so soon?

I'm certainly not saying that all sexual activity should result in children- but then I'm not the one saying 'should' and 'must' and 'ought', am I?

As to me being jaded, I have no idea where you get that erroneous notion from.



Same place as t'other ones, I s'pose.




'On matters of pregnancy, and motherhood, you stand as a respected authority.'

Dr. Obi Spock


Yeah, as much as you on gay and lesbian or human sexuality for that matter.

With this significant difference- that I'm not fingerwagging, proscribing what 'should' and 'shouldn't' be done.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So are you saying that all sex must result in children?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi :


'You don't understand the point I tried to make in the last sentence. Women are not always fertile. You can have sex during her infertile periods of her cycle, without resorting to artificial contraception. '


I understand it perfectly - but it seems you don't. You are arguing with Molly about why someone would separate pleasure from reproduction.

If you are of the mind that you should only have sex to reproduce (with the pleasure being a nice bonus), then you would only have sex during the so-called "fertile" times.

If you don't, then you're guilty of the exact thing you don't understand - having sex for pleasure without much chance of conception.

- Kontiki



No, but you were until you you slipped up in the 'Planned Parenthood T-Shirt' thread.

Tee hee.

[MrFun]

why do we bother?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


You are free to disagree with me on what constitutes the absolute morality, but to skitter behind the cloak of relativism is neither honest nor productive.

It's a waste of my time.

just as its a waste of our time to argue with people that believe in absolute morality.