Cultural Homosexuality

[Dementor]

I found this VERY interesting atricle today in an anthropology textbook regarding a certain isolated tribe in New Guinea.

In this particular tribe, all of the males are homosexual.

Heterosexual intercourse is considered taboo, some reserved entirely for reproduction, something that happens as part of a ritual. Women who crave sex are considered witches.

However, oral sex from one male to another is considered entirely acceptable, and happens casually. It's actually considered a vital part of boyhood, to ingest a great deal of semen.

Here comes the part that I find fascinating.

In this culture, there is still marriage, of one man to one woman, and does not occur between males.

Food for thought. (no pun intended)

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Oh man. I can't wait to see the beast you've unleashed.

[Qishi]

The Trojans did something similar to this, but for different reasons. Basically, young boys were taken out of their homes at a young age to train as soldiers, and lived with nothing but men until they were older(around 18 I think.) Also, each young boy had a mentor, and basically a homosexual relationship was a part of that. The women had something of the like, since there were no men around, all their sexual experiences up until later were with other women, as it was with the men.

The Trojans also had no homosexual marriages, but the heterosexual ones were kind of odd. Towards the beginning of the marriage the wife usually cut their hair short and dressed in the clothes that the young boys wore during training. Then the husband would sneak in during the middle of the night, have sex with her, and leave. I don't think the men even slept in the bed with the women until later on, I guess when he was more comfortable with the idea of sleeping with a woman.

[George Bush]

greeks were mostly homosexual as well.and i could name quite a few others.
heck even some animals out in the wild are homosexual. its quite natural .

[PlagueBearer]

Yeah, Greece was another great example of a culture that embraced homosexuality as a norm.

And yet, they didn't have homosexual mariages either. :scratch:

[George Bush]

heh if this is some veiled attempt at making some idiot point about *** marrige you should end it now.

[Gangeskhan]

This post isnt gonna get pretty...

Uh... i dont think Greece was "mostly" homosexual. And animals simply cant really be homosexual, theyd just die out. I dont buy that, an inbred dog humping another dog certainly isnt gonna prove it's ***. Its quite unnatural.

Anyway *fanning the flames* teehee

[AgeOfAbnegation]

greeks were mostly homosexual as well.and i could name quite a few others.
heck even some animals out in the wild are homosexual. its quite natural .

What's up GB? I was interested in learning which animals are "homosexual"? Also, please give clearer definition as to how these animals exhibit this characterization.

[Dementor]

heh if this is some veiled attempt at making some idiot point about *** marrige you should end it now.

Not every point is an idiot point, and I draw no conclusions for anyone.

[George Bush]

dementor the post is clearly ment to influence a reaction . its backed up even further by this statment at the end of your post.

"In this culture, there is still marriage, of one man to one woman, and does not occur between males.

Food for thought. (no pun intended)"

as well as this post .

"Yeah, Greece was another great example of a culture that embraced homosexuality as a norm.

And yet, they didn't have homosexual mariages either. "

AoA ive forgotten the links to the studies about homosexuality in nature. im sure you can google them if you like.

and no im not saying all animals of a certian type. but there are instances of dogs ,cats , monkeys, and so on of the animal being strictly ***.

[George Bush]

http://www.rnw.nl/lifestyle/html/gayanimals000808.html
is a quick google on it.
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=3555
there is another.
there are quite a few articles and studies done on it.
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
editing to add this one as well.

[FireArc]

There was also a study done way back in 1976 (ish) about two *** monkeys (by Terry Maple and Joseph Erwin). When put in a cage together they would fairly often have *** sex with each other (anal with penetration). Also, when seperated and put into a cage with a female monkey they would also mate with her. The interesting part came about when all three were put into one cage (the two *** monkeys and one famale). The two male monkeys would alienate and physically hassel the famle monkey. They would then show all affection to only each other. This lead most to believe that they actually prefered homosexual sex to heterosexual sex (but were apparently horney enough to take it where they could get it).

Just though it was an interesting study.

P.S. Before posting I did some research real quick. The study was called "Ambisexual behavior with male-male anal penetration in male rhesus monkeys" (isnt that a catchy title) and was published as an article in a few locations...

[Dementor]

To me, this is an interesting example of a culture that can accept homosexuality (to an extreme) and yet homosexual marriage is still not practiced. I think it's highly signifigant to the debate that's going on in our country today. I have yet to be introduced to any culture that endorses marriages between two people of the same gender, despite all these cultures that actually embrace homosexuality in general. Marriage is something that's proven, again and again, to be such a common aspect of so many seperately evolving societies, and such a vital aspect, and yet we tamper with it like it's a legal technicality.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ahh, thanks for the links. I remember in biology class some years back seeing a group of monkeys getting into a bit o' the rough and tumble. I was more curious as to the nature and nurture of the issue. Take a look..

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

[George Bush]

heh. damn unatural nature.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

greeks were mostly homosexual as well.and i could name quite a few others.
heck even some animals out in the wild are homosexual. its quite natural .
hmm one comment to that:
Yeah, in nature, "When a new male or coalition takes over a pride, they often kill all cubs below 1 year. If any female is pregnant at the take-over, her cubs are killed after birth."http://www.szgdocent.org/cats/a-lion.htm
so.. for your 'natural' argument there, hmm

[George Bush]

nice site AoA check the last site i put up there.

dementor. i included plague to further show you my point of influencing a reaction. him being seperate from you is part of the point.

the acceptance thing? well steps have been taken to kill some of the horrible things that we have had to go through and alot of the pain we had to go through due to christians and others but i can tell you now that it is nowhere near full acceptance or full FREEDOM for that matter.

for a country that is so based on freedom im feeling distinctly NOT-FREE.

edited to reply to hd.

nature is cruel .

[ScytheNoire]

Ahh, thanks for the links. I remember in biology class some years back seeing a group of monkeys getting into a bit o' the rough and tumble. I was more curious as to the nature and nurture of the issue. Take a look..

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
that sites BS. i've seen a *** dog, and he was seriously ***. you could give him a male dog and a female in heat, and he'd screw the male dog every time.
so don't go telling me there are no *** animals, because there are, i've seen it.

but mostly, males are just horny animals that will hump anything that moves... or heck, it doesn't have to move if it doesn't want to, we'll be finished shortly.

[Dementor]

Just how did this topic shift to homosexuality in animals? I'm not disputing that homosexuality happens in nature. The relevance here is to marriage and society, things rhesus monkeys have little use for.

Monkeys can be g_y, and so can humans. Homosexuality is normal, homosexual marriage is not. Since monkeys don't marry, there's little point to this line of discussion. Now, a study of sexual habits of a species known to mate for life in regards to homosexuality may be relevant here, but I'd argue even then that that would be a weak analogy at best to human behavior.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

for a country that is so based on freedom im feeling distinctly NOT-FREE.


GB, would it be to bold to inquire into your sexual orientation?

[Dementor]

the acceptance thing? well steps have been taken to kill some of the horrible things that we have had to go through and alot of the pain we had to go through due to christians and others but i can tell you now that it is nowhere near full acceptance or full FREEDOM for that matter.

for a country that is so based on freedom im feeling distinctly NOT-FREE.

I'm not saying ours is a tolerant society, I'm just saying mariage isn't the answer. You're being very hostile here George, while I'm simply making a point. I'd ask you to try and calm down a bit here and try to understand what I'm saying.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

that sites BS. i've seen a *** dog, and he was seriously ***. you could give him a male dog and a female in heat, and he'd screw the male dog every time.
so don't go telling me there are no *** animals, because there are, i've seen it.


You'll note in my first reply to GB, I mentioned that I also witnessed these acts. However, the key here is determining the nature of what it means to be "g ay", and from what source it stems.



GB - I find the third google discovery problematic in the researcher's definition of homosexuality being defined in it's act. I quote the following.

"Homosexuality, for the purposes of this essay, can be defined as pair bonding and sex occuring between two or more members of the same sex in the same species."

This I find an incomplete definition of the homosexual characterization. To name an innate characterization of a particular being is to name an essential, immutible quality that produces actions and effects, not merely the effects in themselves.

[George Bush]

Just how did this topic shift to homosexuality in animals? I'm not disputing that homosexuality happens in nature. The relevance here is to marriage and society, things rhesus monkeys have little use for.

Monkeys can be g_y, and so can humans. Homosexuality is normal, homosexual marriage is not. Since monkeys don't marry, there's little point to this line of discussion. Now, a study of sexual habits of a species known to mate for life in regards to homosexuality may be relevant here, but I'd argue even then that that would be a weak analogy at best to human behavior.

well if you would happen to read some of the sites you will find that in some species that mate for life there are *** pairs.
*** animals and whats natural is a big part of why some societys havent allowed *** marriage.its alot of misunderstandings and results in alot of people thinking false things.

lemme quote this here.
" Homosexuality is normal, homosexual marriage is not. "
i would laugh out loud at that if not for the horrible anger i have with the ignorance of that statment.

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm

a history of *** marriages .

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=12&ItemID=4610

nice article there.

i can search more.
but i have to say part of it is having people that are against it in the first place in control.
there are quite a few other pages.

[George Bush]

well AoA im *** .
yes you do have a good point in the definition of that site i was just throwing it up there to prove how common it is in nature. there are actual studies done on this subject wich i will have to find the links to . do some searching too :P.

*** marriage is the answer because it now gotten down to the point that people are being denied the right to be with who they want and have it be recognized.
its like the govt turned into some idiot child poking its fingers in its ears and closing its eyes and ignoring you but when some straight person comes in they have its complete attention.

im sorry if i sound hostile but put yourself in my place. lets say all straight people are not allowed to get married.

would you be pissed at being treated as if your choices dont matter?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

well AoA im *** .
yes you do have a good point in the definition of that site i was just throwing it up there to prove how common it is in nature. there are actual studies done on this subject wich i will have to find the links to . do some searching too :P.

*** marriage is the answer because it now gotten down to the point that people are being denied the right to be with who they want and have it be recognized.
its like the govt turned into some idiot child poking its fingers in its ears and closing its eyes and ignoring you but when some straight person comes in they have its complete attention.

im sorry if i sound hostile but put yourself in my place. lets say all straight people are not allowed to get married.

would you be pissed at being treated as if your choices dont matter?

Yep, I know how you feel. Thanks for sharing. Something I try to keep in mind when considering political red tape (and there is indeed some things that irk me) is my own identity and value, which I see as being independent of ascribed social and political structures. Since my identity is based on objective considerations, I need fear no system that would add to or remove from me any aspect of identity. It's a good way to look at things, IMO.

[George Bush]

i am independant to oddly enough i tend to vote liberal when i do vote due to their usual "for" stances on *** rights .
i wish the president werent allowed to be of a "party" heh.
mabey one day we will get one smart enough to make sure everyone has the same freedoms, do something about the horrible political lies, and kill the war on drugs and in doing so create the biggest economic boom we have had in history.

heres for hopin :D.

[Dementor]

Some good links here BG, but the cases here are generally weak; one historically irrelevant orgy cult and a group of parter-swapping bar goers who, as far as I can tell from the article, didn't even play at being married. Neither of these seem like a strong case for normalized g_y marriages.

I am familiar, however, with the customs of the Soux (and the Cheyenne apparently had simmilar customs)The Soux berdaches were considered a third gender, and were "married" as a third partner to an already existing heterosexual mariage. He was a man the husband could trust with his wife, and joined the family as such. This was not a marriage, it was more akin to allowing an uncle to share your home.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I thought America already lost the war on drugs lol :p. Yep, throwing in the towel on the war on drugs would definitely offer more loot for other social programs, but I'd be more worried about the moral degradation that would take place. At least now they're doing something to prevent people from heading down that destructive path.

[George Bush]

Some good links here BG, but the cases here are generally weak; one historically irrelevant orgy cult and a group of parter-swapping bar goers who, as far as I can tell from the article, didn't even play at being married. Neither of these seem like a strong case for normalized g_y marriages.

I am familiar, however, with the customs of the Soux (and the Cheyenne apparently had simmilar customs)The Soux berdaches were considered a third gender, and were "married" as a third partner to an already existing heterosexual mariage. He was a man the husband could trust with his wife, and joined the family as such. This was not a marriage, it was more akin to allowing an uncle to share your home.
bleh guess i will have to look up the real links. been ages since i did.

[George Bush]

I thought America already lost the war on drugs lol :p. Yep, throwing in the towel on the war on drugs would definitely offer more loot for other social programs, but I'd be more worried about the moral degradation that would take place. At least now they're doing something to prevent people from heading down that destructive path.
well if they stopped the war and made it into a taxed thing like a pack of smokes... heh it would create a huge ammount of jobs not to mention the other products made from the plant itself. and the billions we spend on the program each year .

[AgeOfAbnegation]

GB - The day may indeed come. Yet, I have friends who were "washed out" by drug addiction. I'm by no means an advocate.

[George Bush]

its not that i am . its just that most people know its a huge failure.
take the money and use it for something worthwhile.

go go healthcare or drug research or fixing the homless problem!
so many things could be done with the BILLIONS spent on this failure.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Granted, we can't solve all the problems, but I don't believe that to be grounds for giving up entirely. Little things go a long way. A system need not appear to be a success in our eyes to be successful for others.

[George Bush]

mabey but the jobs and bonuses it would produce would far outweigh the crime and debt that it causes currently.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I suppose I look more at the state of the person, before the state of the social structure. I believe that when the soul is well, culture will flow from that. Thus, I hold morals to underpin politics and stature.

[Dementor]

We're firmly off topic now.

I do have to say this; while you may have had friends "wash out" because of drugs, I had one die. You can't just legalize a lethal substance because you don't feel like it can't be adequatly controled. It's like saying "We can't stop wifebeating, so let's just give out permits that people have to pay for before they beat their wives."

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well put Dementor. Looks like we've hijacked the thread *yoink*. Feel free to steer it back to your original idea.

[George Bush]

heh. beer is legal. smokes are legal.
its my belief what someone does with their body is fine .
we don' need no stinkin' government to tell us what to put in our own bodies.
and yes morals can be good depending on what ones they are.

[Brasuca-RJ]

heh. beer is legal. smokes are legal.
its my belief what someone does with their body is fine .
we don' need no stinkin' government to tell us what to put in our own bodies.
and yes morals can be good depending on what ones they are.My personal opinion is that if drugs were allowed would still need laws to control the behaviour of people on potential dangerous situations. In fact, it would need to be tougher than actual ones, what means, more control over people lives. Otherwise there should be more damage than benefits with the increasing accidents and violent behaviour; don´t you think so?

[George Bush]

not actually there buddy. more violent behavior is linked to it being not legal than there would be for it being legal.
1 no raids on drug growers =less violence
2 gangs not fighting over who can sell drugs and crap cause its in the stores = less violence
3more jobs due to growing and manufacture = less people out of work = less unhappy people= less violence.
4have you ever known a violent stoner?= less violence

[Brasuca-RJ]

not actually there buddy. more violent behavior is linked to it being not legal than there would be for it being legal.
1 no raids on drug growers =less violence
2 gangs not fighting over who can sell drugs and crap cause its in the stores = less violence
3more jobs due to growing and manufacture = less people out of work = less unhappy people= less violence.
4have you ever known a violent stoner?= less violence
You´re right about the drugs war violence. But when we have solven this problem by allowing drugs we would need to focus on the new problem; we would be trading problems, but perhaps this new problem is "less worse"(?). We have still to see this; if this proves to be true, more and more places could try this "model" and one day things would change; but for now, in most places, this don´t seem to be a real option; cause of politics, history/culture and so on.

[Brasuca-RJ]

About the ga y marriages, the statement that it´s only between man and woman undertands that it´s main porpouse is to breed. But it´s not the entire meaning of marriage, marriage is about familie and that´s its main porpouse now-a-days, otherwise non fertile people should be denied the "privilege"(how some like to say, but I don´t agree) to engage in marriage. And now-a-days there are more and more ga y families, or perhaps they always existed in one way or another but only now we can have a glimpse on it´s numbers, anyway, if marriage is about family then should be no restrictions to people who wants to, no matter their color, or gender, or nationality.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Well first off:
I'm not ***, American or a Christian.
I'm Straight, Norwegian and a Buddhist.

I have homosexual friends, they are among the nicest people I know, how anyone could deny them the right to get married is beyond me.

Marriage is about love, about chosing to spend the rest of your life with the person you love, it has nothing, NOTHING to do with gender.
If you ask me, all the people who get married and divorced a year later because they mistook sexual attraction for love are making more of a mockery of marriage than homosexuals ever could.
Thats my personal opinion anyway.

But for the current debate in the States:
The American government is going to have to make a choice, take a stance.
Is the Bill of rights, Amercian law, based on Christianity?
If it is, then *** marriage should not be allowed as the Bible specifically says these things are of the 'eternal damnation' type.

But if Church and State are two completely separate things (wich it should be in a multicultural country like the USA).
They are REQUIRED to allow *** marriages because if they do not, they are taking away the freedom of homosexual people and savagely violating the Bill of rights.

They talk alot about freedom and equal rights in the American government ... this is when we see just how hypocritical the American government can be.

Edit: I must say I think filtering out the word *** in this forum as profanity is just plain dumb.

[Mastgrr]

Humanity has eaten meat for as long as our existance has been known. But now in this modern day and age we do not have to eat meat if we do not want to.

If we've married only man to woman for as long as it's been known, in todays modern society have given us the ability to not.

[Elly]

Edit: I must say I think filtering out the word *** in this forum as profanity is just plain dumb.

I'd like just to explain that because clearly it's not occured to you why the word is filtered. It's not, as you suggest because we're dumb, it's because it's used in a derogatory fashion that's offensive to most.

[Agonistes]

I feel as though I might be a little late on this comment... and even though it is off-topic, I felt like adding my piece.

Statistically, drug use would go down if narcotics were made legal. During Prohibition the use of alcohol went through the roof.

Just as Prohibition gave rise to the mafia and other such crime during it's time, the War on drugs has given rise to drug cartel activities in the US and has risen the crime rate in major cities and "ghettos". I'm not sure on the numbers exactly, but I know the crime rate went up during prohibition by about 70%.


As for g_y issue... I dunno. I don't see any reason not to allow g_y marriage.

And here's to hoping for a smart nonpartisan president that'll make this country as good as it should be. :drink:

[Essex]

is it already that time of the month? Time for another *** thread... huh time flies by. Sorry GB for not seeing this thread sooner, I know how bad it is to be the only *** guy on this type of thread. So ya know you can take a breather for now if you want lol.

Alright I’ll go into my spiel now. As anyone who isn't a complete moron knows I'm ***. As such I believe that we should have the right to marry. However I don't give a flying **** what you call it marriage, civil unions, two dudes shacking up with legal benefits, I don't care I just want the legal rights totally 100% the same rights as with married straight couples.

This thread just makes me so god damn angry right now. On Wednesday my partner who I've been with for two years now, who I love with every inch of my soul, who would be my husband if we had gotten lucky enough to live in the right country, well he had to leave. He's originally from Taiwan and his visa finally ran out. He won't be able to come back for at least a year and possibly longer. HOWEVER had I been able to marry him like any straight couple would have been able to, he would have gotten a green card and been able to stay in the states. Instead my rights as a citizen, to have the person I love if they are from a different country be granted a type of citizenship, was revoked because I happen to be a guy.

Now tell me how the **** that sounds fair? Tell me how the idea of us having legal rights is going to break down society, how it's going to have God come crashing down on the united states. To be honest with you I DON'T CARE IF IT DOES. I don't care if society is shattered by this fact, I don't care if God doesn't like it, I just want what should be within my rights as a citizen of this god damn country. I should not have to feel this pain that I'm going through right now all because some dickheads in Washington can't manage to bring themselves to realize that we live in the 21st century.

Whoever was talking about Trojans early on the thread you were wrong those aren't Trojans, we don't even know if Troy existed (not 100% anyway) it was the Spartans you were thinking about.

I know what you were trying to do, show societies that were open about homosexuality and didn't have marriage and trying to thusly prove we should be the same way.

Only one little problem with that. They didn't have a legal system set up that rewards or punishes people for not being married. The Spartans didn't have to worry about child custody battles because they managed somehow to have a child but one of the parents isn't a blood relative.

They didn't have to have their heart ripped out of their chest at the god damn Nashville Airport when they saw their loved one taken away from them by a government who couldn't care less. They didn't have to worry about inheritance laws, or other things that we have since we are a country of laws.

Other countries have legally recognized unions, as far as I can tell the world didn't end, nor did their countries catch on fire. So what is the big ****ing deal here?

Right wingers and other anti-*** (not saying anyone here is) people go on and on about how Gays always sleep around and have unprotected sex in sleazy bars. Well perhaps that's encouraged a bit when you know that even if you have a real long term relationship is will never be legally recognized. The best way to stop people from sleeping around is to marry them, yet they don't want to give us that. What are we suppose to do becomes priests? Sorry I'm not being chaste because you think I’m gonna burn in hell for what I do.

Ya know the institutions of marriage isn't that god damn sacred anymore. People get divorced all the time, hell Bush is having to put billions into the system just so people will stop getting divorced. So what's so special about marriage that it needs protecting? I don't get it...

I mean me and my boyfriend were even considering having him marry my mother just so he could stay in the US. How sacred is that institution if it's used like that then? The only thing that stopped us was the cost involved, something like 3000 dollars to get a lawyer to file out the paper work, and then they may not even believe they were really married.

Anyway I lost my point and I'm upset and damn near about to cry because I'm just so angry over all this so I'll finish up here. But please don't try comparing me to some god damn monkey who likes to **** his buddy, or penguins, or tell me that since the Spartans didn’t' get married I shouldn't be able to. All those are different things from the current situation, just think about it, really think about it and see if you can come up with a reason that doesn't play on religion, or out dated social views on homosexuality to come up with a reason why I shouldn't have been able to stop chin from getting on that plane.

Ok screw it I'm out... where's the tissues...

[Agonistes]

Well, I think Essex just silenced all those that are opposed.

Pretty much summed it all up... I don't really know what to say. :/

[Bob_V]

George Bush (Poster, not person), you don't know how much respect I have for you now. You're right about pretty much everything. And Essex to btw.

[Maullus]

Greetings,

Perhaps this will be considered a bit spammy, as I really don't have much to contribute to the discussion, since it seems to me that what needs to be said has been said...

But I just wanted to comment on how civil this discussion has remained, on a topic that, unfortunately, usually is anything but. It's nice to see folks are capable of having a nice discussion, without it degrading into trash.

:thumbsup:

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Just one comment..
"Ya know the institutions of marriage isn't that god damn sacred anymore. People get divorced all the time, hell Bush is having to put billions into the system just so people will stop getting divorced. So what's so special about marriage that it needs protecting? I don't get it..."
Yeah, the government hasn't kept marriage very sanctified, but I would like to say that the Catholic Church has not dropped its view on marriage and its sanctity. The Catholic Church does not believe in divorce, only Annulment. Annulment however is very rare, and only occurs when some drastic trait in the other person is suddenly brought forward, and in cases like that, the Church believes that the couple was never truly married..
But as for the sanctity of marriage, and homosexuality, the Church's views on the topic is that a marriage is meant to be four things: Free, total, faithful and fruitful.. (if you want me to elaborate on those four, plz ask)


Observation of the bodies of a man and of a woman show that they are made for each other, and the Church believes that although yes, it is possible for people to have inclinations towards other people of the same sex, those are disordered desires..
I'm not saying this to attack you, essex, just so you don't think I am. I have a lot of respect for you..
Anyways.. I'll be around, gotta write an exam in an hour..

[BhsCrew]

I'd like just to explain that because clearly it's not occured to you why the word is filtered. It's not, as you suggest because we're dumb, it's because it's used in a derogatory fashion that's offensive to most.

But the word still isn't a bad word and to treat it as an insult is saying that being g.ay is a bad thing.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Wow - this thread really took off..

Anyway, to continue my discussion with GB about drugs - I agree with barusca on the drug problematic. I don't agree with allowing easy access to substances that will ruin your life. Regarding the alcohol and the prohibition, it is human nature to crave for something that is being held from us. The key in all this comes from "personal wholeness". While narcotics are more addictive and destructive than alcohol, I would not use that as the starting point of the argument. The true issue is personal freedom. THere has been much talk of "freedom" here. True freedom is not to be understood as the ability to do what you want, but the power to do what you ought. If the government allows free sale of narcotics, the drug user, as well as the heavy drinker, is still enslaved to the substance. Their chains are not imposed by the establishment, but of their own accord. These existential issues are the true factors in this debate.

As far as the *** marriage thing is concerned, I'm almost afraid to get into it. After that clarion call by Essex, any poster who would hold a view to the contrary would likely get their head torn off, we well as their point discarded. I do have something to say on the matter, but I'll leave it up to Essex and GB if they wish to pursue it. Thx all.

[Illidan]

*scratches head* I think you guys meant Ancient Greece. Modern day Greece while accepts homosexuality and has a moderate population of homosexuals, does not encourage it. Greece in general isn't very strict on anything: it's the only country in Europe (unless something has changed) where prostitution is legal. Although most prostitutes are transvestite men.

As far as legalizing drugs, I have an example that ties in to prostitution (I had a reason to bring it up). In Nevada (everywhere except Las Vegas) prostitution is legalized and handled by the government. It is also the state with the lowest HIV positive population in prostitutes or general population I forget which one. The point is once the Government regulates something Illigal it becomes much less of a liability. The prostitutes for example have to get tested every month and are required to be safe by law. With these strict laws the whole thing is not as dangerous (healthwise), the prositutes are protected under the law so that leaves a good business of an illigally considered market.

As far as drugs and wife beatings: Just because you make it legal doesn't change anything. If someone is going to beat his wife he will, making it legal won't change anyone elses view of it being ****ed up. The problem with drug laws in the U.S. is the way they're implemented. A dealer will get relatively the same punishment for dealing marijuana or cocaine, same with patrons. Therefore it gives insentive to people to just aim for the more dangerous and addicting drugs. If they legalized drugs the laws controling their usages and purchasing would decrease drug related crimes and other drug related problems.

(EX: [NY rates] Bag of weed = $5 now (about 3 stokes I think) + $3 NY tax + $3 NYC tax + 1.50 i think sales or US tax I forget which = $12 weed. People will stop buying as much with all the taxing unless they're already addicted in which case the city gets richer and people try to quit due to the money loss. This is an example of how it would be inflicted in NY based on the cig taxes, I'm sure other states would create something similar to stiffle the purchasing of legalized drugs).

[BhsCrew]

Wow - this thread really took off..

Anyway, to continue my discussion with GB about drugs - I agree with barusca on the drug problematic. I don't agree with allowing easy access to substances that will ruin your life. Regarding the alcohol and the prohibition, it is human nature to crave for something that is being held from us. The key in all this comes from "personal wholeness". While narcotics are more addictive and destructive than alcohol, I would not use that as the starting point of the argument. The true issue is personal freedom. THere has been much talk of "freedom" here. True freedom is not to be understood as the ability to do what you want, but the power to do what you ought. If the government allows free sale of narcotics, the drug user, as well as the heavy drinker, is still enslaved to the substance. Their chains are not imposed by the establishment, but of their own accord. These existential issues are the true factors in this debate.
.

Yes but the power to do what you ought is usually due to internal will. The heavy drinker and the heavy drug user both have chains imposed by themselves and they'll contintue to drink or do drugs regardless of whether it's legal or not. They will be slaves until they free themselves (sometimes with the help of others and sometimes alone) or they die. Legalizing drugs isn't going to really affect these people.

What it would do is weaken organized crimes hold on drugs. The same way that organized crime fell out of the alcohol business when it was made legal again, organized crime would be considerbly less involved in the making and selling of drugs that were legal. That would make the whole process less violent and easier to regulate. Plus we could tax it.

[Illidan]

I appologize for the double post, every time I try to edit IE closes on me.

As far as the U.S. goes:
Separation of Church and State only go so far, many of the Presidents in the past have been from the Southern, Bible Belt, states. While it is illigal to mix religious laws into U.S. law, it is their way of life and since they are quite a few states they have had a large influence ever since the civil war.

The President can NOT choose whether homosexual marriages will be legal or not. A president can not propose legalizing anything in congress, a representative can only do so. I don't care how much you hate Bush, you can't blame him for *** marriages despite the fact that he is against it, until he declines a bill asking for *** marriages to be legalized. This to my knowledge has not occured yet. He's incompetent, selfish and unfit to be King, but until he refuses to sign it's not his fault.

The legal battles over whether *** marriages belong in state laws or federal laws is not resolved yet. Until that time the US can create a law stating *** marriages illigal but since States have been given the right to create marriage laws they can state that *** marriages are indeed legal, unless it would have made it clear that no state would have to grant recognition to same-sex marriages. Meaning even if someone was married in the state before the amendment, it would be nulled, even if they were joined in another country. Until all that is resolved we can't blame any one part of government, this will most likely take a couple of years though.

Essex I am sorry for what you've had to go through and I am even more sorry that I can't find any counties in any states near Tennessee that offer same sex wedding licenses. You shouldn't give up hope yet though because although Kerry is opposed to same sex wedding licenses he isn't opposed to same sex unions, meaning there is still hope that if enough pressure is placed on him (if he is elected) and congress writes up a bill it could happen in the near future.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yes but the power to do what you ought is usually due to internal will.


Yes, it has to do with an individual's will, and most verifibly substance abuse enters the picture to fill a need, yet, there are much healthier ways of meeting that need that will not lead to ruin.


The heavy drinker and the heavy drug user both have chains imposed by themselves and they'll contintue to drink or do drugs regardless of whether it's legal or not.


Or chains imposed by peer pressure, or a readily available fix? While still available under the table, the legalization of drugs makes this option all the more available.


They will be slaves until they free themselves (sometimes with the help of others and sometimes alone) or they die. Legalizing drugs isn't going to really affect these people.


It will create more of the same situation. You seem to have a detached view. Have you ever lived amongst these people? Legalization certainly won't help these people, that's for sure.


What it would do is weaken organized crimes hold on drugs.


Sure - and have the government regulate it. Not everyone has connections, but anyone could walk to a corner store.


The same way that organized crime fell out of the alcohol business when it was made legal again, organized crime would be considerbly less involved in the making and selling of drugs that were legal.


Your argument is weak. As stated above, regulation would provide more opportinities for drug use, which is problematic... unless you desire that.


That would make the whole process less violent and easier to regulate. Plus we could tax it.

Short term violence would be replaced by long term bondage and suffering. And taxing someone's addiction? That's absolutely reprehensible.

[Essex]

well I would like to thank everyone for the nice things they have said :) I really didn't intend to write some sort of rallying call for the *** cause or something that would prevent anyone from responding, but then again I was typing in a fit of emotion.

Haly I'll always like you because of your strong bad avatar :) I think that the Catholic Church has every right to say or believe whatever it wants to. I'm not trying to dictate to the church what it should or shouldn't preach, however marraige is no longer a religious ceromeny, it's a goverenment thing and when the government gets involved then there are different sets of rules invovled see what i'm saying?

again I don't intend to silence anyway, although if what I said manged to change your mind a little bit then I'd be proud of that :)

[Qbob]

Graav Wolfsong, not once in the Bill of Rights does it say a thing about homosexual marriage. It is not taking away a freedom. Homosexuals never had the freedom to marry a member of the same sex. They could, and still can, marry someone of the opposite sex. The same right that I have. I can't marry someone of the same sex even if I wanted to. No one has that right in America.

The only thing I have to say about religion is that your view of Christianity could be called hateful.

And you are right about very short marriages here in America. To be honest, I really don't even want to talk about homosexual marriage till we clean up what would be called normal marriage here.

[BhsCrew]

It will create more of the same situation. You seem to have a detached view. Have you ever lived amongst these people? Legalization certainly won't help these people, that's for sure.

Legalization won't help these people at all but it also won't hurt them, and yes I have lived amongst them.


Sure - and have the government regulate it. Not everyone has connections, but anyone could walk to a corner store.

It has been my experience that everyone who wants the stuff can get it. The only question is how much will it cost them and who they have to go to. I've never seen a person not be able to get any stuff that they wanted.


Your argument is weak. As stated above, regulation would provide more opportinities for drug use, which is problematic... unless you desire that.

I don't desire more drug use, I hate drugs and what they do to people. The fact that drugs would be slightly easier to get would be a downside. However, most people I know who have tried drugs have used them and then quit and gone on with their lives. A few people will get hooked for long periods of time and it ruins their lives, but most the people I know who are hooked on pot (for example) are also hooked on booze. People who get addicted easily and have weak will (I'm not saying the two are connected) are likely going to get hooked on something regardless of whether it's legal or not.


Short term violence would be replaced by long term bondage and suffering. And taxing someone's addiction? That's absolutely reprehensible.

I don't see how there would be any major increase in the bondage and suffering. There would be a major drop in the violence which has hardly been short term. We already tax addictions. There are huge taxes on both alcohol and ciggerettes. Even with the tax the people hooked on the stuff would still be pating less money because they wouldn't have a dealer making huge markups on the stuff. They'd be saving money, the government would have more money, and organized crime would have substantually less money.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Thanks Essex for allowing this to continue. Although my position differs from yours, it's my hope that it does not detract from our relationship.

A good point by Qbob in that the definition of marriage must be settled upon before we can continue. Let's see what we can come up with in discussing the "nature of marriage". I would offer the point that it is redundant to feel one's "rights" are being annulled because of a label. In truth, the issue of *** marriage is not one about tolerance - it is about the fundamental nature of marriage.

We have heard the "traditional definition of marriage", and this term I am also against. Indeed, we will have posters citing sources about how X and Y cultures had this and that different definition of marriage, so that is foolhardy. I am concerned as to how our *** friends here would react negatively to being excluded from an institution that is ordered to a specific purpose. What makes a civil union different than a marriage? I would say that people - of both sexual orientations - like the idea of marriage because the term adds a sense of stability, union, and permamence to a given relationship. Yet, why should those who are not looking for marriage, be upset at being denied it? Let's look at the differences between "civil unions", and "marriages". Let's see if we can distinguish them in terms of relationship, rather than socioeconomic benefits from the government.

[BhsCrew]

Graav Wolfsong, not once in the Bill of Rights does it say a thing about homosexual marriage. It is not taking away a freedom. Homosexuals never had the freedom to marry a member of the same sex. They could, and still can, marry someone of the opposite sex. The same right that I have. I can't marry someone of the same sex even if I wanted to. No one has that right in America.


You're right. There is currently no right in the constitution for gays to be able to marry. The debate about G ay marriage is more similer to interracial marriage. Everyone used to have the right to marry someone of their own group but to marry another race was illegal. No one had that right. Some people felt that it was ok to allow people of two different races to marry and it eventually spread.

Right now it is illegal to marry someone of your own gender. No one has that right. However in some places people feel it is ok to allow to people of the same gender to marry. The view has already spread somewhat. More people believe it now then they did ten years ago. What happens with it now is anyone's guess, but if history is any indicator it will eventually be legal on a national scale.

On a completely unrelated note should be able to say the word g ay on these forums. I mean it's not even a bad word. I could use any word as an insult but if you ban it all you're saying is that I'm right and it is an insult. The best way to make g ay not an insult is to not treat it like one. Let us use the word! I think we should be able to put it to a vote and have all the *** people on this forum decide whether they want it banned or not.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Legalization won't help these people at all but it also won't hurt them


Than which is more favorable? If these cancel themselves out, who else will be affected? My argument is other people, as well as a devaluing of those already affected, as a result of lax laws that do not regard the problems of drug addiction.


It has been my experience that everyone who wants the stuff can get it. The only question is how much will it cost them and who they have to go to. I've never seen a person not be able to get any stuff that they wanted.


Irrelevant. You can get it, sure. But with regulation, it's all the more available.


I don't desire more drug use, I hate drugs and what they do to people.


Than how can you argue against me?


The fact that drugs would be slightly easier to get would be a downside.


I still fail to see how.


However, most people I know who have tried drugs have used them and then quit and gone on with their lives. A few people will get hooked for long periods of time and it ruins their lives, but most the people I know who are hooked on pot (for example) are also hooked on booze.


Still, this clause has no relevance to the argument.


People who get addicted easily and have weak will (I'm not saying the two are connected) are likely going to get hooked on something regardless of whether it's legal or not.


If they indeed have a weak will, than we should not promote its use by deeming it worthy of regulation.


I don't see how there would be any major increase in the bondage and suffering.


more users = more additictions = broken lives.


There would be a major drop in the violence which has hardly been short term. We already tax addictions. There are huge taxes on both alcohol and ciggerettes.


Emulating a problem in one area with another only makes things worse. If everyone jumped off a 50 story building, would you? That's what you're saying here.


Even with the tax the people hooked on the stuff would still be pating less money because they wouldn't have a dealer making huge markups on the stuff. They'd be saving money, the government would have more money, and organized crime would have substantually less money.

Here's an idea - how about we confiscate the criminals, AND the money? I like that idea :).

[BhsCrew]

Here's an idea - how about we confiscate the criminals, AND the money? I like that idea :).

I don't think what the country is doing right now is working. I believe legalizing some of the drugs would have bad effects but it would get the cartels of the business and then we could try to lessen the bad effects with regulation much like how we regulate cigs and booze. We also would have an easier time setting up support groups because people would be more likely to admit to doing to something legal. I would like to remove drugs completely from society but I don't think that can be done without turning this country into a police state.

We already proved that making alcohol legal was better then having it be illegal. I don't see how drugs would be any different.

[Essex]

but that's the thing aoa, I don't care about the title. For me it's all about the benefits, just call us really close friends so long as I get the same rights as someone who is married is. If they dont' do that then they need to remove all benefits of marraige because obviously there are some people who are not allowed to enjoy those rights.

I don't know its a tough subject but I'm not going to hold it back by crying that if its not marraige it isn't the same. I think the term civil union and marragie exist so that one religion doesn't feel its being imposed upon. Marrage is a religious cermony I'm not asking them to force preists to marry two men, I understand the problem there. However I see no problem with a judging recognizing the legality of my relationship.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I don't think what the country is doing right now is working.


We've come to what's truly at stake when we read this statement. Not working according to whom? It would be a mistake to generalize what works for everyone with your own understanding. I have argued against it because we indeed agree that drug use causes problems. The less access and recognition, the less trouble for everyone.


I believe legalizing some of the drugs would have bad effects but it would get the cartels of the business and then we could try to lessen the bad effects with regulation much like how we regulate cigs and booze.


If we remove the cartel's clients, we remove the cartels. It's all about being free within.


We also would have an easier time setting up support groups because people would be more likely to admit to doing to something legal.


Again, no drug users = no need for support groups.


I would like to remove drugs completely from society but I don't think that can be done without turning this country into a police state.


On our present course in society, a police state may be inevitable.


We already proved that making alcohol legal was better then having it be illegal. I don't see how drugs would be any different.

I've commented on this already. I could tell you how narcotics are infinitely more addictive and destructive than beer, but that's not the point here. The point is doing what we can to eliminate the promotion of dangerous vices like drug use.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

but that's the thing aoa, I don't care about the title. For me it's all about the benefits, just call us really close friends so long as I get the same rights as someone who is married is.


Is it truly just for the benefits alone? Surely, the fact that my own identity limits me from an old age pension cheque or funding for a disability does not elicit a fierce emotional reaction. I would think it were something more, wouldn't you? Your identity is shown to be linked with the titles you claim to reject.


If they dont' do that then they need to remove all benefits of marraige because obviously there are some people who are not allowed to enjoy those rights.


I would say that the system of benefits for marriages had to do with what marriage was seen to be orderd to - namely, raising a family and its associated costs. Of course, there are *** couples who adopt, but at least in canada, we have our own funding for adoption and child support that is independent from marriage.


I don't know its a tough subject but I'm not going to hold it back by crying that if its not marraige it isn't the same. I think the term civil union and marragie exist so that one religion doesn't feel its being imposed upon.


At least in canada, there is not much concern about imposing against religion. In fact, Bill C-250 which is about to be passed, will make sections of the bible hate literature, since it denounces sodomy as a sinful act. Marriage is ideally a life-union which includes raising a family. This elicits additional benefits for that expressed purpose.


Marrage is a religious cermony I'm not asking them to force preists to marry two men, I understand the problem there. However I see no problem with a judging recognizing the legality of my relationship.

Indeed, it is legally recognized under "civil union". I personally don't see why that should cause any problems - at least it wouldn't if I filled your shoes.

[BhsCrew]

I've commented on this already. I could tell you how narcotics are infinitely more addictive and destructive than beer, but that's not the point here. The point is doing what we can to eliminate the promotion of dangerous vices like drug use.

The promotion of them would be severly limited if it was legalized. If we put the same advertising ban on drugs as is currently on cigarettes in the US, then there would actually be less promotion of drugs. Organized crime would no longer be promoting it and legally advertising it would be illegal.

Drug use would most likely rise some, but the crime connected with smuggling and dealing it would heavily decrease. I also don't think that drug use would rise a large amount because getting drugs is already relatively easy in many parts of the US.

I don't think you'll find many people in the US who believe that the war on drugs is working. It's about as effective as the war on alcohol was during prohibition. The results go up and down but whenever a drug leader falls a new one takes his place. We need to change something.

[BhsCrew]

Indeed, it is legally recognized under "civil union". I personally don't see why that should cause any problems - at least it wouldn't if I filled your shoes.

Essex is gone currently but I think I can answer this question. The main thing that Essex has mentioned that he wants added to civil unions is the ability for his partner to get citizenship and stay in the country. I don't know what a civil union gets you in Tennesee (where Essex is from), but it obviously doesn't give his partner citizenship.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Bhs - I'll be interested to see what changes take place in canada, as some of these changes has already taken place. In vancouver for instance, we have regulated drug injection cetres for heroin addicts, and posession of less than 15 grams of pot (which equates to about 45 average-sized joints) will not result in a criminal record. The long and the short of it is - yes, it is still available, and anyone can get it. This debate could well continue forever on that issue. I would propose however that something must be done on a spiritual or personal level to deal with these issues in a more salient fashion.


EDIT - Re: Bhs on civil union - I didn't know he had that issue. Well, perhaps they could amend some text on the civil union legislation.

[BhsCrew]

Bhs - I'll be interested to see what changes take place in canada, as some of these changes has already taken place. In vancouver for instance, we have regulated drug injection cetres for heroin addicts, and posession of less than 15 grams of pot (which equates to about 45 average-sized joints) will not result in a criminal record. The long and the short of it is - yes, it is still available, and anyone can get it. This debate could well continue forever on that issue. I would propose however that something must be done on a spiritual or personal level to deal with these issues in a more salient fashion.
.

I agree personal changes that must be done. It doesn't matter what we do with it as long as there is still a large demand for it. I was just trying to find a way to cut a lot of the violence connected with it out.

I would like to know what happens in Canada with that. I know some countries in Europe have legalized some stuff and I was hopeing a person from one of them might be here and have some input on what the effects of that are.

[BhsCrew]

EDIT - Re: Bhs on civil union - I didn't know he had that issue. Well, perhaps they could amend some text on the civil union legislation.

I personially think that it's past time that the US government had a form of legal marriage that was seperate from religious marriage. I think that the best fight for the g-ay marriage advocates would be to try to fight for civil unions being the same legally as marriage. They would find much more support for that, then they would legalizing g-ay marriage just because of the religious and social connections to marriage.

[Essex]

i agree my fight has always been about legal rights, I honestly do not care what the title is. Even when I was younger and thought I was straight (hahaha) I never saw myself as getting married. Marraige is a failed experment as far as I'm concerned. Few animals in nature are life partners (not wanting to get that debate going again though lol) and I don't see why humans think we should be. Is it romantic yes, but I really think it's a rare rare thing to find someone you can be with your whole life.

Yes my parents divorced lol (i'm sure that was the next qustion) but it didn't bother me, hell I wanted my parents to divorce because I knew they were staying together for me and hurting themselves in the process.

In TN I can't even get a civil union, there is only one state where a homosexual couple can recive the same benefits as a hetrosexual couple and that's Vermont. However no state other than vermont recognizes that union, so unless you live in vermont its a useless piece of paper. To be honest I don't even know if Civil Unions include the citizenship benefits, I'd have to look that up.

I'm a-ok with civil unions it makes the best sense to me, I know as a *** man I"m willing to compromise so long as the other side is too :)

As to what a marragie is for yeah it use to be about those things, and in some parts of the world it is, but for a long long time it was a politcal tool, or a monetary thing. It was only after the Industrial Revolution that marriage really became about love, and even then it was only in the west.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Essex, If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to hear about how you discovered you were ***. I know it's a bit personal, but if you could share, that would be swell. If not, I understand completely.

[Essex]

Ah it's no problem for me at all.

Let me see... umm just a little background I guess. Growing up I was always really embarrassed around people, male or female. I was just always socially awkward. But for some reason, I guess from too much TV, I knew that I should like girls. So I would develop these little crushes on like the most popular girl in school and eventually she'd find out and I'd be all embarrassed, and they wouldn't talk to me anymore lol that was my first sign at being a social pariah I guess.

Anyway so that social ineptitude found me never having had a girlfriend, or even that many friends who were girls. But because I was very anxious around boys I didn't have many of those friends either, so I just had this loose connection of friends that in hindsight never were my friends, I just found people who I thought wouldn't hate being around me too much lol.

Anyway so fast-forward to seventh grade. It's around this age that people really start finding the opposite sex attractive and have little boyfriends and girlfriends, and of course I had none of that. There was a girl I "liked" but I realize now that I picked these people who were so far out of my league that I wouldn't really have to worry about what would happen if they said "sure I'll go out with you" so I had a few male friends who I more and more just started to find attractive...

It's hard to explain, all those "feelings" I use to have for the girls I "liked" I was now having these same feelings for various guys in my classes but these feelings were intense, they felt real. I think the other emotions I had were more of a wanting to connect and I was just misreading them for something else.

One moment that really stands out in my mind was there was this really attractive guy who was like captain America ya know? Football team, basketball team, ect. So this guy gets "pantsed" ya know someone runs up and pulls down your pants leaving you in your underwear... well I saw it happen, and I was very very interested if you catch my drift.

So I hated myself for a little while after that, I just knew it wasn't right and so I forced it down and hid it from myself. I wouldn't acknowledge these feelings at all except for the occasional dream and well... I don't want to get graphic but "moments of weakness" if you need further explanation I can do so through P.M.

So I get into high school and I'm still just a mess I don't know what I am. I know what gays are but I'm not like them at all. I had only the stereotypical view of *** men the drag queens, the freaks basically and I knew that wasn't me. So I just kept these feelings locked away until I met this one kid named Brandon.

Wow Brandon... I hadn't thought about him in years, now there's no love story here, he didn't come out to me in a tearful scene and I come out to him and we fall in love. In fact I rarely ever talked to him, but his presence had an effect on me. He was what I was looking for in a person, he was really wild and out there.... like while everyone here liked country he was into Beck and other alternative bands, and he had long hair, and he was just well the antithesis to anything in my high school and I fell for him.

So I finally get the internet and that really opens things up for me I was free to look up homosexual websites (not porn but informative ones) and I logged onto #*** on an irc client, there was just two guys in there and they never said anything to me, but I left in a hurry not liking I was there... and it sent this auto message thing that said "what are you running from?" I guess they do that as a joke to the homophobes or something, but it really clicked for me.

What was I running from? I didn't have a religious background I wasn't afraid of hell. I didn't want to be more different then I already was but I finally accepted it. Of course it was slow and I thought I was bi-sexual for a long time, but that was due to a close relationship with a girl named Kathlina. She was just like Brandon, but a girl, perfect! However she was dating someone so we were only friends, but everyone thought I was in love with her and I thought I was too... I now realize that was my first f.ag hag :) the Grace to my Will if you would have it...

Well long story short I noticed that I no longer looked at girls at all except in the "wow that's a cute outfit" sort of way, and I pretty much looked at boys as lust objects, so I dealt with it, all on my own.

I did finally find my perfect man, but not until I was 20. My boyfriend who just left was my first date, kiss, relationship, ect. That's what is making this so much more painful. I honestly think he's the only man who could ever love me for numerous reasons but my weight no doubt is one of them...

God I rambled on and this is a huge post... anything else you want to know?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Woah, that's alot - thanks for sharing. To be frank, I like to look for the roots in everything. It's my belief that there really is no "***" or "straght", but a continuum of desire that we eventually name in favor of a stronger attraction etc. I would like to know more, but I don't wish to impose like some kind of psychoanalyst. If you're still cool with it tho, let me know. Thx.

[Essex]

Aoa perhaps it'd be best if we spoke on aim or something like that, don't want to subject these people to the tortures of my life story lol

[George Bush]

heh so many things to respond to :D.
lets get started.
the legalizing drugs thing first i guess.

i brought that up because when you basicly compare the pro's and cons of it being legal and illegal you come up with a stalemate in its current state. both sides have truly equal weight unless something radical were to occur.

for example you could turn up the war on drugs and anything harmful at all for that matter and turn things into a police state wich would do a huge ammount of things to reduce a great number of things bad with society but then you are left with killing freedom and a bunch of pissed off people who will eventually blow up the government.

or you could legalize it , tax and regulate it, and hope people get enlightened enough to realize they dont want it.even if they do you can use the money we throw at the problem in its current form and treat them and use the extra for other uses like homelessness or new medicines.

also i was only thinking of "natural" drugs like pot . or even less harmful ones . use some of the money you make from taxation of the pot and products made from the plant to go into programs to hunt for and eliminate those hugely harmful drugs.

why not take the bad situation and turn it into something positive ? "when life gives you lemons... make lemonaide."

[BhsCrew]

Aoa perhaps it'd be best if we spoke on aim or something like that, don't want to subject these people to the tortures of my life story lol

Thanks that was actually really interesting. Keep any discussion on the forums. If people don't want to know they don't have to read it. :)

Oddly enough my name is Brandon. Weird coincidences.

[George Bush]

now for the *** marriage issue.
AoA we could argue for a lifetime on definitions (and we would both enjoy it alot i bet :D).
you and essex are right about not forcing people to declare it by any type of name only to just recognize it legally and have it have the same benifits enjoyed by male/female "marrigaes".

i guess its emotions after the hell *** people have went through and all the horrible things that have gone on that leaves a distaste in my mouth when people call them civil unions. i guess call it what you will but either way at least make it so all people reguardless of gender or color have the same legal rights as each other.

i think you and i are on the same page AoA its been a while since ive found another like myself.

[Essex]

lol ok aoa I don't mind to answer anything else but of course I can't gurantee full disclosure..

yeah GB I'm just tired of the fight I guess... if there was nice middle ground I'd jump at it for the moment. I understanding wanting to "win" marriage, but deciding on civil unions would be nice lol.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

i think you and i are on the same page AoA its been a while since ive found another like myself.

I take it you're referring to my note on the "continuum" of orientation. I've spent a long time mulling over human nature, etc. I truly believe we will settle for one label over another eventually. Also, it helped that I've known some very insightful *** people in my time, who have affirmed this perspective. I see no homosexual inclinations in myself for instance, but I believe that could be different had my life turned out in a different manner.

[George Bush]

ive spent a huge ammount of time in my own life as well :D.
sides dennys serves good coffee and the late night discussions there get interesting.

[BhsCrew]

I take it you're referring to my note on the "continuum" of orientation. I've spent a long time mulling over human nature, etc. I truly believe we will settle for one label over another eventually. Also, it helped that I've known some very insightful *** people in my time, who have affirmed this perspective. I see no homosexual inclinations in myself for instance, but I believe that could be different had my life turned out in a different manner.

Yeah that fits with what the people I've talked to as well. I got to know a fair abount of g ay people just because I grew up in Berkeley (for those of you who don't know where that is, it's right accross the bay from San Francisco). Personially I'm straight but as far as I could tell it could easily have worked out differently.

Man where's the opposition? What's the world coming to when all four of us agree on something? I thought it would never happen. :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

lol ok aoa I don't mind to answer anything else but of course I can't gurantee full disclosure..


Naw, u dont have to - I can't bring myself to ask someone to put their life on display. As I began telling GB, this "contunuum" of orientation I believe has its roots in our earliest days - early childhood, and in some cases, prenatal development. The relation of child to parent and the surrounding world would, IMO, lay the groundwork for determining one's desires etc. I was curious about the relationship you had with your parents, since you mentioned they "stayed together for you". This I find interesting, as a child learns patterns of love by observing the parents. I believe one's orientation brgins with observing this kind of dynamic, and the many *** people I've discussed the matter with are in agreement. What do you guys think?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Man where's the opposition? What's the world coming to when all four of us agree on something? I thought it would never happen. :)

Good stuff Bhs. This was what I was hinting at over on the other thread. I believe that if everyone digs deep enough, peels away the layers of individual preference in perception, and has a desire to find the truth, everyone will come to the same conclusion.

[Essex]

i see where your kinda going aoa. Well I should rephrase that my parents didn't stay together for me, my mom hates to admit defeat and my dad was never at home so it was never an issue lol...

my parents were just not right for each, she was a liberal hippie and he was a gun toting NRA memeber who liked country music and was slightly raciest... I really don't see how that ever happened. She just hated to get a divorce thinking it would devestate me when in fact that's what I wanted for a long time.

I think that it's a mix of natuer and nurture to be honest with you, perhaps I was born with a greater chance of being *** and it was fueled by the fact I had a close relationship with mom and none at all with my dad.

But then I know guys who are very close to their fathers, had the ideal upbring and still turned out *** so who knows lol.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yep, it would be a mistake to just blanket generalize the issue. Still, every effect has its cause. Indeed, it is strange how some people get together, I guess that's what I call providence ^^.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Graav Wolfsong, not once in the Bill of Rights does it say a thing about homosexual marriage. It is not taking away a freedom. Homosexuals never had the freedom to marry a member of the same sex. They could, and still can, marry someone of the opposite sex. The same right that I have. I can't marry someone of the same sex even if I wanted to. No one has that right in America.

Youre right on one point, its not taking away a freedom since they never had it, so let me rephrase: It is denying a freedom, a right that should be shared by all.

So let me get this straight? (no pun intended lol)
You actually need to see a phrase like "Same sex marriages are allowed" in the Bill of rights in order to realize denying homosexual people the right to marriage or something equalent is unconstitutional?

Then lets take a closer look at the 1st amendment:

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Notice the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part.
Now tell me, the reasons for denying homosexuals the right to marry, might that have something to do with religious beliefs?
It very much does.
Is that making a law that respects the establishment of a religion?
I would say that it is.
Hence a violation of the Bill of rights.

Or is it in your mind supposed to be "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion other than Christianity" ?


The only thing I have to say about religion is that your view of Christianity could be called hateful.

Exactly where in my post do I come off as hateful? Hateful?!

There is nothing I would like more right now than to launch a volley of derogatory remarks at you for making an ignorant, totally uncalled for, remark like that.
But since this has been one of the more civil threads on such a touchy subject I've ever seen, I instead just bit my tounge really really hard and focus on the pain to take my mind off your previously mentioned comment.

I do in fact have strong negative feelings towards Christianity, well not Christianity but the practitioners of Christianity and their display of total lack of tolerance for people who have chosen an alternative lifestyle Christians consider 'sinful'.

But I on the other hand, as a Buddhist, tolerate and accept other peoples views, faith and sexual preference. I am in no way hateful of others and even suggesting otherwise with absolutely nothing to back it up is very offensive.
You have no idea how much that comment upset me.

Please dont turn this into yet another religious thread, I just had to get that off my chest.


And you are right about very short marriages here in America. To be honest, I really don't even want to talk about homosexual marriage till we clean up what would be called normal marriage here.

Yes, lets do something about the mockery 'normal' people make of marriage before we even consider looking at the stance on homosexual marriage 'issue' that is INFINETELY more important.
Hey, lets all hide from things we dont feel like dealing with.

Let me make a rather bold statement: I would think you are a Christian, and that the thought of *** men disgusts you but at the same time, you find a pair of beautiful lesbian lovers very very interesting.
Am I close? It is pretty much the standard among 'ignorant' or 'unenlightened' (for lack of better words) men around the globe.
Get out of the hole youve dug in the ground and realize were living in the 21st century, we should not have these problems, we should have gone past this a long time ago.


My point is, church and state is not the same thing, and it should never be.
Letting religious beliefs and some mens ridiculous insecurity allow the government and much of the populace treat homosexuals the way they have is just shameful.
AND, were talking about common sense here, in a country thats based on freedom and equal rights, the treatment homosexual people have gotten is downright unconscionable.
Will it get better, probably, but like the race issue it will linger for a long time.

Sorry if I came off overly harsh but ... jeeez. :(

[Graav Wolfsong]

Sorry for dragging religion into this but you cant ignore the fact that religion is the number 1 problem homosexual people face in America.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I do in fact have strong negative feelings towards Christianity, well not Christianity but the practitioners of Christianity and their display of total lack of tolerance for people who have chosen an alternative lifestyle Christians consider 'sinful'.


Hi there. Just thought I'd put my two cents in since this pertains to me. I've been a practicing Christian for the last 7 years, and I have no problem hanging out with Essex and GB, or discussing these things. I've also got some *** friends, who are practicing Christians. I do indeed hold that sodomy is sinful, but "***" is really just a label, as we've been discussing before. All of us are called to holiness, and each of us has a different path.

[Essex]

well I think Gravv was talking to the Jerry Falwells of the world there ya know what I mean?

[Dementor]

Please leave religion at the door; it has nothing to do with this. This is a social issue, not a spiritual one. And yes, believe it or not, marriage has signifigance far beyond any given faith.

This thread was started to make a point; even the most isolated and unique cultures value marriage, even in a situation where one would assume marriage would take a different form, it doesn't. Marriage has a specific role in society, a specific role in how our brains are wired; the very idea of marriage determines how we deal with our own inner conflicts.

Now, that's not to say g_y marriage couldn't work; we don't know that. However, it's foolish to treat marriage like a legal technicality. G_y people desreve every happiness, and I truly believe that, but understand that we need to proceed with caution when tampering with something as deeply ingrained in our cultural psyches as marriage.

Essex, what happened to you was inexcusable. However, you also have to understand that your fight was not for the right to marry. You sought marriage (by your own admission) as a means to an end, of finding a way for your BF to stay. The problem here is not that you couldn't be married, but that you had to be married to stay together. It's the fault of this country's inhumane treatment of non-citizens, not the fault of marriage.

On the other hand, you have a damn good point; had you been a female, there would be no problem. You would be married, and he'd still be with you right now. Again, inexcusable.

My feelings on this issue are mixed, you know that. Still I wish with all my heart that you didn't have to go through that, one way or the other.

[Essex]

Please leave religion at the door; it has nothing to do with this. This is a social issue, not a spiritual one. And yes, believe it or not, marriage has signifigance far beyond any given faith.

This thread was started to make a point; even the most isolated and unique cultures value marriage, even in a situation where one would assume marriage would take a different form, it doesn't. Marriage has a specific role in society, a specific role in how our brains are wired; the very idea of marriage determines how we deal with our own inner conflicts.

Now, that's not to say g_y marriage couldn't work; we don't know that. However, it's foolish to treat marriage like a legal technicality. G_y people desreve every happiness, and I truly believe that, but understand that we need to proceed with caution when tampering with something as deeply ingrained in our cultural psyches as marriage.

Essex, what happened to you was inexcusable. However, you also have to understand that your fight was not for the right to marry. You sought marriage (by your own admission) as a means to an end, of finding a way for your BF to stay. The problem here is not that you couldn't be married, but that you had to be married to stay together. It's the fault of this country's inhumane treatment of non-citizens, not the fault of marriage.

On the other hand, you have a damn good point; had you been a female, there would be no problem. You would be married, and he'd still be with you right now. Again, inexcusable.

My feelings on this issue are mixed, you know that. Still I wish with all my heart that you didn't have to go through that, one way or the other.
thank you very much Dementor that means a lot :)

I will say it again, I don't care what you call it marraige or whatever, just allow for the same rights.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

This is a social issue, not a spiritual one.

Every issue has sipritual underpinnings.

[Bartleby]

Yeah, the government hasn't kept marriage very sanctified, but I would like to say that the Catholic Church has not dropped its view on marriage and its sanctity.
True, but there focus is on premarital counseling now.
The Catholic Church does not believe in divorce, only Annulment. Annulment however is very rare, and only occurs when some drastic trait in the other person is suddenly brought forward, and in cases like that, the Church believes that the couple was never truly married..
Wish it were true, but sadly it's false. The Catholic church hands out annulments like they were going out of style(at least in the US). The justification you ask? My partner(or I) never gave themself(myself) fully to the marriage nor intended to therefor the marriage was never really valid.

[Bartleby]

When deciding whether or not to allow homosexual marriage a couple of issues that are often brought up are usually the least relevant.

1) Nature v Nurture. We're talking about whether or not they should be allowed to marry, not why they are homosexuals.

2) It's an afront to organized religion. Not really. The government can only choose to recognize civil marriages, it cannot compel religious institutions to marry anyone. That is the church's choice.

3) They'll ruin the foundation of marriage. This is a spiritual issue (the sanctity of marriage through the filter of religion), which again is up to the churches to make available to homosexuals.

4) The US was founded on Christian beliefs. Okay, but the founders while very much christian really didn't want the government to get involved in religious matters and vice versa. The Constitution is designed to be simple and flexible so that it can evolve with the social climate of the times by means of reinterpretation in order to remain relevant. It is not an uwaivering edict.

Find me the passage in the Constitution that says homosexual marriage shall not be recognized by the government of the United States of America or any of her territories?

Look I'm not a fan of homosexuality, I don't find anything attractive about a guy's rear, but that's just me. I'm sure homosexuals feel the same way about heterosexuals. But that's not the issue. The issue is they have every right to a civily recognized marriage, and as for religiously recognized marriages, that one's up to the churches.

IMHO marriage and voting should be a privilege not a right (all hail the aristocracy) because on the whole, people are stupid and behave accordingly. Your gender or sexual persuasion doesn't predispose you to these acts of stupidity, they appear to be learned behaviors. As such, they need to be unlearned (is that a word?) before one could be allowed to participate in marriage or voting. Now that'd protect the sanctity of marriage and make for more informed voters.

[Essex]

When deciding whether or not to allow homosexual marriage a couple of issues that are often brought up are usually the least relevant.

1) Nature v Nurture. We're talking about whether or not they should be allowed to marry, not why they are homosexuals.

2) It's an afront to organized religion. Not really. The government can only choose to recognize civil marriages, it cannot compel religious institutions to marry anyone. That is the church's choice.

3) They'll ruin the foundation of marriage. This is a spiritual issue (the sanctity of marriage through the filter of religion), which again is up to the churches to make available to homosexuals.

4) The US was founded on Christian beliefs. Okay, but the founders while very much christian really didn't want the government to get involved in religious matters and vice versa. The Constitution is designed to be simple and flexible so that it can evolve with the social climate of the times by means of reinterpretation in order to remain relevant. It is not an uwaivering edict.

Find me the passage in the Constitution that says homosexual marriage shall not be recognized by the government of the United States of America or any of her territories?

Look I'm not a fan of homosexuality, I don't find anything attractive about a guy's rear, but that's just me. I'm sure homosexuals feel the same way about heterosexuals. But that's not the issue. The issue is they have every right to a civily recognized marriage, and as for religiously recognized marriages, that one's up to the churches.

IMHO marriage and voting should be a privilege not a right (all hail the aristocracy) because on the whole, people are stupid and behave accordingly. Your gender or sexual persuasion doesn't predispose you to these acts of stupidity, they appear to be learned behaviors. As such, they need to be unlearned (is that a word?) before one could be allowed to participate in marriage or voting. Now that'd protect the sanctity of marriage and make for more informed voters.
lol. That's funny, I sorta agree (in a joking matter not sincerly) that marraige, voting, and the having children, should require some sort of test to make sure you have the mental capacity to do so. If you cannot then you should not be allowed to do either because lets face it Stupidity is spreading faster than any disease known to man.

I should also say that I find no problem with hetrosexuals in fact I sorta owe my life to two of them. I'm also not incapable of finding beauty in the female form. I actually find many women to be beautiful however I do not desire them I can find find them attractive, understand?

I think that's one thing that hetorsexual men deny themsevles. You could easily look at another man and recognize the fact that he is attractive without immedaitly wanting to sleep with him. Straight women do this all the time and they aren't turning to lesbians automatically (no matter how much you may want them to) :)

[BhsCrew Temp]

Straight women do this all the time and they aren't turning to lesbians automatically (no matter how much you may want them to) :)
Well that is a damn shame. :)

Though I agree with the rest of your post. I can easily say that a guy is attractive because I just use the same scale I use to judge whether I'm attractive. It doesn't mean that he makes me hot, it just means I could assume that people who would be so inclined would like him. Of course my scale might be completly different from someone else's scale.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

True - beauty is a transcendental value - so we can see beauty in both sexes, but in's in our psychology I believe that we tend to one or the other - or both.

[Bartleby]

Alright fine, but I'm not gonna call a guy a pretty unless he shaves his can. There is nothing attractive about a fuzzy bum.

[Essex]

Alright fine, but I'm not gonna call a guy a pretty unless he shaves his can. There is nothing attractive about a fuzzy bum.
i will agree with you there ;)

[SpiritWalker]

Didn't read everything, just gonna give my 2cents.

Homosexual isn't natural, I know it sounds harsh but that's the way it is, doesn't mean I hate or don't accept people who are. Animals being homosexual, also not natural, it's all just some genes that split up badly during the whole process of the creation of the human or animal. (yes it is proven it is a gene, have no links, but I consider the news a reliable source)

Also the a reply to the whole Tribe and Trojan and stuff thing, that's morals forced upon a person, just like it is in some countries forced upon people that being ghey is bad and evil. Human kind can be like that sometimes.. most of the time..

[BhsCrew Temp]

Didn't read everything, just gonna give my 2cents.

Homosexual isn't natural, I know it sounds harsh but that's the way it is, doesn't mean I hate or don't accept people who are. Animals being homosexual, also not natural, it's all just some genes that split up badly during the whole process of the creation of the human or animal. (yes it is proven it is a gene, have no links, but I consider the news a reliable source)

Also the a reply to the whole Tribe and Trojan and stuff thing, that's morals forced upon a person, just like it is in some countries forced upon people that being ghey is bad and evil. Human kind can be like that sometimes.. most of the time..

What is natural? As far as I know natural is just something that happens in nature, unless you got a better definition. Homosexuallity happens in nature so it is natural.

I'm not saying that something being natural makes it good or bad, as we have laws banning many things that are natural. Most of these laws are harldly considered bad laws (for example a husband isn't allowed to kill all kids that his wife has from a previous marriage. I don't think you'll find many people arguing that we should change that.)

[SpiritWalker]

What is natural? As far as I know natural is just something that happens in nature, unless you got a better definition. Homosexuallity happens in nature so it is natural.
Nature screwing up isn't natural. Again no offense.

[BhsCrew Temp]

Nature screwing up isn't natural. Again no offense.

How do we figure out what is an error and what isn't? There is no proof yet that homosexuallity is caused by an error in genes.

Nature itself can't screw up because it isn't a sentient being. For it to screw up by creating homosexuals we would have to assume that it had a goal to create heterosexuals and failed to reach its goal. Nature is just what we call everything that we don't directly control. Anything that isn't man-made is called natural.

[SpiritWalker]

Firstly, it is proven it is a gene.
Secondly, it is a screw up of nature. When a person is made it begins with the sperm cell from a male and the egg from a female, when they merge they start dividing. When in this process an error occurs normally nature will correct it, the human cell has certain counter meassures to correct such errors, but sometimes that doesn't work and genes end up ****ed up. Thus nature made a booboo, thus it isn't natural, nature screwing up isn't natural as nature didn't have it plan out the process to work like that. And yes it is nature's goal to create heterosexuals. As homosexuals can't reproduce and thus are not productive to the species.

[BhsCrew Temp]

Firstly, it is proven it is a gene.
Secondly, it is a screw up of nature. When a person is made it begins with the sperm cell from a male and the egg from a female, when they merge they start dividing. When in this process an error occurs normally nature will correct it, the human cell has certain counter meassures to correct such errors, but sometimes that doesn't work and genes end up ****ed up. Thus nature made a booboo, thus it isn't natural, nature screwing up isn't natural as nature didn't have it plan out the process to work like that. And yes it is nature's goal to create heterosexuals. As homosexuals can't reproduce and thus are not productive to the species.

Where is it proven that it is a gene? There has been a few ideas thrown around but I've never heard of anyone being able to prove what causes homosexuality.

It is to the evolutionary advantage of the species to have more heterosexuals. It is hardly the goal of nature because nature doesn't have goals. It's just a process.

Also many animals have homosexual tendancies but still have sex with the opposite gender and so they still produce lots of offspring. There the homosexuality isn't even counter productive from an evolutionary standpoint so I can't see how it would be against nature then.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

How do we figure out what is an error and what isn't?

Spiritwalker was right in saying you "screwed up" nature. Nature is not simply "something that happens in nature". Anything "can" conceivably happen, but not every action is per se correctly ordered in the cosmos. A given thing in nature is directed to a specific purpose, and error comes in when that thing fails to fulfill its purpose in action.

[BhsCrew Temp]

Spiritwalker was right in saying you "screwed up" nature. Nature is not simply "something that happens in nature". Anything "can" conceivably happen, but not every action is per se correctly ordered in the cosmos. A given thing in nature is directed to a specific purpose, and error comes in when that thing fails to fulfill its purpose in action.

I don't want to get into a debate on whether or not there is one true natural order or purpose. We already know that we can't resolve that one. You will continue to believe that nature has a purpose and I will continue to believe that it just exists and we pretend that it has a purpose. That isn't the main thing I was contesting anyway.

What I am looking to resolve is the claim that there is proof that a gene causes homosexuality. I would like to see some mention of that proof as I've read a fair amount and I've never heard of that actually being proven.

[Bartleby]

I wish I could remember who said it, but the idea is nothing exists that doesn't have a need or a purpose. The very fact that it exists means that it has a purpose.

And of course the counter argument is the nihilistic point of view that nothing exists for a purpose and that there is no purpose to life save to accept the reality that there is nothing beyond our temporary existence.

The possibility of errors arise when those who believe in an ultimate purpose (like myself) attempt to know the mind of God and determine whether or not a subject has failed it's purpose. But we are fallible, so the fact is we really don't know, we can only reason, ultimately making our best guess.

As for the nihilists, it's a non-issue as nothing has a purpose.

[Bartleby]

Something that would be easier to resolve is the claim that there is proof that a gene causes homosexuality. I would like to see some mention of that proof as I've read a fair amount and I've never heard of that actually being proven.The only proof I remember hearing of is that men have large hippcampus' and women's are small. A study of cadavers found that homosexuals have a hippocampus size that is closer to their opposite gender (ie somewhere in the middle but leaning toward the opposite sex).

I don't know how credible it is though.

[BhsCrew Temp]

The only proof I remember hearing of is that men have large hippcampus' and women's are small. A study of cadavers found that homosexuals have a hippocampus size that is closer to their opposite gender (ie somewhere in the middle but leaning toward the opposite sex).

I don't know how credible it is though.

Yeah I'm waiting for SpiritWalker to come back because he said he was really sure he had proof that it was genes that caused homosexuality.

[Eiger]

Trying to say whether or not homosexuality is natural or not depends on how you define "natural" and everyone's got a different description. You'll find companies who make natural foods tend to interpret it rather liberally, hehe. Bring out the lawyers!

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (I deleted the ones that really didn't at all apply):
1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nature) b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nature)
6 : of or relating to nature (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nature) as an object of study and research
7 : having a specified character by nature (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nature) <a natural athlete>
8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nature) : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>

From Dictionary.com:

Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

<LI type=a>Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people. <LI type=a>Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=naive).
Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
Faithfully representing nature or life.
Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).
Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
Additionally, many people view "natural" as that which exists on its own outside of human manufacture or influence.

While the typical course for a heterosexual species is to produce members which are heterosexually inclined, and that produces the greatest chances of further reproduction or fitness, homosexual members are also produced. True?

One can argue that it's the species nature to create primarily and far more abundantly, members who are heterosexual. That it's natural to do so and that an anomaly is an error.

From a statistical perspective, say species A produces 1,000 offspring each year over the course of a thousand years. And each year 5% of those offspring are not heterosexual. One can argue that it's typical or natural - even though it may not be in the species best interest - to produce homosexual offspring. This fits most of the definitions above as well.

But it can be argued not to fit, too:

Established by moral certainty or conviction - don't know that that applies to animals, but I suppose the case could be made.
Not altered, treated or disguised - you could argue that the individual organism was not altered, but you could argue that its genes were altered, but does that require an altering agent? Naturally altered or not? Does that make a difference?
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature - on one hand the normal course of nature would be to produce heterosexuals and usually that's what happens. On the other hand nature usually produces 95% hetero and 5% homosexuals. What's "usually" mean?
Anyway, I'd say whether or not it's "natural" can be argued in both directions and both ways can be seen as natural - or not.

Me? I'll just argue that from any typical cohort of a given species, you'll find x% of them to be homosexual.

[SpiritWalker]

Yeah I'm waiting for SpiritWalker to come back because he said he was really sure he had proof that it was genes that caused homosexuality.
I am not gonna proof anything to somebody who argues me on the fact that he thinks that nature doesn't have a purpose.. guess that's 3 years of biology class out the window in 1 sentence from you. :rolleyes:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

We already know that we can't resolve that one. You will continue to believe that nature has a purpose and I will continue to believe that it just exists and we pretend that it has a purpose. That isn't the main thing I was contesting anyway.


That's just plain intellectual laziness on your part.

[Eiger]

Interesting. I agree with BhsCrew that there's no purpose behind nature and rather that it just is. And that we layer meaning on top of it. However, I don't consider myself a nihilist.

Now before this gets ugly, hehe, I'll just say that I don't know jack about nihilism other than having read Fathers and Sons and a little Nietzsche many years ago. I did, as expected find this, uh, pablum :wink2: hehe, on nihilism in case anyone's interested in a quick synopsis: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm

Nihilism, in fact, can be understood in several different ways. Political Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.

I'm definitely not a political nihilist, nothing in common with that. While I don't think there are absolute moral or ethical values, I certainly believe that there are those values within and among cultures and I don't think that good and evil are nebulous. And while I don't think that life has intrinsic meaning, I do believe it has great value.

Basically my point is that you can believe that nature is chaotic rather than ordered and purposeful and not be nihilistic. Of course - if everyone believed this we might have some serious social problems...

Question for AoA - what would the philosophy for such a belief system be? I just hate the idea of being lumped in with the nihilists. Ick!

[AgeOfAbnegation]

It could be said that there really is no such thing as Nihilism. Even Nietzsche wasn't really a nihilist if you read him close enough. Some may find this suprising, but I have several of his texts. In truth, there is no belief system without its contents. As with any skeptical platform, one cannot doubt something without believing something else. Indeed, one's asserted belief system outlines the filtration system for belief itself. So, Eiger is right to say he's not a nihilist without believing there to be a purpose for nature.
Further still, the modes of skepticism, as outlined by its creator, sextus empiricus, dictate that skepticism is essentially a witholding of the "process of knowledge", and these limits are imposed by one's values. Nietzsche, as demonstrated in his "genealogy of morals", did not trash morality per se, but supressed its affects in favor of his new asserted position - that of "will to power". So, he wasn't really a nihilist because he could give no concrete argument for nihilism (as indeed nobody can), rather, he was more dogmatist than skeptic in his approach.

[Andarcel]

I think "meaning" as it's used in that definition is practically synonymous with "value." However, it's hard to be sure, because meaning is such a fuzzy term.

If there are no absolute moral values, good and evil must necessarily be nebulous. If I believe human sacrifice is sacred and you believe it's abominable, clearly we can't both be right unless good is really quite vague.

BTW, AoA, I still don't buy teleological arguments :p. For oen thing, no one's ever given me a good way of determining what's purposeful and what isn't without it coming down to individual judgment.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Andarcel - That was Nietzsche's point in "beyond good and evil". However, teleology is indeed a belief of yours, which is "hidden" amid the other contents of your understanding as I gather. Since you seemed to go along with my other arguments on older threads pertaining to God, speculative reason, structure, etc, it's inherent that you must also agree with a universal teleology. It's a hot topic even in contemporary circles, with R. Rorty (who I'm arguing against in my thesis) denying it. Yet, he has no solid argumentation. He just flatly denies it, as a toddler would throw a temper-tantrum. In truth, "teleology" is simply the inherent purpose or worth in what is already in existence, as Eiger and Bhs pointed out. It's just there, which implies purpose in itself. Only J.P. Sarte was foolish enough to note that existence preceeds essence. This is wrong, as to have the quality of existing, one must have an essence to exist, or a nature of being. Since this can readily be defined, it follows through the relations of beings, that there is an inherent structure in which these things exist, which mirrors the indivudual structre of the thing itself. Of course, following that back far enough, we have their creator - God.

[Andarcel]

One can agree with purpose in Nature as an instrument of God's purpose, but that still begs the question: how do we know God's purpose? How do we know which parts of Nature are accidental or incidental, and which are part of the divine plan? Teleology thus ceases to be teleological at all; it consists of the judgment that God is good, and therefore we should endeavour to find out what the deity wants with us. The whole puzzle simply becomes finding out what God considers good rather than what Nature considers good, and therefore natural phenomena drop out of the equation altogether.

But there's a deeper flaw in relying on God to salvage teleological morality. If God and good have a separate meaning, then God could in theory be evil. Let's take an illustration of this:

Consider for a moment what would happen if you heard a voice in the night, telling you that you should take a chainsaw and begin murdering little children. You would conclude one of two things: either a) that's not God, or b) that He had some larger purpose that justified the command, as with Abraham. In reaching those conclusions you never doubted however that killing children in a torturous fashion is intrinsically evil, and remains so no matter what God tells you; if you carry out the commandment, it is only because you trust that the outcome will be so good in YOUR eyes (as well as God's) that it would justify the means. If God told you that, on the contrary, the real reason was simply that He delighted purely in the killing of innocents in the most gruesome manner imaginable and convinced you that this was no test, you would repudiate even God, in your heart if nowhere else.

Thus, once again, we find it's your individual judgment at work. And that's where all teleological arguments ultimately wind up.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

One can agree with purpose in Nature as an instrument of God's purpose, but that still begs the question: how do we know God's purpose?


Purpose in nature IS God's purpose.


How do we know which parts of Nature are accidental or incidental, and which are part of the divine plan?


Even accidents are derived from substance. All is part of the big picture. Accidental and Incidental are labels we place on occurences that elicit a reaction within us that is against our individual value system. "what is normal" for instance. Some would claim life itself is an accident, but it still "is".


Teleology thus ceases to be teleological at all; it consists of the judgment that God is good, and therefore we should endeavour to find out what the deity wants with us.


It is teleology, as accidents are part of the picture. Teleology cannot be anything but teleology - the concept is gleaned from nature.


The whole puzzle simply becomes finding out what God considers good rather than what Nature considers good, and therefore natural phenomena drop out of the equation altogether.


One cannot really say anything "good" about nature, only that it exists, which is an objective good. From this, we can glean that God considers it good, in its act of existing.


But there's a deeper flaw in relying on God to salvage teleological morality.


In order to salvage something, that thing first must be in disarray. If nature "is", objectively, who is it that labels it in err? Certainly, not God, but man. The key is to suspend value judgment, and seek the metaphysics of the matter.


If God and good have a separate meaning, then God could in theory be evil. Let's take an illustration of this:


God per se, and Good per se, cannot differ. Yet, in our relationship to both, we can mistake them.

[SpiritWalker]

BHS said nature is a process, well, a process always has a goal (purpose) to produce a product, preferably an error free one. Maybe nature in a whole doesn't specifically serves a purpose, but are we talking about 'nature' here? No, we aren't, we are talking about nature's subprocess, the making of a human being. When 2 people have sex and a spermcell and an eggcel come together they start a process, a process which follows guidelines, when these guidelines are broken an error occurs, usually this is fixed, but when it is not, the product, a human is flawed. Those are facts, don't try and make it so that nature is a subjective something that you can decide wether nature has a purpose or not, because it isn't everything in nature follows certain processes and thus has a purpose.

And saying that homosexuals aren't a threat for the surviving of a species is complete BS, just turn every human into a homosexual and let's see how long our race will survive, naturally.

[Eiger]

And saying that homosexuals aren't a threat for the surviving of a species is complete BS, just turn every human into a homosexual and let's see how long our race will survive, naturally.
But homosexuality is only a threat if you turn every human being into one and no one reproduces. If homosexuals did in fact comprise 95% of the human population of roughly 5.5 billion, then there are still 275 million humans left to reproduce. Only if those 275 million kept producing homosexuals at an astounding rate would we be in danger.

As the current percentage of gays (male and female) in America is somewhere between 1% and 15% I'm thinking the survival of the human population is not at risk from homosexual behavior. Conversely, those who advocate lower populations should be glad we have them... hehe.

PS - thanks for the info on nihilism AoA. These conversations are actually helping me define my personal philosophy somewhat.

[SpiritWalker]

But homosexuality is only a threat if you turn every human being into one and no one reproduces. If homosexuals did in fact comprise 95% of the human population of roughly 5.5 billion, then there are still 275 million humans left to reproduce. Only if those 275 million kept producing homosexuals at an astounding rate would we be in danger.

As the current percentage of gays (male and female) in America is somewhere between 1% and 15% I'm thinking the survival of the human population is not at risk from homosexual behavior. Conversely, those who advocate lower populations should be glad we have them... hehe.

PS - thanks for the info on nihilism AoA. These conversations are actually helping me define my personal philosophy somewhat.
Quoting you is annoying.. :scratch:

Anyway, it's not the fact that it will happen , because it won't, humans are too intelligent for that and it's pretty impossible, animals on the otherhand. However it still doesn't change the fact that it is a negative characteristic for the species, it is totally counter-productive and it isn't in the 'design' of the human being. A human is build to reproduce, having it not like subjects of the other sex is against nature, because every creature alive is build to reproduce. You can argue all you want but it is a biological fact that being homosexual is against nature.

[Dementor]

And saying that homosexuals aren't a threat for the surviving of a species is complete BS, just turn every human into a homosexual and let's see how long our race will survive, naturally.

Sickle Cell Anemia

It's a genetic disorder common to African (and some south Asian) populations, caused by a recessive gene. This desease created (or did in the past) an effective dead end evolutionarily; those with the disorder would not live long enough to reproduce.

So why has this disorder not simply been bred into obscurity?

As it turns out, while someone with two ordered pairs in support of Sickle Cell Anemia will die young because of the desease, those with one ordered pair for and one ordered pair against will recieve a positive benefit, a high resistance to malaria, with is an often lethal desease common exactly where Sickle Cell Anemia is widespread.

So it turns out, evolution deteremined that it was worth it for a percentage of the population to die young if it meant the majority of the population would be resistant to malaria.

Now, there is strong evidence (not proof, you'll note) that Homosexuality is linked to a recessive gene, and it certainly creates a severe impediment to that individual's reproduction; like any desease with this sort of impact, it sould be highly uncommon simply due to natural selection. However, about 12% of the population of America is homosexual.

So perhaps, like Sickle Cell Anemia, there is some passive benefit to being a "carrier" of the homosexual gene (assuming that it's even caused by a gene, which is still uncertain.)

[Eiger]

Quoting you is annoying.. :scratch:

Anyway, it's not the fact that it will happen , because it won't, humans are too intelligent for that and it's pretty impossible, animals on the otherhand. However it still doesn't change the fact that it is a negative characteristic for the species, it is totally counter-productive and it isn't in the 'design' of the human being. A human is build to reproduce, having it not like subjects of the other sex is against nature, because every creature alive is build to reproduce. You can argue all you want but it is a biological fact that being homosexual is against nature.Assume everything you say is true. The end result is still that the species continues on just fine because homosexuality is a relatively low occurrence phenomenon. In the end it just doesn't matter very much. It's been around for a long long long time and will continue. Not much you can do about it unless every nation legislates, funds, and enforces genetic engineering to wipe it out. And I don't think I'd want to live in a world with mandatory genetic engineering.

[SpiritWalker]

Sickle Cell Anemia

It's a genetic disorder common to African (and some south Asian) populations, caused by a recessive gene. This desease created (or did in the past) an effective dead end evolutionarily; those with the disorder would not live long enough to reproduce.

So why has this disorder not simply been bred into obscurity?

As it turns out, while someone with two ordered pairs in support of Sickle Cell Anemia will die young because of the desease, those with one ordered pair for and one ordered pair against will recieve a positive benefit, a high resistance to malaria, with is an often lethal desease common exactly where Sickle Cell Anemia is widespread.

So it turns out, evolution deteremined that it was worth it for a percentage of the population to die young if it meant the majority of the population would be resistant to malaria.

Now, there is strong evidence (not proof, you'll note) that Homosexuality is linked to a recessive gene, and it certainly creates a severe impediment to that individual's reproduction; like any desease with this sort of impact, it sould be highly uncommon simply due to natural selection. However, about 12% of the population of America is homosexual.

So perhaps, like Sickle Cell Anemia, there is some passive benefit to being a "carrier" of the homosexual gene (assuming that it's even caused by a gene, which is still uncertain.)
MAlaria is a desease, a thing that triggers certain processes in your body that shouldn't be trigered or makes the body respond the way it shouldn't. The fact that Sickle Cell Anemia works negative on malaria has nothing to do what is the 'right' order of build for the human body. Malaria is a parasite, this parasites works counter productive for the human and thus isn't natural for them (so are all deseases). Sickle Cell Anemia works counter-productive for the species because it causes iron shortage in the blood, which causes bad oxygen absorbtion and the shape of the red blood cells causes veins to clutter, this all works counter productive to the species and thus is unnatural for them.

Being homosexual is the ultimate form of counter-produtivity, since most ghey men and women, will never have or even consider having a child with the opposite sex.

But this all is from a biological point of view. For instance from a social point of view I will say that every person is equal and has every right to live as they please, no matter how biologically flawed they are.

[SpiritWalker]

Assume everything you say is true. The end result is still that the species continues on just fine because homosexuality is a relatively low occurrence phenomenon. In the end it just doesn't matter very much. It's been around for a long long long time and will continue. Not much you can do about it unless every nation legislates, funds, and enforces genetic engineering to wipe it out. And I don't think I'd want to live in a world with mandatory genetic engineering.
I see none of you really had any real biology, because this is all pretty basic stuff I'm talking about. A member of a species has a characteristic which is negative to it's reproducing abilities or works negative in its enviroment, etc is not 'build' properly.

Example: Snow rabbits and normal rabbits, in the winter the snow ones have better camouflage thus have better chance at surviving and reproducing, but in the summer the normal rabbits have the advantage, because they are brown and then their camouflage is better. This all doesn't mean that Snow rabbits can't survive the summer, or the normal ones can't survive the winter. Still isn't good for normal rabbits to live in Alaska for instance, because they will certainly be more hunted, because they are so much more easily spotted by predators. But this example doesn't contain bad genes, this is more evolution.

Also it doesn't matter one bit what the ratio of the 'desease' is, it works negative for the member of the species, in terms of survival, thus it isn't the way it was meant to be, thus against nature.

[Eiger]

I see none of you really had any real biology, because this is all pretty basic stuff I'm talking about. A member of a species has a characteristic which is negative to it's reproducing abilities or works negative in its enviroment, etc is not 'build' properly.

Example: Snow rabbits and normal rabbits, in the winter the snow ones have better camouflage thus have better chance at surviving and reproducing, but in the summer the normal rabbits have the advantage, because they are brown and then their camouflage is better. This all doesn't mean that Snow rabbits can't survive the summer, or the normal ones can't survive the winter. Still isn't good for normal rabbits to live in Alaska for instance, because they will certainly be more hunted, because they are so much more easily spotted by predators. But this example doesn't contain bad genes, this is more evolution.

Also it doesn't matter one bit what the ratio of the 'desease' is, it works negative for the member of the species, in terms of survival, thus it isn't the way it was meant to be, thus against nature.
Actually, my bachelors degree is wildlife biology, so I'm reasonably well informed. I agree with what you say regarding the effect on the individual's reproductive fitness. No doubt about it. However, this is more an issue of population dynamics. And from that perspective it really isn't a very big deal. As long as enough members of the species do reproduce to continue a viable and plentiful gene pool, it doesn't much matter if a few of them are homosexual.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I agree with spiritwalkers points of "design". Yet, I believe the crux of this comes down to values (big suprise there eh?). Even if everyone were of the homosexual orientation, we could still preserve ourselves as a species by means of artificial insemination, or growing babies in tubes, w/e. (sorry, I don't know the jargon). Yet, I firmly believe that the "nuclear family", or traditional family is the most beneficial way to nurture a child's needs, as well as the family as a whole. It's all about the correct ordering of love, so that we can use our resources properly.

[Andarcel]

Purpose in nature IS God's purpose.
That's what I just said. It leaves the problem of determining either God or nature's purpose untouched.
It is teleology, as accidents are part of the picture. Teleology cannot be anything but teleology - the concept is gleaned from nature.
Then you have just ended all meaning in teleology; for if anything obsered in Nature is part of the purpose, and any outcome a result of that purpose, then Nature is simply nature, a collection of facts without moral meaning. God loves AIDS and bunny rabbits and life and annihilation and empty void all with equal, impartial fervor, and there is no moral prescription for anything at all; for anything you do must necessarily be part of the "plan," if such this random glorification of everything in existence could be called.
God per se, and Good per se, cannot differ. Yet, in our relationship to both, we can mistake them.
Why not? If for analytical reasons, then the notion of good means nothing but what God likes, and God could like the holocaust and loath love and make it by definition "good." If for synthetic reasons, you are obligated to produce the reasons why. Read "Euthyphro."

[Bartleby]

Before anyone goes after AoA's family values comment and gets this train off topic, I'd like to ask anyone who wants to discuss family values please make a new thread. I'd hate to see an interesting debate on homosexuality by design or decision and the implications of said debate on society and our greater purpose (if their is one) get side tracked. I haven't weighed in much on this topic, but it's a good read.

[Andarcel]

I see none of you really had any real biology, because this is all pretty basic stuff I'm talking about. A member of a species has a characteristic which is negative to it's reproducing abilities or works negative in its enviroment, etc is not 'build' properly.

Example: Snow rabbits and normal rabbits, in the winter the snow ones have better camouflage thus have better chance at surviving and reproducing, but in the summer the normal rabbits have the advantage, because they are brown and then their camouflage is better. This all doesn't mean that Snow rabbits can't survive the summer, or the normal ones can't survive the winter. Still isn't good for normal rabbits to live in Alaska for instance, because they will certainly be more hunted, because they are so much more easily spotted by predators. But this example doesn't contain bad genes, this is more evolution.

Also it doesn't matter one bit what the ratio of the 'desease' is, it works negative for the member of the species, in terms of survival, thus it isn't the way it was meant to be, thus against nature.
But as I just observed, you aren't relying on facts of nature but your judgment. Thus, you throw around normative terms like "properly" and "supposed to be" which are quite absent in nature. Even if one conceded that homosexuality worked against the species, which is quite obviously wrong, still one would ask why that imposes a moral consideration on us or implies a purpose in nature. Nature doesn't care if species are preserved or not; it periodically wipes the slate clean with a remarkable lack of discrimination. Our geological history is a record of catastrophic extinctions. The preservation of species obviously can't be nature's "goal;" it's a lucky accident when it happens, and as with all luck, it eventually runs out. That is nature. To talk of homosexuality as "unnatural" because it works against species preservation (which in this overpopulated world it clearly doesn't) and yet to consider asteroids "natural" is blatant nonsense.

So, of course, you wind up creating a Nature, which has purpose, as opposed to nature, which contains Nature but also accidents like our own inevitable extinction. Nature, because it is a reflection of divine will, in theory has moral force (although it doesn't, for the reasons I outlined two posts ago.) But nature does not. Thus, you have to judge what you want in Nature. You want to put species preservation as part of a plan, but the ice age or disease that causes extinction you consider accidental.

So how do you know what belongs in Nature? You don't. You simply put things there because you already believe in them, then turn it around and try to argue that Nature proves that aspects of nature are unnatural. It all exists inside your own head. Someone else could conclude that the absence of life is really Nature, because it is by far more common than the presence of life, and therefore say that anything that contributes to the end of a species is really natural, and anything that prelongs it is unnatural. And so around and around we go, on the merry-go-round of teleology.

I could point out other problems ad nauseum, such as the fact that the next most intelligent lifeforms on this planet (dolphins and chimpanzees) practice homosexuality nigh constantly, or the fact that your reasoning implies that barren women shouldn't have sex, but I think I'll just leave you with the DSM-IV. It tells us that since the 1970s, it the opinion of the American Psychological Association that homosexuality is not a disease. When you have a Ph.D in psychology, you are welcome to argue the issue with them. Until then, I suggest you stop using terms without actually knowing what they mean.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

That's what I just said. It leaves the problem of determining either God or nature's purpose untouched.


What do you mean when you speak of "purpose"?


Then you have just ended all meaning in teleology;


Plz state your definition of teleology.


for if anything obsered in Nature is part of the purpose, and any outcome a result of that purpose, then Nature is simply nature, a collection of facts without moral meaning.


It would seem that you have a certain pre-established notion of purpose. Does not God will small things as well? How do you see purpose?


God loves AIDS and bunny rabbits and life and annihilation and empty void all with equal, impartial fervor, and there is no moral prescription for anything at all; for anything you do must necessarily be part of the "plan," if such this random glorification of everything in existence could be called.


The christian doctrine holds that we live in a "fallen" world. Yet, we still desire to see the purpose of God only in the good things. He still wills into existence the bullet that blasts through someone's head for instance. There will be chaos, disease, and all sorts of calamity in this world. All of temporal reality is one - the underlying fabric of the cosmos - from water to ants to wind, is essentially one dimension, with form abstracted from it. This we see in genesis "he separated light from darkness"- the separation of many from the one essence of temporal existence. The glory aspect comes in when Jesus said "this world is not my own". So in essence, all "things" have the same value on earth, including disease, but it is the soul and its interplay with reality that is of true value.


Why not? If for analytical reasons, then the notion of good means nothing but what God likes, and God could like the holocaust and loath love and make it by definition "good." If for synthetic reasons, you are obligated to produce the reasons why. Read "Euthyphro."

Jesus said "there is nobody good except your Father in Heaven". The good stands only in relation to the creator. Any event or circumstance is pregnant of the good or the evil, depending on the choices we make. Thus, I would not call the holocaust an affront against the good, but rather the decision that precipitated it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Nature doesn't care if species are preserved or not; it periodically wipes the slate clean with a remarkable lack of discrimination. Our geological history is a record of catastrophic extinctions. The preservation of species obviously can't be nature's "goal;" it's a lucky accident when it happens, and as with all luck, it eventually runs out. That is nature.


Ahh, so this is your definition. Ok. Nature per se, then has no purpose - it is nature. This I agree with. In terms of teleology, I understand this to be the "process of nature", explained in terms of cause and effect. An example of this could be the admixture of warm and cold fronts causing a thunderstorm - all is subject to causality. That is teleology in nature. As far as God is concerned, our life on earth must be to ourder ourselves in relation to him, which necessarily requests our proper stewardship of the things of nature.

[Andarcel]

The christian doctrine holds that we live in a "fallen" world. Yet, we still desire to see the purpose of God only in the good things. He still wills into existence the bullet that blasts through someone's head for instance. There will be chaos, disease, and all sorts of calamity in this world. All of temporal reality is one - the underlying fabric of the cosmos - from water to ants to wind, is essentially one dimension, with form abstracted from it. This we see in genesis "he separated light from darkness"- the separation of many from the one essence of temporal existence. The glory aspect comes in when Jesus said "this world is not my own". So in essence, all "things" have the same value on earth, including disease, but it is the soul and its interplay with reality that is of true value.
Then these "true" values are not to be found in nature; those found in nature provide no guidance one way ro the other, but only fact. The prescriptive dimension of nature is therefore not natural at all, but consists of judgments found elsewhere. It is useless to argue morality based on natural facts. The fact that homosexuality does not contribute to reproduction, for example, means nothing.

[Dementor]

MAlaria is a desease, a thing that triggers certain processes in your body that shouldn't be trigered or makes the body respond the way it shouldn't. The fact that Sickle Cell Anemia works negative on malaria has nothing to do what is the 'right' order of build for the human body. Malaria is a parasite, this parasites works counter productive for the human and thus isn't natural for them (so are all deseases). Sickle Cell Anemia works counter-productive for the species because it causes iron shortage in the blood, which causes bad oxygen absorbtion and the shape of the red blood cells causes veins to clutter, this all works counter productive to the species and thus is unnatural for them.

Being homosexual is the ultimate form of counter-produtivity, since most ghey men and women, will never have or even consider having a child with the opposite sex.

But this all is from a biological point of view. For instance from a social point of view I will say that every person is equal and has every right to live as they please, no matter how biologically flawed they are.

By your logic, nothing that effects us is "natural" Predators that might hunt us aren't natural. Prey that we catch and eat isn't natural. Water isn't natural... Surely you see that this is absurd. Of course malaria is natural. Assuming no deseases are "natural", it is unatural for humans to have white blood cells. Thus, HIV should be a boon to our people, no? They get rid of the unnatural white blood cells after all!

Also, you assume that the entire purpose of a species is reproduction, which is true; however, you then go on to assume that the purpose of each individual member of that species is to reproduce, which is where you make your error.

If an uncle has no children of his own, but helps supports his sister's children, he still has a hand in ensuring the survival of the genes that produced this behavior. Grandparents, though they are beyond reproductive age, can help raise their grandchildren, maintaining their usefulness to their genetic survival.

After all, there are bees who are utterly incapable of reproducing... surely the species would be just fine without all the workers; they can't even breed.

You have a very simplistic view of the world; try thinking outside the box a little.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Then these "true" values are not to be found in nature; those found in nature provide no guidance one way ro the other, but only fact. The prescriptive dimension of nature is therefore not natural at all, but consists of judgments found elsewhere. It is useless to argue morality based on natural facts. The fact that homosexuality does not contribute to reproduction, for example, means nothing.

Not much to remark upon, since we discussed it further on MSN. Other than facts point to purpose, AKA - "natural teleology" of causality, but we agree that the raw experience of being in nature per se elicits no certain moral direction. Design of the male and female lends itself to a certain union, but as you pointed out, one can easily separate onesself from any concrete law.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Who is homosexual in this forum?
Don't be afraid to answer. I'm a married man with a 3 year old child, but I've noticed, I seem to get along better with homosexuals than I do heterosexuals.
They're just nice people.

[SpiritWalker]

I could point out other problems ad nauseum, such as the fact that the next most intelligent lifeforms on this planet (dolphins and chimpanzees) practice homosexuality nigh constantly, or the fact that your reasoning implies that barren women shouldn't have sex, but I think I'll just leave you with the DSM-IV. It tells us that since the 1970s, it the opinion of the American Psychological Association that homosexuality is not a disease. When you have a Ph.D in psychology, you are welcome to argue the issue with them. Until then, I suggest you stop using terms without actually knowing what they mean.
Indeed no, it's not a psychological desease no, Andercel, please if you have nothing better to do then to question my expertise onba subject there are better ways to say it then this attempt of a flame. I know damn well what i am talking about you are totally missing my point. But I'll explain it better for you tomorrow.

I have never heard of dolphins practicing homosexual acts and chimpansees just act on sexual impulses, they will **** anything with a hole in it when they are horny, so those arguments are totally useless..

[SpiritWalker]

If an uncle has no children of his own, but helps supports his sister's children, he still has a hand in ensuring the survival of the genes that produced this behavior. Grandparents, though they are beyond reproductive age, can help raise their grandchildren, maintaining their usefulness to their genetic survival.
You are thinking too much that a human in biological terms has a higher purpose than animals, because they don't. Every and I mean every animal, including humans here, has the prupose to reproduce, that is nature. You are sidetracking to more social reasons for human existence, if I can help my sister reproduce I have done my job, wrong, biologically every being has it's purpose to reproduce. Doesn't even matter if he saves or damnes his species with this or not.

[SpiritWalker]

After all, there are bees who are utterly incapable of reproducing... surely the species would be just fine without all the workers; they can't even breed.
Are you a bee? :scratch: They have their task, their purpose. That their task is different from yours doesn't matter. You try and think more outside the box and try to take my arguments and comments a bit more open and not so close minded, because if you would have read my posts more closely you could have read that I said that every species has its purpose. In this species the tasks are divided differently, which is not the case with humans. You are just making up examples in nature which dont include my the deffinition I gave on purpose and reproducing. Nice try though.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Who is homosexual in this forum?
Don't be afraid to answer. I'm a married man with a 3 year old child, but I've noticed, I seem to get along better with homosexuals than I do heterosexuals.
They're just nice people.

To my knowledge, only Essex and George Bush.

[Andarcel]

Indeed no, it's not a psychological desease no, Andercel, please if you have nothing better to do then to question my expertise onba subject there are better ways to say it then this attempt of a flame. I know damn well what i am talking about you are totally missing my point. But I'll explain it better for you tomorrow.

I have never heard of dolphins practicing homosexual acts and chimpansees just act on sexual impulses, they will **** anything with a hole in it when they are horny, so those arguments are totally useless..
As it happens, I'm refering to MAlaria is a desease, a thing that triggers certain processes in your body that shouldn't be trigered or makes the body respond the way it shouldn't. The fact that Sickle Cell Anemia works negative on malaria has nothing to do what is the 'right' order of build for the human body. Malaria is a parasite, this parasites works counter productive for the human and thus isn't natural for them (so are all deseases). Sickle Cell Anemia works counter-productive for the species because it causes iron shortage in the blood, which causes bad oxygen absorbtion and the shape of the red blood cells causes veins to clutter, this all works counter productive to the species and thus is unnatural for them.

Being homosexual is the ultimate form of counter-produtivity, since most ghey men and women, will never have or even consider having a child with the opposite sex.

Are you trying to say you don't think homosexuality is a disease? Because it certainly looks like the opposite to me. Or are you trying to say it's not a psychological disease? In that case, you really need to look up psychological. Homosexuality is an attribute of motivation and arousal, which falls squarely into the psychological domain.

On dolphins and a boatload of other species... http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

As for chimpanzees: obviously, whether they're horny or not has nothing to do with whether their homosexuality shows that it's natural or not. What a useless attempt at a counterargument. They're horny, therefore their behavior means nothing? Please.

Oh, and I love how you skipped almost the entire post to respond to the trivial afterthought, ao this time I'll put the important part last. Apparently, you didn't understand my argument at all because you still keep throwing around this notion of "purpose" like it existed outside of your own judgment. Once again, I see no reason not to believe that nature's purpose is extinction. Therefore, by your reasoning, everything that contributes to extinction is good, everything that works against it is bad. Every human being that reproduces is denying its ultimate destiny, which is death and species destruction. That's nature's plan; and it will be carried with perfect inevitability, one way or the other.

So I guess we should all become homosexual, huh?

[Essex]

So I guess we should all become homosexual, huh?

Goddamn right you should. It'd help me when it comes to finding a date on friday nights... lol joke joke joke.

Anywho me and GB are ***, there was one guy on the *** marraige thread around the last few pages who posted that he was ***, but to be honest I haven't heard or seen him since.

I got a pm from a guy on the diablo fourms (don't think he's ever posted here) who was saying he was sorry for my loss and that he was in a similar situation. I know of one person who is bisexual on this fourm but I won't say who that is because they may not want it public knowledge.

Until the time that more homo's come on this fourm I guess me and GB are the official whipping boys lol.

Ya know I pretty much just skimmed over the last few pages of the thread, it became a philosphy debate (ya know aoa everyone tells me I turn all threads into *** threads, but you turn them all into Philosphy ones!) also ther was the whole nature thing which if it was anyone other than SW would have probably upset me, but I know SW is a good guy, just arguing his point of view.

So I got nothing to add... it's more fun when we talk about the socological impact because I tend to have a little more to say and a little more knowledge in that area, but then again all my views are a wee bit one sided.

Anyway carry on.

[SpiritWalker]

As it happens, I'm refering to

Are you trying to say you don't think homosexuality is a disease? Because it certainly looks like the opposite to me. Or are you trying to say it's not a psychological disease? In that case, you really need to look up psychological. Homosexuality is an attribute of motivation and arousal, which falls squarely into the psychological domain.

On dolphins and a boatload of other species... http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

As for chimpanzees: obviously, whether they're horny or not has nothing to do with whether their homosexuality shows that it's natural or not. What a useless attempt at a counterargument. They're horny, therefore their behavior means nothing? Please.

Oh, and I love how you skipped almost the entire post to respond to the trivial afterthought, ao this time I'll put the important part last. Apparently, you didn't understand my argument at all because you still keep throwing around this notion of "purpose" like it existed outside of your own judgment. Once again, I see no reason not to believe that nature's purpose is extinction. Therefore, by your reasoning, everything that contributes to extinction is good, everything that works against it is bad. Every human being that reproduces is denying its ultimate destiny, which is death and species destruction. That's nature's plan; and it will be carried with perfect inevitability, one way or the other.

Andercel do you even read my posts or just the things you wanna see? Firstly, I have never said that it was a psychological thing. You try and prove first then that it is, because last time I checked to my knowledge the human body, including its brain, is made up out cells with DNA in them. DNA which contains how processes of the human body work, a stimulance to the brain causes a reaction of processes which causes a person or animal to get aroused (hormones).
Secondly the fact that animals also have homosexual members proves what point exactly?
Third, you love how I skipped most of your post? Oh so I guess I didn't say that I would respond later then? That I didn't say "But I'll explain it better for you tomorrow". No, of course I didn't, because it wasn't 3am and I wasn't dead tired, and I didn't see a dumb post totally missing the point in my posts.
Fourth, seriously do you even read my posts? I am constantly saying that the purpose of every species is to try and have its species survive, not damn itself. I am constantly saying that it is every member's job (in nature) to reproduce, with the exception of some species who have members that are asexual.

So I guess we should all become homosexual, huh?

Nah, just you.

[Eiger]

I am constantly saying that the purpose of every species is to try and have its species survive, not damn itself. I am constantly saying that it is every member's job (in nature) to reproduce, with the exception of some species who have members that are asexual.

Yes, it's in the best interests of each species to survive and reproduce and also the best interest of each individual (from a reproductive fitness perspective) to reproduce. If some individuals don't, it doesn't matter - as long as sufficient numbers of individuals do reproduce. Remember - many individuals get eaten by other species among other things before achieving sexual maturity.

Anyway, this is getting seriously circular. Unless you come up with something new...

[SpiritWalker]

Yes, it's in the best interests of each species to survive and reproduce and also the best interest of each individual (from a reproductive fitness perspective) to reproduce. If some individuals don't, it doesn't matter - as long as sufficient numbers of individuals do reproduce. Remember - many individuals get eaten by other species among other things before achieving sexual maturity.
You keep missing the point, it doesn't matter wether or not there are enough species to reproduce. But I tire of trying to keep explaining this, so I am gonna quit this tiresome discussion. Cheers :drink:


Anyway, this is getting seriously circular. Unless you come up with something new...
I will not, because you just won't understand my point.

[Dementor]

I will not, because you just won't understand my point.

No, we understand. It's just a dumb point.

[SpiritWalker]

No, we understand. It's just a dumb point.
Wow, astounishing, such an intelligent reply. If you have nothing usefull to say, keep your mouth shut.

[Eiger]

Wow, astounishing, such an intelligent reply. If you have nothing usefull to say, keep your mouth shut.
It's about all that's left to be said. We understand your point clearly. It's not a difficult one. It just leaves out the most relevant stuff. Conversely, we could also say that you don't understand our points. But I think you do and largely choose to ignore them and continually re-state your same point. Hence the circularity. Why don't we just say we disagree or such and leave it at that.

[SpiritWalker]

Why don't we just say we disagree or such and leave it at that.
Well I think I made that pretty clear in my response to your last post, and then this dumb**** had to made that last blow below the belt. Just because we disagree on certain points, doesn't mean that gives someone the right to call my point dumb.

Edit: "But I think you do and largely choose to ignore them and continually re-state your same point. Hence the circularity."
I didn't ignore them and I didn't 'continually' re-stated the same point, I was eloborating, because people kept attacking the same arguments and points I made, that can happen in discussions you know.

[Dementor]

Well I think I made that pretty clear in my response to your last post, and then this dumb**** had to made that last blow below the belt. Just because we disagree on certain points, doesn't mean that gives someone the right to call my point dumb.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I simply felt the need to correct your misinterpritation of practically all the posts in response to yours; you thought we don't understand your point, but now you know that it's not true. We just think it's a stupid point.

Which it is.

[SpiritWalker]

I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I simply felt the need to correct your misinterpritation of practically all the posts in response to yours; you thought we don't understand your point, but now you know that it's not true. We just think it's a stupid point.

Which it is.
Well, frankly I don't give a **** what you think anyway.

[Dementor]

Well, frankly I don't give a **** what you think anyway.

And that's what makes you so special.

EDIT: nm, it doesn't.

[Dementor]

Hrm... SW's been writing his reply for a LONG time...

Is he gonna be mean to me?

EDIT: or he might actually be doing some research for the argument at hand.

*inserts foot in mouth*

[SpiritWalker]

Ok, I'm sorry but I just have to give these links. (people questioning me on that it is not a gene that causes homosexuality)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0im1v/donettesteelepsychology/id86.html
http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/blackbox.htm
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/origins/1995/homosexuality.is.in.your.genes-06.27.95

Although the specific gene hasn't been found yet, it is pretty obvious that being a homosexual is biologically orientated.

First link for Andercel that the psychology of the human has little to nothing to do with it.

[Dementor]

Although the specific gene hasn't been found yet, it is pretty obvious that being a homosexual is biologically orientated.

I agree, but what's your point?

[SpiritWalker]

I agree, but what's your point?
Read the piece of text between the brackets.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

You know, alot of people say that homosexuality is not natural, and there could be a case made for this. However, you really have to look at the BIG picture. The only thing that is constant in ANYTHING is that not everything is perfect and everything changes, and there are always exceptions to what we perceive to be normal.
I truly believe that homosexuals do not "choose" to be so. This would be saying that they were a heterosexual before they were a homosexual....how could this be? I'm sure a guy that loved being with women before didn't just get up one morning and say...."you know what!! I think I wanna be homosexual!!" It's surely a chemical thing, maybe a little environment, but mostly biological.
But look at the big picture....these things are only what WE perceive to be normal and not normal. In the end, if nature allows it, then it can't be unnatural can it? It's totally natural for things NOT to be the same.

[Dementor]

You know, alot of people say that homosexuality is not natural, and there could be a case made for this. However, you really have to look at the BIG picture. The only thing that is constant in ANYTHING is that not everything is perfect and everything changes, and there are always exceptions to what we perceive to be normal.
I truly believe that homosexuals do not "choose" to be so. This would be saying that they were a heterosexual before they were a homosexual....how could this be? I'm sure a guy that loved being with women before didn't just get up one morning and say...."you know what!! I think I wanna be homosexual!!" It's surely a chemical thing, maybe a little environment, but mostly biological.
But look at the big picture....these things are only what WE perceive to be normal and not normal. In the end, if nature allows it, then it can't be unnatural can it? It's totally natural for things NOT to be the same.

Oh god no...

You'll just get him started again!

[SpiritWalker]

You know, alot of people say that homosexuality is not natural, and there could be a case made for this. However, you really have to look at the BIG picture. The only thing that is constant in ANYTHING is that not everything is perfect and everything changes, and there are always exceptions to what we perceive to be normal.
I truly believe that homosexuals do not "choose" to be so. This would be saying that they were a heterosexual before they were a homosexual....how could this be? I'm sure a guy that loved being with women before didn't just get up one morning and say...."you know what!! I think I wanna be homosexual!!" It's surely a chemical thing, maybe a little environment, but mostly biological.
But look at the big picture....these things are only what WE perceive to be normal and not normal. In the end, if nature allows it, then it can't be unnatural can it? It's totally natural for things NOT to be the same.
Against the natural instinct of every creature to reproduce (with the exception of certain asexual species). But we will never come to an agreement on this so I will let it rest.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Against the natural instinct of every creature to reproduce (with the exception of certain asexual species). But we will never come to an agreement on this so I will let it rest.


See you have to distinguish between what IS and how you think it SHOULD be. I'm just observing what is all around me, what actually happens, not a theoretical model.

[Andarcel]

Andercel do you even read my posts or just the things you wanna see? Firstly, I have never said that it was a psychological thing. You try and prove first then that it is, because last time I checked to my knowledge the human body, including its brain, is made up out cells with DNA in them. DNA which contains how processes of the human body work, a stimulance to the brain causes a reaction of processes which causes a person or animal to get aroused (hormones).
Secondly the fact that animals also have homosexual members proves what point exactly?
Third, you love how I skipped most of your post? Oh so I guess I didn't say that I would respond later then? That I didn't say "But I'll explain it better for you tomorrow". No, of course I didn't, because it wasn't 3am and I wasn't dead tired, and I didn't see a dumb post totally missing the point in my posts.
Fourth, seriously do you even read my posts? I am constantly saying that the purpose of every species is to try and have its species survive, not damn itself. I am constantly saying that it is every member's job (in nature) to reproduce, with the exception of some species who have members that are asexual.



Nah, just you.
Now THIS is ironic. Because, you see, I asked you what YOU meant by setting up a definition of diesease and then aplpying it to homsexuality. It appeared that if you DIDN't think homosexuality was a disease, you were contradicting yourself. So I asked if maybe it was the adjective "psychological" that gave you problems instead. Rather than simply answer no, you come back with these bizarre accusation of minterpreting your post while completely ignoring every salient point in mine.

Now it appears after all that that you DO want to argue that it's not psychological, which would be hysterically funny if you weren't so utterly ignorant of your own inconsistency. BTW, many psychological disorders are genetic. So I guess that kind of collapses the notion that being caused by a gene means it "has little to nothing to do with it." Which is why I suggested you look it up, because you don't actually understand the term clearly, as I suspected might be the case.

You're vague "I'll explain everything clearer tomorrow" could refer to anything, and in this case appears to have referred to nothing as you haven't even touched the point.

In fact, in further irony, you're totally clueless on what I was actually talking about with species extinction and thus once again commit the sin you accuse me of in spades. You claim that we can see in nature some kind of purpose which it is our duty to fulfill. I'm arguing that the "purpose" we see in nature could just as equally - and in fact more likely - be to destroy life as preserve or continue it. Your notion of purpose therefore has nothing to do with what we actually see in nature, because nature doesn't actually tell us what the purpose is. The whole point of humanity may be its extinction, and nothing you can point to in nature can establish otherwise.

This is the shallowest of the logical problems with teleology, but the rest we're clearly never going to get to. If I can get you to comprehend this one point, I'll be satisfied.

[Andarcel]

Against the natural instinct of every creature to reproduce (with the exception of certain asexual species). But we will never come to an agreement on this so I will let it rest.
See? You have no clue of your own hypocrisy. You want to use animal instincts to prove that homosexuality is unnatural, and yet when we show you examples of the numerous species with instinctive homosexuality you discard them with Secondly the fact that animals also have homosexual members proves what point exactly?

Hmm, let's start with: it's obviously NOT the natural instinct of every creature to reproduce, if some of them are without that instinct.

[PlagueBearer]

The point of this thread has never been that homosexuality isn't natural. This thread started on the assuption that it was, in fact, natural. The point of the thread, one that has been repeatedly ignored but never refuted, is that homosexual marriage is socially unprecedented. No sustainable culture in recorded history has allowed homosexual marriage, even ones that accept homosexuality entirely as ancient Greece did.

[Eiger]

Was it really necessary to exhume this rotten piece of meat?

[PlagueBearer]

Was it really necessary to exhume this rotten piece of meat?


Yes. I have to say, yes.

[Eiger]

Perhaps you could also argue that no culture in history has been sustainable. All civilizations have fallen or been absorbed into others. And this has been primarily as a result of losing a war often due to inferior technology or tactics. I don't think homosexuality can be blamed for the fall of civilizations... Well I suppose one can blame something on just about anything, hehe.

[Dementor]

You bored Plague?

While I liked this thread (it was mine, after all) I do think it's usefulness had died. Certain people (no names) decided this was a great thread to "support" his arguments by restating them over and over. Hence, the thread died, because we couldn't make him go away.

So I say let it stay dead.

[Eiger]

Ya. BTW, haven't seen that certain person in a while... Maybe this resurrection will bring him back to our little hamlet on the web. Don't worry, I'll smite myself for that one...

[Essex]

for a second I thought you were talking about me... hell you may have been :(

I second the idea that this thread should be locked and with a quickness

[Eiger]

for a second I thought you were talking about me... hell you may have been :(

I second the idea that this thread should be locked and with a quicknessNo ya silly - T.J.R - you log in everyday - couldn't be you.

[Essex]

well I was talking to dementor lol but yeah I figured it out finally lol

[Havard]

I don't get it... it looks like that guy (the nameless offender) only made a handful of posts here. Oh well, none of my business. :lol:

Essex: how could anyone not want ya around? :buddies:

[Nojin]

I found this VERY interesting atricle today in an anthropology textbook regarding a certain isolated tribe in New Guinea.

In this particular tribe, all of the males are homosexual.

Heterosexual intercourse is considered taboo, some reserved entirely for reproduction, something that happens as part of a ritual. Women who crave sex are considered witches.

However, oral sex from one male to another is considered entirely acceptable, and happens casually. It's actually considered a vital part of boyhood, to ingest a great deal of semen.

Here comes the part that I find fascinating.

In this culture, there is still marriage, of one man to one woman, and does not occur between males.

Food for thought. (no pun intended)
I have NO idea if this has been mentioned, but I read about this tribe you are speaking of in Human Sexuality (in the book Our Sexuality).

But one thing you failed to mention was that young boys are the ones giving the oral sex.

[Havard]

Ok no more continuing this thread... THIS IS THE LAST POST!

[Dementor]

I have NO idea if this has been mentioned, but I read about this tribe you are speaking of in Human Sexuality (in the book Our Sexuality).

But one thing you failed to mention was that young boys are the ones giving the oral sex.

Actually, I did mention that.

It's actually considered a vital part of boyhood, to ingest a great deal of semen

I don't see how that changes anything, however.

[Eiger]

I'm rather glad I missed that part of the conversation. Until now I guess... Thanks....