homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

[joecoolfrog]

10 Things that are NOT Natural;

1) Marriage
2) Transplants/ Advanced medical care
3) Cossetting the sick and elderly
4) Organised Religion
5) Cooking food
6) Clothing
7) Antibiotics
Spectacles
9) Guns
10) Money

Should we ban all these ?

10 Things that WERE/ARE considered Traditional;

1) Slavery
2) Burning Witches/Heretics
3) Human sacrifice
4) Worshiping trees
5) Contempt for the rights of women
6) Contempt for others based purely on skin colour
7) Contempt for anybody considered lower class
Depriving the masses of education
9') Sex with pre pubescent children
10) Genital mutilation

Should these all be considered acceptable today simply because they were traditional ?

[PLAYER57832]

Now, I never defined homosexuality as an impulse, but essentially, as any sexual tendancy, it is simply the general label we attach to the manifestations of impulses.

This is not the world's definition. In the real world, homosexuality refers to the desire and tendency, not just the act. ... so be sure to include your own personal take on on the dictionary when discussing this.

The question then, for the gay-is-fine lobby

Have an address for this group? I have heard of quite a few, but not this one...

, is how can you condemn incest but not homosexuality, if both are essentially deviations from the sexual norm? How can you castigate paedophilia as "unnatural", whilst supporting that homosexuality is? Do you even condemn incest and paedophilia?

Simple. Adults = consent Children do NOT = consent. That is a pretty big differance.

Incest has negative genetic implications when children arise. Additionally, there is historical basis for ties between incest and abuse, in ways that adult homosexuality is not.

"Natural", in that context, is almost irrelevant.

10 Things that are NOT Natural

I admit this list surprised me ... I definitely expect more from you joecoolfrog, but here goes:

1) Marriage

sorry, but Bald eagles and other animals mate for life, as have humans for as long as we have existed.... unless you are referring to the ceremony alone.

2) Transplants/ Advanced medical care

True

3) Cossetting the sick and elderly

Nope, animals, too care for the ill and elderly ... they might not have the ability that we do, but they do it.

4) Organised Religion

possibly who knows? But it is not quite "unnatural" either ... at least for human beings. Every human society has some sort of religion.

5) Cooking food
6) Clothing

Debateable. Again depends on if you consider everything specifically human "unnatural". Fire certainly exists in nature and "nature" works with fire. Cooking is just a particular application. Besides, though unusual, some animals do "cook". The snow apes in Japan, for example put food into certain hot springs.

Clothing is a bit closer, but we are one of a few animals without fur. You could perhaps compare our wearing clothing to other animals smearing oil and such, but anyway...

7) Antibiotics

The first antibiotics were merely mold. Some ancient societies used herbs and such to cure ills, including biotic illness. Animals use various plants to cure ills also, albiet in a limited basis.

8) Spectacles
9) Guns
10) Money

I will give you these.

Should we ban all these ?

You don't have to stretch this far if you want to ban the unnatural ... start with that computer (in Nappy's case anyway )

seriously ... we have more chemicals around than anyone could possibly study in 20 lifetimes it should give pause. BUT ... that is a LONG way off the track of homosexuality

except ... wait, you may be on to something here ....some chemicals have been linked to changes in sexual predisposition and actual physical sexual changes. We see an increase in bisexual animals, for example when certain chemicals are introduced into waters. Similar abberrations have been noted in human populations. Girls are absolutely "starting" (maturing) early in many areas.

But okay... that is sort of getting off track there.

10 Things that WERE/ARE considered Traditional;

1) Slavery
2) Burning Witches/Heretics
3) Human sacrifice
4) Worshiping trees
5) Contempt for the rights of women
6) Contempt for others based purely on skin colour
7) Contempt for anybody considered lower class
Depriving the masses of education
9') Sex with pre pubescent children
10) Genital mutilation

Should these all be considered acceptable today simply because they were traditional ?

Hey .. how did worshipping trees get in there!! My pines are STRONGLY objecting ...

Seriously, you are correct here. The one point I would make, though, is that while each of these has been a part of some societies, none have been a part of every society throughout humanity. Sexuality, on the other hand, has.

But Bradleybradley was incorrect in his definition of a traditional marriage. Because the truth is that truly "traditional" marriage has included polygamy and homosexual relationships between males. (the female issue is harder to find in evidence ... but some suggest that this was a "hidden" part in some polygamy. It is unlikely anyone will ever really know. I just put it forward as a something possible).


Also, The "sex with pubescent children" bit might require a little clarification because the ages of puberty and definition of puberty have differed in time. That is, many anthropologists suggest that women actually mature later now. (normally ... with the exception of chemical influences noted above... those are not normal variations). However, the one uniformity is that whatever the division, sex with those below that line has always been considered wrong.

I DO think that even today, we draw a distinction between a 20 year old who is going out with a 16 year old and that 20 year old "dating" a 10 year old. The first I would not welcome, as a parent, for a LOT of reasons, but I am not sure it is true "pedophilia"... particularly when that 16 year old might well be pretending to be 18. Again, I am NOT saying any of it is OK, just that they are different shades of wrong.

[Snorri1234]

The one point I would make, though, is that while each of these has been a part of some societies, none have been a part of every society throughout humanity.

At least not at the same time.

Also, I think joe's point about the unnatural was more that such social inventions as religion and cooking should be considered unnatural if we're going to consider basic emotions unnatural. Working with the very strange "unnatural" definition that nappy&co are offering, it's not so silly to consider clothing and religion unnatural too.

[joecoolfrog]

The one point I would make, though, is that while each of these has been a part of some societies, none have been a part of every society throughout humanity.

At least not at the same time.

Also, I think joe's point about the unnatural was more that such social inventions as religion and cooking should be considered unnatural if we're going to consider basic emotions unnatural. Working with the very strange "unnatural" definition that nappy&co are offering, it's not so silly to consider clothing and religion unnatural too.

Yes I was using the very rigid definition espoused by the anti gay brigade, I dont consider marriage for example to be weird ( though it can be tough ) but the concept is strictly speaking a social phenomenom rather than a natural impulse,

[DangerBoy]

Anyways, when considered in essence, without any consderation of the consequences or repercussions of those actions, there is precisely nothing wrong with any of the acts you seem to take great delight in mentioning. Pedophilia, for example, stripped of repercussions, can be likened to an adult having sex with a child-sized doll; it doesn't impact anyone negatively in any conceivable way, so you can't condemn it without massive use of the extremely subjective "morals".
Of course, pedophilia and the like are rarely negative-consequence-less. This is what moves pedophilia into the "bad" category, and leaves homosexuality in the "who the hell cares?" category.

This is one of the most perverse and disgusting things ever written on Conquer Club. You should be absolutely ashamed for trying to make the case that there's nothing wrong with pedophilia. Hopefully, you will never be allowed to sit on a jury that makes a decision on how to sentence people who engage in such sick acts.

You are truly sick in the head, Neutrino.

[Snorri1234]

Anyways, when considered in essence, without any consderation of the consequences or repercussions of those actions, there is precisely nothing wrong with any of the acts you seem to take great delight in mentioning. Pedophilia, for example, stripped of repercussions, can be likened to an adult having sex with a child-sized doll; it doesn't impact anyone negatively in any conceivable way, so you can't condemn it without massive use of the extremely subjective "morals".
Of course, pedophilia and the like are rarely negative-consequence-less. This is what moves pedophilia into the "bad" category, and leaves homosexuality in the "who the hell cares?" category.

This is one of the most perverse and disgusting things ever written on Conquer Club. You should be absolutely ashamed for trying to make the case that there's nothing wrong with pedophilia. Hopefully, you will never be allowed to sit on a jury that makes a decision on how to sentence people who engage in such sick acts.

You are truly sick in the head, Neutrino.

OH WOW YOU DID TOTALLY MISS THE POINT THERE! CONGRATULATIONS!

[Neutrino]

This is one of the most perverse and disgusting things ever written on Conquer Club. You should be absolutely ashamed for trying to make the case that there's nothing wrong with pedophilia. Hopefully, you will never be allowed to sit on a jury that makes a decision on how to sentence people who engage in such sick acts.

You are truly sick in the head, Neutrino.

Ok then, what, exactly, is empirically wrong with a man having sex with a child-sized doll?
Note: Can we stear clear of the extremely subjective terms? Your morals are not my morals, so I don't see why I must be bound by them.

[Iliad]

Anyways, when considered in essence, without any consderation of the consequences or repercussions of those actions, there is precisely nothing wrong with any of the acts you seem to take great delight in mentioning. Pedophilia, for example, stripped of repercussions, can be likened to an adult having sex with a child-sized doll; it doesn't impact anyone negatively in any conceivable way, so you can't condemn it without massive use of the extremely subjective "morals".
Of course, pedophilia and the like are rarely negative-consequence-less. This is what moves pedophilia into the "bad" category, and leaves homosexuality in the "who the hell cares?" category.

This is one of the most perverse and disgusting things ever written on Conquer Club. You should be absolutely ashamed for trying to make the case that there's nothing wrong with pedophilia. Hopefully, you will never be allowed to sit on a jury that makes a decision on how to sentence people who engage in such sick acts.

You are truly sick in the head, Neutrino.

OH WOW YOU DID TOTALLY MISS THE POINT THERE! CONGRATULATIONS!

Imagine the debates if these guys actually read our points instead of skimming a few words and setting up a straw man argument

[CoffeeCream]

Pedophilia, for example, stripped of repercussions, can be likened to an adult having sex with a child-sized doll; it doesn't impact anyone negatively in any conceivable way, so you can't condemn it without massive use of the extremely subjective "morals".

I really didn't want to get involved in this discussion but when I read this I was sickened. I don't like all the back and forth bickering for the most part but now I've sort of seen how justifying homosexuality degrades into rationalizing other sins. So if that makes me a person with extremely subjective morals then so be it. Everyone has a limit and will draw a line someplace if pushed too far.

This is my line and I'm going to stand up for what's right despite that I'll most likely be attacked for it after I post. Homosexuality is wrong. It is sin. Those who engage in it are only increasing their chance of an early death.

Neutrino, that portion of your post was uncalled for. I think you owe those who have been victimized by pedophiles an apology.

[Snorri1234]

Homosexuality is wrong. It is sin.

So is wearing clothes of different types, but I take it you don't hold on too that so strongly.

Those who engage in it are only increasing their chance of an early death.

This is rich! Loads of things people do increase their chance of an early death, like moving into the city, smoking, drinking, driving, walking, telling people to stop beating up some homosexual, buying a pool and so many other things. It's silly to say such things about something that, when done safe, is not actually harmfull.


It's silly to hate but feel free.

[joecoolfrog]

Pedophilia, for example, stripped of repercussions, can be likened to an adult having sex with a child-sized doll; it doesn't impact anyone negatively in any conceivable way, so you can't condemn it without massive use of the extremely subjective "morals".

I really didn't want to get involved in this discussion but when I read this I was sickened. I don't like all the back and forth bickering for the most part but now I've sort of seen how justifying homosexuality degrades into rationalizing other sins. So if that makes me a person with extremely subjective morals then so be it. Everyone has a limit and will draw a line someplace if pushed too far.

This is my line and I'm going to stand up for what's right despite that I'll most likely be attacked for it after I post. Homosexuality is wrong. It is sin. Those who engage in it are only increasing their chance of an early death.

Neutrino, that portion of your post was uncalled for. I think you owe those who have been victimized by pedophiles an apology.

If you read his post properly you would recognise that he was not in any way defending the act of paedophilia. Your post however is a disgrace, though the idea that homosexuals die earlier because of their sexuality is laughable your thinly disguised hatred of them is certainly not. You may well pray every night and attend church regularly but such intolerance proves you are Christian in name only.

[Dancing Mustard]

I've sort of seen how justifying homosexuality degrades into rationalizing other sins.

Really?
Because so far as I'm aware, nobody has been trying to justify or rationalise any other 'sins' here? Sure, certain elements of the discussion have tried to compare homosexuals with paedophiles in an attempt to make them seem 'evil'; but that's barely 'rationalising' paedophilia.

Basically, I have great respect for your posts usually. But this time I think you might be grasping the wrong end of the stick.
Comprehending and understanding 'sins' is no bad thing, and some people have tried to do that (a little, and amid torrents of spammy name-calling) here; but that's barely 'justifying' or 'rationalising' it... is it?

So if that makes me a person with extremely subjective morals then so be it. Everyone has a limit and will draw a line someplace if pushed too far.

Well good for you...

The only problem with subjective morals is that they only really apply to you. If you can't argue why they ought to be universally and objectively held, then they're just personal points of view on the goodness/badness of various things. No matter how grandly we might think of them as 'morals', they're really just opinions.

As such, I'm sorry if you feel that people's expression of other opinions has offended your personal opinions; but saying you've been "pushed too far" is really a little bit overdramatic, don't you think?

Homosexuality is wrong. It is sin. Those who engage in it are only increasing their chance of an early death.

Any evidence for that? Any at all? Something objective we can debate on? Or is it just a baseless statement of your personal opinion, backed only by the proclamations of a particularly old book of disputed authenticity?

Come on mate. You can (and usually do) do much better than this, and you're not normally an irrational name-caller. But just declaring that a certain group of people are evil "sinners" without any rational argument is just plain rude (not to mention irrational, and ever so slightly pompous). I appreciate that you really like your Bible and all, but just chastising and condemning homosexuals based on that alone is plain old illogical and uncouth. Sure, you might think it, and yeah you might think that's correct; but if you don't have any proof to back up your insults with, then they're nothing but baseless name-calling; something which this thread can really do without.

Imagine if somebody had an old book which they believed in which declared you a 'sinner'. You'd probably find it fairly offensive if they rocked up here and started insulting you with such labels, backing their proclamations with no rational argument, wouldn't you?

Neutrino, that portion of your post was uncalled for. I think you owe those who have been victimized by pedophiles an apology.

Actually it was a very sensible explanation of why genetic predispositions don't automatically qualify for legalisation (a counter-argument to people like Nappy's usual arguments). He wasn't advocating, supporting, justifying, encouraging, or excusing paedophilia; and as such he owes nobody an apology.

On the other hand, might I be so bold as to say that I considered your (unusually) irrational and insulting post to be extremely rude, and if anybody owes the people of CC an apology this evening... it's you.

[joecoolfrog]

Would the World have been a better place without these 'sinners' ?
www.christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml
note the liberal sprinkling of popes !

[CoffeeCream]

If you read his post properly you would recognise that he was not in any way defending the act of paedophilia.

I did read his post correctly. He actually was defending pedophilia.

He is making the case that unless there is a consideration of the consequences or repercussions of those actions, there is precisely nothing wrong with committing acts such as pedophilia. He then goes on to try to make it sound as harmless as having sex with a child-sized doll. When in fact it is so totally different that only someone who is willfully trying to be crass would equate the two.

Children who get raped, sodomized, or forced to engage in sex are victims. The pain and heartache that results from that act is enormous. That is not even close to having sex with a doll which is not alive. A doll carries no emotional or physical wounds with it from such an act. For you not to able to understand that shows that you are trying to be obnoxious about this subject.

He then goes on to try and say that it doesn't impact negatively in any conceivable way. Finally, he says that only if you have extremely subjective morals could you condemn it. Fine, in that case you could define almost any law as being extremely subjective. Furthermore, he does not assign this subjective label to himself as far as the way he views morality. It's all about him and what he thinks. Everyone else's opinions and society's laws can't constrain him because they're subjective. What a terrible way to justify doing anything one wants. We can't ban anything now on the basis that it's subjective.

Your post however is a disgrace

pretty much the reaction I expected but I'm sure there will be more people like yourself who will come in here and try to justify immoral behavior.

the idea that homosexuals die earlier because of their sexuality is laughable your thinly disguised hatred of them is certainly not.

They don't die earlier because of their sexuality and that's not what I said. I said those who engage in it. You know I said that and are trying to change what I wrote, but I guess this is how it goes.

You may well pray every night and attend church regularly but such intolerance proves you are Christian in name only.

I will not change what I've said because you don't approve of it. You can throw the intolerance label around all you want. At least I'm not going to sugarcoat the situation so people will like me.

[silvanricky]

Once again

What the f*ck are they teaching kids over in Australia?????!!!!!!!

[Snorri1234]

If you read his post properly you would recognise that he was not in any way defending the act of paedophilia.

I did read his post correctly. He actually was defending pedophilia.

He is making the case that unless there is a consideration of the consequences or repercussions of those actions, there is precisely nothing wrong with committing acts such as pedophilia. He then goes on to try to make it sound as harmless as having sex with a child-sized doll. When in fact it is so totally different that only someone who is willfully trying to be crass would equate the two.

Children who get raped, sodomized, or forced to engage in sex are victims. The pain and heartache that results from that act is enormous. That is not even close to having sex with a doll which is not alive. A doll carries no emotional or physical wounds with it from such an act. For you not to able to understand that shows that you are trying to be obnoxious about this subject.

Which is what Neutrino is saying by consequences.

Your post however is a disgrace

pretty much the reaction I expected but I'm sure there will be more people like yourself who will come in here and try to justify immoral behavior.

Wow, did you just say immoral without paying any heed to the fact it's entirely subjective?

the idea that homosexuals die earlier because of their sexuality is laughable your thinly disguised hatred of them is certainly not.

They don't die earlier because of their sexuality and that's not what I said. I said those who engage in it. You know I said that and are trying to change what I wrote, but I guess this is how it goes.

Those who engage in it still don't die earlier. Unless they have unprotected sex, which is bad for you anyway.

Unless you can directly link having protected gay-sex to earlier death (which would be cool as "earlier death" is subjective anyway") you have no point.

[Snorri1234]

Once again

What the f*ck are they teaching kids over in Australia?????!!!!!!!

Something about gay-sex being perfectly okay.

[johnnyrotten]

Who the f*ck cares whether being gay is by choice or by nature.

As for all the discussion on paedophilia, I refer you to...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUkt59v ... re=related

[Dancing Mustard]

Children who get raped, sodomized, or forced to engage in sex are victims. The pain and heartache that results from that act is enormous. That is not even close to having sex with a doll which is not alive. A doll carries no emotional or physical wounds with it from such an act.

Congratulations, you have just said exactly the same as Neutrino.

Nice to see the pair of you in such violent agreement.

[Neutrino]

Children who get raped, sodomized, or forced to engage in sex are victims. The pain and heartache that results from that act is enormous. That is not even close to having sex with a doll which is not alive. A doll carries no emotional or physical wounds with it from such an act. For you not to able to understand that shows that you are trying to be obnoxious about this subject.

Which is exactly why I said "ignoring all consequences". In the (I suppose you could call it "ideal") scenario I was talking about, the child suffers no mental, physical or emotional problems whatsoever. This means that the child is effectively mindless, and might as well be replaced with a doll. Of course, in a real scenario the child does suffer intense trauma, which is why the actual act of pedophilia is bad.

All acts, in essence, stripped of any and all repercussions, are equal. Pedophilia is exactly as "evil" as brushing your teeth, when repercussions are ignored. It is only when repercussions are involved that acts gain various degrees of acceptability. Brushing your teeth doesn't impact anyone, positively or negatively, therefore the act is acceptable. Pedophilia impacts the child very negatively, so is not acceptable. Heterosexual and homosexual sex alike impacts both parties positively (if it doesn't, then it's called rape) and is therefore acceptable. What's wrong with this view?

He then goes on to try and say that it doesn't impact negatively in any conceivable way. Finally, he says that only if you have extremely subjective morals could you condemn it. Fine, in that case you could define almost any law as being extremely subjective. Furthermore, he does not assign this subjective label to himself as far as the way he views morality. It's all about him and what he thinks. Everyone else's opinions and society's laws can't constrain him because they're subjective. What a terrible way to justify doing anything one wants. We can't ban anything now on the basis that it's subjective.

Not true, and you would have realised this if you'd read my post in full. Paedophilia is bad because it impacts the child negatively, not because of any subjective definition of right and wrong. If an act impacts another negatively in an appreciable manner I am opposed to it, while if an act impacts others positively, or not at all, I approve of it (of course, there are various mitigating circumstances to consider, but I'll ignore those for now.). How is this system inferior to one based on a seemingly arbitrary set of morals?

Those who engage in it are only increasing their chance of an early death.

Wait, so we should ban skydiving too? I'd be willing to bet the chance of seriously injuring or killing yourself while skydiving is similar to or greater than the chance of catching something crippling or lethal when engaging in homosexual sex, provided reasonable precautions are taken. If not skydiving, then what about any of the other "extreme sports"? What about SWAT, soldiers or bomb squads? They all run a much higher risk of death than the average citizen.

Once again

What the f*ck are they teaching kids over in Australia?????!!!!!!!

Linear programming, universal gravitation, intermollecular bonds and integration, mostly. I was very suprised that we are actually starting to do something interesting.

Oh, wait, was that what you were referring too?

[PLAYER57832]

. It's all about him and what he thinks. Everyone else's opinions and society's laws can't constrain him because they're subjective. What a terrible way to justify doing anything one wants. We can't ban anything now on the basis that it's subjective.

Seems like you are the one being subjective. The REAL question is why should the rest of the world have to follow your morals... as long as no one else is harmed.

Those who engage in it are only increasing their chance of an early death.

Baloney. Pure and simple. Even if you refer to AIDS. It is, in fact, spreading more now among heterosexuals in the U.S. In the world, heterosexual transmission and mother-child transmission in utero/through nursing are prime

[Snorri1234]

[joecoolfrog]

. It's all about him and what he thinks. Everyone else's opinions and society's laws can't constrain him because they're subjective. What a terrible way to justify doing anything one wants. We can't ban anything now on the basis that it's subjective.

Seems like you are the one being subjective. The REAL question is why should the rest of the world have to follow your morals... as long as no one else is harmed.

Those who engage in it are only increasing their chance of an early death.

Baloney. Pure and simple. Even if you refer to AIDS. It is, in fact, spreading more now among heterosexuals in the U.S. In the world, heterosexual transmission and mother-child transmission in utero/through nursing are prime

I applaud the views of one who is truly Christian in both name and deed, you are a wonderful example of the vast majority of your faith who are too often drowned out by the
vociferous minority of extremists.

[silvanricky]

Once again

What the f*ck are they teaching kids over in Australia?????!!!!!!!

Something about gay-sex being perfectly okay.

See and this whole time I thought it was the school's responsbility to teach literacy, math, and science instead of mythological cultural bullshit from the left. You know, stuff like homosexuals being hardwired that way.

[CoffeeCream]

I applaud the views of one who is truly Christian in both name and deed, you are a wonderful example of the vast majority of your faith who are too often drowned out by the
vociferous minority of extremists.

Congratulations to Player. She has received her praise from men. However eternity will be a different story for her.