homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

[heavycola]

As I said before I hate the notion "hard wired." Strong tendencies to a thing is not a hard wiring to a thing. This is too emotional a topic so I'll just change the subject. This is on topic actually.

I am left handed. (I'm actually right armed, but let's not complicate things here.)

What does that mean? Am I "hard wired" to write with the left hand, forced by nature to scribble in one manner and in a manner that some in society might consider "sinister?" (That's a joke for anyone who knows latin or the etymology of the word.)

Actually, southpaws used to be seen as freaks. As well they should. More etymology: dextrous

[/quote]In one sense all sexual impulses are occasions of sin. Before you jump on me for being a prude allow me to explain. Almost all impulses are self centered and sexual impulses are indeed self centered, attempts to reach a "sexual high" of some sort. [/quote]

oh my, how depressing. The reproductive impulse is necessarily hardwired into every living organism. Whether that impulse is directed towards someone of the same sex is immaterial. It is just as strong.

Instinct = sin. Where did we go wrong?


*the difference, nappy, is, as tzor sort of said, in considering the other. A rapist, whether his victim is a woman or a child, has disrgegarded the feelings and wellbeing of said victim. As well you should imagine. Although why you included 'mechanophilia' is beyond me - who gives a shit if someone wants to pork their car in the privacy of their garage? Or is this your hormonal adolescent imagination running riot?
I'd appreciaqte an answer to the question i asked you previously, by the way.

[tzor]

As I said before I hate the notion "hard wired." Strong tendencies to a thing is not a hard wiring to a thing. This is too emotional a topic so I'll just change the subject. This is on topic actually.

I am left handed. (I'm actually right armed, but let's not complicate things here.)

What does that mean? Am I "hard wired" to write with the left hand, forced by nature to scribble in one manner and in a manner that some in society might consider "sinister?" (That's a joke for anyone who knows latin or the etymology of the word.)

Actually, southpaws used to be seen as freaks. As well they should. More etymology: dextrous

I should point out that since the left side of the brain controls the right hand (and vice versa) only left handed people are properly in a "right" state of "mind."

In one sense all sexual impulses are occasions of sin. Before you jump on me for being a prude allow me to explain. Almost all impulses are self centered and sexual impulses are indeed self centered, attempts to reach a "sexual high" of some sort.

oh my, how depressing. The reproductive impulse is necessarily hardwired into every living organism. Whether that impulse is directed towards someone of the same sex is immaterial. It is just as strong.

Instinct = sin. Where did we go wrong?

No, read carefully (actually I made a minor word omission my partial fault). They are "occasions of sin" (I should have written "near occasions of sin" instead). In that they are not sinful in and of themselves but they could potentially be the source of sin if one exercises them to the deteriment of someone else. We all have a strong desire to eat, for example, but eating too much while a person next to you is starving is a sin.

And I would not suggst that the "reproductive impulse is necessarily hardwired" in people. What is better is to suggest that the act of reproduction generates a number of physical and chemical events which are not only desirable but can be mildly adictive.

So we have instincts, but we also have reason. Insticts and addiction can impair reason, which in turn would reduce cupability but that is another matter alltogether.

This is where I do differ with Nappy in that we are dealing with a scale of severity.

[InkL0sed]

Haha -- are you sinister or dexter? Surely that is not hard-wired -- just look at baseball!

[tzor]

Haha -- are you sinister or dexter? Surely that is not hard-wired -- just look at baseball!

I suppose you could look at baseball. Fortunately there is enough data to compare the stats of switch hitters between their performances batting left handed and right handed and I'm sure that you will see their percentages are not always the same on both.

[InkL0sed]

Haha -- are you sinister or dexter? Surely that is not hard-wired -- just look at baseball!

I suppose you could look at baseball. Fortunately there is enough data to compare the stats of switch hitters between their performances batting left handed and right handed and I'm sure that you will see their percentages are not always the same on both.

Most often, they do better on the sinister side of the plate. But it really depends on a lot of factors.

[bradleybadly]

I'm a registered Republican!

Yeah and Snorri's a med student

And you are a cunt.

Wow! I got called a name by a lib

Nobody would've ever guessed that would happen

I'm a registered Republican!

Yeah and Snorri's a med student

If you are incapable of having a mature conversation, I wisely suggest you don't come back.

Oh really, this is coming from a guy who justifies sibling incest. Hey, don't stop there, you could make the case for father-daughter sex or mother-son sex. Nobody should be stopped from doing whatever they feel like. It's your right!!

I think this speaks volumes as to the mindset of the ordinary liberal here. Bunch of degenerates with almost no morals.

Overgeneralisaton and ad hominem fallacies in one line? that's pretty impressive, if still stupid.

And we all know liberals NEVER EVER resort to that tactic by calling people bigots or fascists.

[Anarkistsdream]

Show me where I justified anything...

Still waiting...

OH, right! I didn't...

Dumbass. You still have yet to add ANYTHING to this conversation. At least Nappy tries. You just spread your hate and intolerance.

[Snorri1234]

Show me where I justified anything...

If you don't say anyone doing something you think is wrong should be taken out back and shot you are justifying it.

[The1exile]

I think this speaks volumes as to the mindset of the ordinary liberal here. Bunch of degenerates with almost no morals.

Overgeneralisaton and ad hominem fallacies in one line? that's pretty impressive, if still stupid.

And we all know liberals NEVER EVER resort to that tactic by calling people bigots or fascists.

OH, SNAPZ, TU QUOQUE!

No really. You're on fire today in the logical fallacy department.

[Anarkistsdream]

Show me where I justified anything...

If you don't say anyone doing something you think is wrong should be taken out back and shot you are justifying it.

No, I'm saying that there are far too many important things in this world to worry about before I give two shits about consensual incest.

Maybe we should worry about REAL problems before we care about social taboos.

Just a little friendly advice.

[bradleybadly]

Show me where I justified anything...

OK

Frankly, I could care less if a brother and sister start fucking, assuming they are both mature adults who have made that decision with knowledge and understanding. Why would you care if they f*ck or not?

Once again the tired old consent and desire argument.

[Snorri1234]

Show me where I justified anything...

OK

Frankly, I could care less if a brother and sister start fucking, assuming they are both mature adults who have made that decision with knowledge and understanding. Why would you care if they f*ck or not?

Once again the tired old consent and desire argument.

Saying you don't care about it is completely different from justifying it. I think racists holding meetings about how the country is going down the drain because of all the [insert ethnic minority here] is not a big deal, but I'm hardly justifying it.

[Juan_Bottom]

Show me where I justified anything...

OK

Frankly, I could care less if a brother and sister start fucking, assuming they are both mature adults who have made that decision with knowledge and understanding. Why would you care if they f*ck or not?

Once again the tired old consent and desire argument.

What is your argument?

[Napoleon Ier]

Although why you included 'mechanophilia' is beyond me - who gives a shit if someone wants to pork their car in the privacy of their garage? Or is this your hormonal adolescent imagination running riot?
I'd appreciaqte an answer to the question i asked you previously, by the way.

Oh my hat, how they toss and turn and squirm under serious analysis...I said impulses, not the actual act. In what measure are the impulses of paedophiles wrong? Surely child-lust is fine in your book, if the paedophile doesn't actually carry through. Well, you consider it a normal part of moolti-diverse koolcha, and I consider it, and homosexuality, sickening diseases...

Who gives a shit about the mechanophile is me: clearly a society breeding such people is inherently flawed. Even you must see there's something, well if not morally, at least genetically or psychologically fucked up about it.

Same goes for incest... even involving consenting adults using contraception, it's clearly unnatural. How, essentially and at the basic level is incest any different to homosexuality?

Now, as a libertarian, I can't justify banning any of the above practices unless they involve unconsenting parties. But I can condemn them at a moral level, or, at the very least, call into question the socio-cultural paradigm shift which has caused the de-taboo-isation of these practices.

[suggs]

The Harm Principle Nap.
Lusting after a child. Lusting after a grown man.
One thought can only lead to harm.
The other does not.

So thats the end of your paedophilia argument.
Next.

[Snorri1234]

Oh my hat, how they toss and turn and squirm under serious analysis...I said impulses, not the actual act. In what measure are the impulses of paedophiles wrong? Surely child-lust is fine in your book, if the paedophile doesn't actually carry through.

Well.....(trying to put this correctly)...yes. If a person feels attracted to children I can do nothing to stop him thinking that except medicines or psychiatric treatment to help him. Whether the cause is environmental or genetic, the person still thinks that and nothing can stop that. Just because it's (or might be) genetic doesn't justify it.

Same goes for incest... even involving consenting adults using contraception, it's clearly unnatural. How, essentially and at the basic level is incest any different to homosexuality?

Clearly unnatural? Seeing as we all came from 2 people I think it's silly to state incest is unnatural.

Man, you're not even defining incest. Is marriage between cousins incest? Because a huge portion of society is build on that. Shit, the only reason we think marrying cousins is disgusting is because our societies have become so big. (i.e. marrying a cousin in a tribal-culture is perfectly normal, something which less big societies therefore still think is okay.)

Now, as a libertarian, I can't justify banning any of the above practices unless they involve unconsenting parties. But I can condemn them at a moral level, or, at the very least, call into question the socio-cultural paradigm shift which has caused the de-taboo-isation of these practices.

You can't. But your insistent claims about it being "unnatural" (like cooking your food and living in houses) are just stupid. You can claim it's immoral, and noone can disagree with that without going into a discussion about the bible, tradition and morals as a whole, but you can't just claim it's unnatural and not be called on your bullshit. It's perfectly natural, which doesn't justify anything but does show the "natural"-position is silly.



The "it's natural"-camp isn't trying to justify homosexual behaviour by saying we shouldn't judge it because it's natural (at least not for the most part), they're reacting to the "unnatural"-camp which proclaims silly shit.

[Napoleon Ier]

The Harm Principle Nap.
Lusting after a child. Lusting after a grown man.
One thought can only lead to harm.
The other does not.

So thats the end of your paedophilia argument.
Next.

No, it could lead to the sick f*ck getting off on it and never carrying through, couldn't it. You also haven't answered the incest, autophilia, or mechanophilia arguments.

[Napoleon Ier]

Oh my hat, how they toss and turn and squirm under serious analysis...I said impulses, not the actual act. In what measure are the impulses of paedophiles wrong? Surely child-lust is fine in your book, if the paedophile doesn't actually carry through.

Well.....(trying to put this correctly)...yes. If a person feels attracted to children I can do nothing to stop him thinking that except medicines or psychiatric treatment to help him. Whether the cause is environmental or genetic, the person still thinks that and nothing can stop that. Just because it's (or might be) genetic doesn't justify it.

Replace the word 'children' with 'men', and you can consider yourself a homophobe. You have a phobia of certain deviant sexual tendencies. Just like I have do, only I hate 'em all. The grounds for opposition to paedophilia, incest or autophilia are the exact same ones I can use to oppose homosexuality.

Same goes for incest... even involving consenting adults using contraception, it's clearly unnatural. How, essentially and at the basic level is incest any different to homosexuality?

Clearly unnatural? Seeing as we all came from 2 people I think it's silly to state incest is unnatural.

I'm sorry, what the fook are you badgering on about?

Man, you're not even defining incest. Is marriage between cousins incest? Because a huge portion of society is build on that. Shit, the only reason we think marrying cousins is disgusting is because our societies have become so big. (i.e. marrying a cousin in a tribal-culture is perfectly normal, something which less big societies therefore still think is okay.)

Right. So incest is right if society says so, is that what you're saying? Is paedophilia right if society says so too? Fucking pathetic degenerate...

Now, as a libertarian, I can't justify banning any of the above practices unless they involve unconsenting parties. But I can condemn them at a moral level, or, at the very least, call into question the socio-cultural paradigm shift which has caused the de-taboo-isation of these practices.

You can't. But your insistent claims about it being "unnatural" (like cooking your food and living in houses) are just stupid. You can claim it's immoral, and noone can disagree with that without going into a discussion about the bible, tradition and morals as a whole, but you can't just claim it's unnatural and not be called on your bullshit. It's perfectly natural, which doesn't justify anything but does show the "natural"-position is silly.

Semantic slipperiness...the intent and extents of the word 'natural' aren't restricted to "that which isn't artificial".

The "it's natural"-camp isn't trying to justify incestuous behaviour by saying we shouldn't judge it because it's natural (at least not for the most part), they're reacting to the "unnatural"-camp which proclaims silly shit.

I changed the wording slightly to get you to understand the point, something to which you seem spectacularly adverse.

[Snorri1234]

Oh my hat, how they toss and turn and squirm under serious analysis...I said impulses, not the actual act. In what measure are the impulses of paedophiles wrong? Surely child-lust is fine in your book, if the paedophile doesn't actually carry through.

Well.....(trying to put this correctly)...yes. If a person feels attracted to children I can do nothing to stop him thinking that except medicines or psychiatric treatment to help him. Whether the cause is environmental or genetic, the person still thinks that and nothing can stop that. Just because it's (or might be) genetic doesn't justify it.

Replace the word 'children' with 'men', and you can consider yourself a homophobe. You have a phobia of certain deviant sexual tendencies. Just like I have do, only I hate 'em all. The grounds for opposition to paedophilia, incest or autophilia are the exact same ones I can use to oppose homosexuality.

And here you miss the point again.


The rest of your post isn't worth responding to as you honestly don't seem the slightest bit inclined to actually fucking think. You seem to blindly subscribe to a position where natural is put into a book and therefore absolute law. You don't consider for a moment that HOLY SHIT homosexuality and pedophilic might be totally two different things! You don't even wonder why I used "help him" instead of "treat him".

You basically claim that "natural" is whatever your book says is natural, without so much as glancing at the huge portion of the living world which isn't "natural"...

In short, you're a wanker nappy.

[Snorri1234]

For fun, I'm going to respond to that drivel you call an argument now.

Same goes for incest... even involving consenting adults using contraception, it's clearly unnatural. How, essentially and at the basic level is incest any different to homosexuality?

Clearly unnatural? Seeing as we all came from 2 people I think it's silly to state incest is unnatural.

I'm sorry, what the fook are you badgering on about?

Not so much of a stab at you as at the huge portion of christians who still think we came from 2 people. (Adam and Eve, since you don't seem to be up on your bible-scripture)

Man, you're not even defining incest. Is marriage between cousins incest? Because a huge portion of society is build on that. Shit, the only reason we think marrying cousins is disgusting is because our societies have become so big. (i.e. marrying a cousin in a tribal-culture is perfectly normal, something which less big societies therefore still think is okay.)

Right. So incest is right if society says so, is that what you're saying? Is paedophilia right if society says so too? Fucking pathetic degenerate...

No, paedohpillia is not right if society says so. Are you really that stupid?

Oh wait, I forgot I'm talking to the kid who thought 14 was an acceptable age for consent as the women can make babies then....

Now, as a libertarian, I can't justify banning any of the above practices unless they involve unconsenting parties. But I can condemn them at a moral level, or, at the very least, call into question the socio-cultural paradigm shift which has caused the de-taboo-isation of these practices.

You can't. But your insistent claims about it being "unnatural" (like cooking your food and living in houses) are just stupid. You can claim it's immoral, and noone can disagree with that without going into a discussion about the bible, tradition and morals as a whole, but you can't just claim it's unnatural and not be called on your bullshit. It's perfectly natural, which doesn't justify anything but does show the "natural"-position is silly.

Semantic slipperiness...the intent and extents of the word 'natural' aren't restricted to "that which isn't artificial".

OH WOW THAT TOTALLY RIPPED MY ARGUMENT TO SHREDS!

I guess picking a single thing out of an argument (which isn't even really part of the argument) now constitutes as a solid counter-argument? Well silly me! I must have been doing it all wrong as I assumed you would take this reason you always use in your "capitalism is teh awesomezors"-debates into here. I see you just took your blind beliefs in christianity as a stance now, regardless of reason, because those viewpoints are totally rational.

f*ck you nappy, if you won't respond to any point you might as well go back to fellating yourself and reading books by economists you have a hard-on for now.

The "it's natural"-camp isn't trying to justify incestuous behaviour by saying we shouldn't judge it because it's natural (at least not for the most part), they're reacting to the "unnatural"-camp which proclaims silly shit.

I changed the wording slightly to get you to understand the point, something to which you seem spectacularly adverse.

HOLY MOTHERFUCKING SHIT!!!?


!!?

Did you just try to make yourself seem well smart by replacing a word which doesn't take anything away from my point?

Honestly nappy, you seem like a huge mong now.

[bradleybadly]

Saying you don't care about it is completely different from justifying it. I think racists holding meetings about how the country is going down the drain because of all the [insert ethnic minority here] is not a big deal, but I'm hardly justifying it.

There you go again, attempting to create a link between racists and people who find homosexuality unnatural. You conveniently say things are totally separate when it's to your advantage, i.e. - justifying behaviors and claiming to be uncaring. Then you try to equate things that are separate in order to construct an argument where you can belittle people who won't join you for a trip through the magic liberal carnival, i.e. - people who practiced racism in the past and people who support traditional marriage.

By the way, reading through some of the old stuff I found that liberals here say there is no such thing as race. So you all need to get your talking points in order. If there isn't such a thing as race then there's no such thing as racism.

[Snorri1234]

Saying you don't care about it is completely different from justifying it. I think racists holding meetings about how the country is going down the drain because of all the [insert ethnic minority here] is not a big deal, but I'm hardly justifying it.

There you go again, attempting to create a link between racists and people who find homosexuality unnatural. You conveniently say things are totally separate when it's to your advantage,

What are you blabbering about?
I say that whatever people do that doesn't harm me is of no concern to me. Hell, I think you, being the liberal that you are, should be of the same opinion.

i.e. - justifying behaviors and claiming to be uncaring.

It is not justifying. How hard is that for you to grasp?

Then you try to equate things that are separate in order to construct an argument where you can belittle people who won't join you for a trip through the magic liberal carnival, i.e. - people who practiced racism in the past and people who support traditional marriage.

"traditional" is not the same as "rational".

Also, you're missing the point so much it's not even funny anymore.

By the way, reading through some of the old stuff I found that liberals here say there is no such thing as race. So you all need to get your talking points in order. If there isn't such a thing as race then there's no such thing as racism.

Because racism is about race only, AMIRITE?!?!?!


OH WAIT A MINUTE! I R NOT RITE!!!


Try again, dipshit.

[AndrewLC]

I lol'd like 10 times in this thread

[Napoleon Ier]

And here you miss the point again.

Really? Care to tell me what the 'point' is? Of course you don't, because there is no fucking point to your deluded ramblings.

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to as you honestly don't seem the slightest bit inclined to actually fucking think.

Oh, what's that? You mean the sassy little "OMG and here you like, totally miss the point again, bitch" comment was meant to be an actual, serious, philosophical rebuttal? Oh! I see! I do apologize! Well, I'm tremendously honored that you considered at the very least the first part of my post worthy of your oh-so-valuable time that you deigned to post an entire six word response. I understand you're a busy person, but would a little substantive argument and serious rhetorical construction be completely beyond you? On second thoughts, never mind....

You seem to blindly subscribe to a position where natural is put into a book and therefore absolute law.

Ahh...snorri's mental processor overloaded, so he resorted to the basic "you're opinions-are based-on-the-Bible" default to avoid cerebral overdrive. Don't push yourself too hard though snorri...that's a total of what, one counter-argument (albeit only actually having anything to do with a completely different debate) you've posted today? Shame it was completely irrelevant, but still, careful now...we don't the family grey-cell too exhausted for tomorrow, do we now?

You don't consider for a moment that HOLY SHIT homosexuality and pedophilic might be totally two different things!

No snorri! That's absolutely right, how could I have missed this? My carefully crafted analogy shattered, because I never realised that pedophilia and homosexuality were actually different things. How could I have been so blind?

Oh wait....the analogy still works perfectly well, because it only relies on them being members of the set of deviant sexual paraphilias. Oh dear snorri. How embarrassing for you. My turds contain more serious intellectual analysis than your posts.

Look, when you do find me a way to ethically differentiate between incestuous, paedophilic and homosexual tendencies, or have something of actual and real interest to bring forward, feel free to post it, but in the mean time, spare us the sheer absurdity of the firstfruit gleamings of your slow-witted thought processes.

That means, "in short", post proper arguments, not statements of the bleeding obvious re-phrased as if they somehow supported your side of the debate in any way, with arbitrarily capitalized profanities inserted into the equation every so often, to get extra EMPHASIS.

You don't even wonder why I used "help him" instead of "treat him".

Ahh yes, because we must have compassion and tolewance for teh pedos, mustn't we? And to think...pedophobic bigots like me would have these paragons of virtue and pillars of society castrated...aren't all Christians teh evul? Poor, poor ethnic paraplegic pedos, we must hire armies of happy-clappy social workers to "support them" with the aid of the "local community" to form a new brick in the "diversity" we want to instill in it...

You basically claim that "natural" is whatever your book says is natural, without so much as glancing at the huge portion of the living world which isn't "natural"...

I see. Where have I ever claimed that? I haven't? Well I'll be damned...leftists making crass generalizations to avoid responding to their opponents in debate on the substance...that's never happened before!

In short, you're a wanker nappy.

In short? That's what we might say is the main point, the ah, essential idea, key concept if you will, I should take from this little seminar of yours? You're entire post, can, "in short", be surmised as being a long-winded inter-net insult: "u iz teh wanker!1111"?

Well, in that case...I'm sorry you don't have the intellectual level to understand my post and to find relevant counter-arguments, I really am, but spare the rest of us your mind-numbing conversation, it's actually starting to infect my brain. No seriously....just reading your bullshit probably increases chances of brain-cancer or something.

[2dimes]

Get lost fag.

The results could explain a University of London study earlier this year that found gay men and straight women share a poor sense of direction compared with heterosexual men, and were more likely to navigate using landmarks alone.

You're so mean, I am lost.