2 of 11
2
Survey shows enormous upswing in percentage of men accepting of gays & lesbians
Posted: 24 June 2010 11:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2008-10-09

I suggest that we, as a species, have an obligation to ourselves to try to be the best that we can be.

If it is ok for people to get something as simple as sex wrong, then why is it not ok to sell health suppliments that may be wrong? Or encourange belief in an invisible sky-daddy? Or mediums relaying messages from loved ones that may be wrong?

I realize my tone may come across as ignorant, but using a hammer on a screw is not how those tools work, and tolerating a little incompetance begins a slippery slope and renders ANY point past there where you say ‘yer dong it wrong’ arbritary.

Homosexuality is not how sex works, homeopathy is not how the body works, and doctrine is not how the universe works.

The parallels in these (and most other flawed assertions) seem pretty evident to me.

Edit - Saying that it is good enough for the people involved… the same could be said of any number of cults. And as for the ‘it would never happen’ argument… of course not. I expect that around 40%-50% of a homosexual population base, any social structure would become unsustainable and collapse. I have a theory about Rome by the way…

[ Edited: 25 June 2010 12:32 AM by Stormy Fairweather ]
 Signature 

My superiority complex is better than yours.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 12:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Stormy Fairweather - 24 June 2010 11:20 PM

If it is ok for people to get something as simple as sex wrong…......

`

See, there you go again.  And so, again, I will correct you…........sex between people of the same gender isn’t ‘getting sex wrong’ dear.  Well, I acknowledge that it might be ‘wrong’ for you, but the subject isn’t you, is it?  It’s about people of the same gender.  And they will tell you that sex for them/us works just fine :)

`

Homosexuality is not how those tools work….......

Not to be a broken record, but those tools most definitely do ‘work’ that way :)

`

The parallels in these (and most other baseless assertions) seem pretty evident to me.

And it’s precisely because they ‘seem evident’ to you that I am correcting you.

`

I expect that around 40%-50% of a homosexual population base, any social structure would become unsustainable and collapse…...

You ‘expect’?  And on what are you basing this ‘expectation’ of yours?  Or is that alone the foundation for your speculation?

 

I realize my tone may come across as ignorant

Actually,  it’s not your ‘tone’ that’s ignorant, it’s the content of your posts that reflects such an intellectual dearth.


`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 12:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2008-10-09

I would like to hear your reasoning of how sex that is incapable of achieving the purpose if its function is right.

Frankly, if ones sexual activites are thier most distinguishing characteristic then I would just consider them perverts.

Edit - It seems clear to me you have a vested interest on this issue, may I posit that this might cloud your ablility to be objective?

[ Edited: 25 June 2010 12:55 AM by Stormy Fairweather ]
 Signature 

My superiority complex is better than yours.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 01:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 12:41 AM

I would like to hear your reasoning of how sex that is incapable of achieving the purpose if its function is right.


`
And this is precisely where you go wrong ~ you presume that the only legitimate ‘purpose’ of sex is procreation.  But the reality (and you know it, whether you acknowledge it or not) is that another legitimate purpose is nourishing/nurturing an intimate bond between the two people involved.

Why are you presuming an exhaustive knowledge of nature’s ‘purpose(s)’? 


`

It seems clear to me you have a vested interest on this issue, may I posit that this might cloud your ablility to be objective?


Irrelevant question.  My points either hold up to scrutiny or they don’t.  I could be huffing gasoline and that wouldn’t automatically mean that what I say is invalid.  You examine what a person says/offers ~ if it holds up, that’s that.


`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 01:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
Stormy Fairweather - 24 June 2010 10:53 PM

My stance is that we should not tolerate incompetance or the willful harming of another of our species.

Your stance is not supported by any reasonably competent research.

And at the very least, having sex with a member of the same sex seems pretty incompetant to me.

I mean, what if everyone did it that way?

Sexuality is not an either/or, it is a continuum. Furthermore, your sexuality is not a choice, it is programmed from birth. I have seen children born where we could not determine the sex without a DNA test, which of course is separate from their sexual attraction and sexual identity. As far as I can tell, every species studied extensively has a stable percentage of a homosexual/ bisexual population. There is actually a quite popular pair of homosexual penguins at a zoo near my home. There have been GTLB homo sapiens since before we were a species, yet we are more numerous than ever.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

S-FW, you have a backwards idea of the basis for sex.  No animals have sex to procreate.  To be teleological, it’s evolution’s way of accomplishing procreation.  Humans are driven to sex for the orgasms.  If you say “that’s not how the equipment works” then why do people masturbate or have nocturnal emissions?  Wouldn’t masturbation also be “wrong”? 

Anything that stimulates the penile or clitoral nerve endings toward achieving orgasm is a normal function, and that includes manual, electrical (vibrator), insertion in/of any orifice or appurtenance that accomplishes that.  I would be willing to guess that 99.9% or higher of the orgasms humans have do not result in procreation.  That would seem to indicate that procreation is not the only “proper” use or “purpose” of sex and our sexual equipment.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 02:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2008-10-09

Occam, by the reasoning that ANY stimulation of genatalia is normal if it leads to orgasm, then they only argument you could put forth against bestiality, necrophelia or pedeophelia is personal distaste.

Why is some sexually deviant behavior acceptable and others not? The line you draw is arbritary. Mine is not.

Masturbation/wet dreams does serve a purpose; keeping the sperm count high between mates.

Axegirl; whether or not you can be objective on an issue is of tantamount importance, at least if one hopes to have an intellectual conversation. As all you have done is repeat yourself, and assert that I have it wrong without provoding reason for such assertions, nor countering ANY of my own points with reason rather than rhetoric, it would seem that you do believe objectivity is irrelevent (sic).

Asanta, if the basis for your agument that homosexuality is proper is referencing what amounts to mutations (transvestites), then I would pint out that genes that are incapable of repuducing is how evolution measures failure. Transvestites don’t breed. They are not the fittest, so they do not pass on genes.

Same with homosexuals. And if a homosexual DOES pass on genes, I can assure it is not through homosexuality.

And as for the penguin… there is a logical fallacy involved with relying on nature for answers. Face it, nature gets it wrong ALL THE TIME, and evolution is a system in place to remove such errors, or to push them to the top if it is a viable ‘mistake.’ Again, homosexuality precludes procreation, ergo by the very means life measures success it can be definied as a failure.

The closest thing to a reason as to why homosexuality should be acceptable is that it ‘feels good.’

... if you consider that sufficent reason for ANYTHING by itself, then I think you have no place is a civilized society.

 Signature 

My superiority complex is better than yours.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 03:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2010-05-27
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 02:08 PM

Why is some sexually deviant behavior acceptable and others not?

“There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat,
plausible, and wrong.”

The problem here is that it is a descriptive fact that humans find some sexually deviant behavior acceptable and some unacceptable.  You are applying an aesthetic that will not allow you to describe humans.  Humans draw somewhat arbitrary lines.  Your moral philosophy is a mechanical prescription guided by a personal aesthetic (no arbitrary lines).  It is a program that filters on a very coarse grid.  Input data, output prescription.  No fuzzy lines.  No spectrum.  No embedding in context.  No apparently illogical arbitrary decisions that vary from context to context.  But, no human operates in that manner.  Your representing an easy solution, neat, and wrong. 

Human sexuality as it relates to moral philosophy almost defies logical prescription.  There is almost no set of rules or axioms followed by logical deduction for the prescriptive placement of boundaries that will feel right to most of us.  We might capture the important details, but we wouldn’t want to live by these rules.  In the end, put me down for human sexuality and the arbitrary boundaries that *really do exist* as a failure of logic and prescription to describe us.  Trying to put these rules down reminds me of a malfunctioning borg in Star Trek where they would keep trying the same motion over and over and over again only to fail over and over and over again on a destroyed ship.  The borg for some reason in this season is oblivious to the fact tthat its actions are not doing what they should, but the borg just assumes the next attempt will be the one that works.  With logic and human sexuality I remain unconvinced that the next attempt will be the one that works.  The tool is simply inadequate.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 03:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2008-10-09

You are correct, sex is irrational.

And I suppose that fact renders all my reasoning invalid. No wonder I live alone.

I still propose, nonetheless, that it would be fairly easy to lay down a set of guidelines that are simple, practical and right.

Although it would be a very tough sell in this over sexxed culture.

However, I am gonna duck out of this, as I want no part of a fundamentally unreasonable subject.

But thank you qutsemnie, you just restored my faith in these forums.

 Signature 

My superiority complex is better than yours.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 04:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 02:08 PM

Axegirl; whether or not you can be objective on an issue is of tantamount importance, at least if one hopes to have an intellectual conversation. As all you have done is repeat yourself, and assert that I have it wrong without provoding reason for such assertions, nor countering ANY of my own points with reason rather than rhetoric, it would seem that you do believe objectivity is irrelevent (sic).


`
Re-read my posts in this thread Stormy, I did indeed counter points you made and did provide reasons for my ‘countering’.

If you think what I wrote was invalid, please demonstrate why.  Pretty simple.  Again, objectivity is irrelevant if the points made stand up to scrutiny.  You haven’t even tried to scrutinize, all you’ve said is ‘you didn’t counter my points’.

The point that you haven’t been able to refute is that there’s more than one legitimate purpose for sex/sexuality.

And I’ll ask this question again (since you didn’t reply to it the first time):  why are you presuming to have an exhaustive knowledge/understanding of nature’s ‘purposes’?  Could you answer that Stormy?

 

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 04:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 02:08 PM

Why is some sexually deviant behavior acceptable and others not?


`
Generally speaking, if it involves ‘harm’ to another person or involves lack of consent (some might say that falls under the umbrella of ‘harm’), then society generally deems such actions to be ‘unacceptable’.

Do you think the category of ‘unacceptable’ sexual behaviours should be broadened beyond that?  If so, why?


`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2008-10-09

In retrospect, my last post was far too gracious. While I do appreciate the thought in qutsemnie’s reply, aside from stating that people will not be reasonable about sex, nothing new was brought to the discussion.

Axegrrl… you are being unreasonable. The only ‘argument’ that you present is that sex that cannot facilitate procreation is viable. This is like saying food that does not nourish is viable, or water that does not hydrate is viable. Clearly you do not see this.

Here is a fact: A homosexual population is unsustainable.

Is this based on research? No. I consider it common sense that a population that did not produce new members to replace those that die would not be able to function over a long enough intrval of time. In this case; one generation.

So here is my proposition; if a behavior would be harmful to society at large if enganged in by a high enough percentage of the population, then that behavior should AT THE LEAST not be condoned.

If you believe a homosexual society IS sustainable, then I will happy to demonstrate the fallacies of any logic that would lead to that conclusion.

 Signature 

My superiority complex is better than yours.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 07:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

SFW, the percent of homosexuals in the population has is stable and exists in every species studied. What you ‘feel’ is not science, it is your opinion. You can have your own opinions, but you can’t make up your own facts..which is what you are doing.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 07:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2008-10-09

Cite your source.

 Signature 

My superiority complex is better than yours.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 08:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

From WebMd:

Can a Person’s Sexual Orientation Be Changed?
Most experts agree that sexual orientation is not a choice and, therefore, cannot be changed. Some people who are homosexual or bisexual may hide their sexual orientation and/or live as heterosexuals to avoid the prejudice that exists against people who are homosexual and bisexual or to avoid their own moral dilemmas felt when their sexual orientation is incompatible with their personal beliefs.

From an article in Wikipedia on Sexual Orientation:

Most modern scientific surveys find that the majority of people report a mostly heterosexual orientation. However, the relative percentage of the population that reports a homosexual orientation varies with differing methodologies and selection criteria. Most of these statistical findings are in the range of 2.8 to 9% of males, and 1 to 5% of females for the United States[64] - this figure can be as high as 12% for some large cities and as low as 1% percent for rural areas.

Estimates for the percentage of the population that are bisexual vary widely, at least in part due to differing definitions of bisexuality. Some studies only consider a person bisexual if they are nearly equally attracted to both sexes, and others consider a person bisexual if they are at all attracted to the same sex (for otherwise mostly heterosexual persons) or to the opposite sex (for otherwise mostly homosexual persons).

Kinsey data
In the oft-cited and oft-criticized Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), by Alfred C. Kinsey et al., people were asked to rate themselves on a scale from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual. Kinsey reported that when the individuals’ behavior as well as their identity are analyzed, most people appeared to be at least somewhat bisexual — i.e., most people have some attraction to either sex, although usually one sex is preferred. According to Kinsey, only a minority (5-10%) can be considered fully heterosexual or homosexual. Conversely, only an even smaller minority can be considered fully bisexual (with an equal attraction to both sexes). Kinsey’s methods have been criticized as flawed, particularly with regard to the randomness of his sample population, which included a large number of prison inmates. Nevertheless, Paul Gebhard, subsequent director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, reexamined the data in the Kinsey Reports and concluded that accounting for major statistical objections barely affected the results.

From Wikipedia article on Gender Identity:

Many people consider themselves to be cisgendered, that is, belonging to either the man or woman gender corresponding to their biological sex of male or female. Before the 20th century a person’s sex would be determined entirely by the appearance of the genitalia, but as chromosomes and genes came to be understood, these were then used to help determine sex. Those defined as women, by sex, have genitalia that is considered female as well as two X chromosomes; those viewed as men, by sex, are seen as having male genitalia, one X and one Y chromosome. However some individuals have combinations of chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia that do not follow the traditional definitions of “men” and “women”. In addition, genitalia vary greatly or individuals may have more than one type of genitalia, and other bodily attributes related to a person’s sex (body shape, facial hair, high or deep voice, etc.) may or may not coincide with the social category, as woman or man. Recent research suggests that as many as one in every hundred individuals may have some intersex characteristic.[9] Because of this reality, everyone is located on a continuum of biological sex, and gender as well.

I have personally taken care of a few intersex children in my career as a nurse.

This is a story from Greg Laden’s blog about a female runner who was discovered to be intersexual, a fact she was not aware of until tested because of questions about her sex.

If the reports we are hearing are true, Semenya is fairly likely to be an individual with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. This may be wrong. So, I’ll tell you a little about AIS and then you can disconnect your knowledge of AIS from Semenya, or connect it up, as appropriate, later on.

It has been suggested, compassionately, that this is none of anyone’s business, that she self identifies as a female, and that this should all just be dropped. I sort of agree, but this may be little more than wishful thinking and is probably inappropriate for a number of reasons. It seems that we do divide sports into male and female, and if simple self identification was the criterion for which league one plays in, then there would be numerous men trying to play in women’s leagues and not just to get access to the locker room…..

This reflects both what I learned in college biology, physiology, psychology classes as well as professional practice as a registered nurse. What else do you want to know?

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 11
2