"I Still Believe Homosexuality is a choice..."

Started by Aletheia, December 04, 2014, 03:54:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dionysiou

Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 19, 2016, 07:08:35 PM
But you haven't defined what is a natural state is. All you're doing is saying "natural state" = "balanced state". Without defining properly what is "balanced state", you're back to zero.
.


The outliers cannot defined what you haven't defined in the first place. You're still stuck in neutral.


We got what, 90% of the population in humans and animals as straight?  That's the default balanced state.

Since i can already provide evidence of the benefit straight couples have in nature, it's your job to tell me how homosexuality does. So enlighten away.


Nonsensei

Quote from: Dionysiou on February 19, 2016, 07:18:02 PM
We got what, 90% of the population in humans and animals as straight?  That's the default balanced state.

Since i can already provide evidence of the benefit straight couples have in nature, it's your job to tell me how homosexuality does. So enlighten away.



90% of people are also right handed. I there's something wrong with left handed people, by your "logic".
And on the wings of a dream so far beyond reality
All alone in desperation now the time has come
Lost inside you\'ll never find, lost within my own mind
Day after day this misery must go on

Mike Cl

Quote from: Dionysiou on February 19, 2016, 06:27:03 PM
Cope.
Cope?  Yeah, I do--I let go of a little ignorance on a daily basis--it is amazing what science and curiosity can uncover.  Seems, tho, that you and coping are having a harder time.  You read a very narrow band of opinion and adopt it as the 'truth'--and you seem to think you are not so easily duped.  What can I say?????  There are none so blind as the blind that denies their blindness.  When I was growing up, lefthanded children were taught to use their right hand in everything so that their left-handedness could be fixed.  You are still back in those days.  Why don't you try reading some rudimentary biology.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

stromboli

It has been observed in primate groups- monkeys and chimps- that homosexual members play a role in both nurturing and caring for individual members of the social group not their offspring. There is the famous story of a homosexual gorilla couple that adopted an orphan and cared for it to adulthood.

Gays don't contribute through providing offspring, but in a social group they can fulfill other roles that benefit the group. A society of primates is a fairly complex group- they have interactions very similar to a human tribe in terms of defining leadership, certain members that serve to gather food, others watch the tribe and so on. They may not play a central role in a social group, but they do serve to fill in and provide support for the group.

Consider also that they have contributed in a large way to human society. Some of the more famous LGBT people:

Socrates
Christopher Marlowe
Michelangelo
Leonardo da Vinci
Francis Bacon
Shakespeare
Hadrian (as in the wall)

Oscar Wilde
Quentin Crisp
Harvey Milk
Gertrude Stein
Alice Toklas

Alexander the great (Monarch)
Leonardo da Vinci (Architect, painter, inventer...go on)
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky(composer)
Pietro Aretina (playwright)
Walt Whitman (writer)
Samuel Butler (writer)
Oscar Wilde (novelist)
Michelangelo (architect, sculptor)
George Rose (politician)
James Ivory (mathematician, scientist)

Alan Turing (pretty much invented computers)

And some others not on here. You can make the case that heterosexuals could be just as productive, but apparently they do not in themselves represent a detriment to society. And there is yet more to be learned, so in that respect the jury is still out.

They have been productive members of society historically and have contributed. So they do serve a function, though maybe not by your set of rules. 

Hydra009

Quote from: Dionysiou on February 19, 2016, 07:08:17 PMhomosexuality provides no function outside of pleasure.
(Ignoring for a second the attempt at reducing romance to mere pleasure) So?  Lots of things humans do provide no utilitarian benefit.

Dionysiou

Quote from: Nonsensei on February 19, 2016, 07:39:46 PM
90% of people are also right handed. I there's something wrong with left handed people, by your "logic".
I'm not justifying the left or right handed persons role in nature. This discussion is focused on sexual function and orientation.  I establish a baseline through what's most common and provides a reason e.g reproduction.

TrueStory

Quote from: Dionysiou on February 19, 2016, 06:52:54 PM
Homosexuals aren't to blame for their homosexuality anymore than pedophiles are to blame for their attraction to kids. It's all the same shit. Nobody wants to treat it because they want to keep it around. Mate, I used to be religious, what threat does any of this have on my worldview? None buddy boyo.
Obviously you have never studied evolutionary biology.   Ones genetic load is actually quite high when helping ones parents and siblings raise offspring, and when humans lived in smaller groups that may have had limited resources it would be beneficial to have more support raising a few offspring than to have many offspring, so being only attracted to sexual relationships that can't lead to viable offspring would help the fitness of both the parents and their offspring in those situations.  AKA cooperative breeding.

There are many examples cooperative breeding in other animals, especially birds.
Please don't take anything I say seriously.

Baruch

Dionysiou ... you are assuming that human society and human reproduction serve a useful purpose.  If they do not, then individualism and non-reproduction are superior, not inferior.  But many religious folks think very much like Darwin ... ironically ... that their purpose is to inseminate as many females as possible, in violent chimpanzee-like alpha male displays, and that the purpose is to produce the largest number of adults possible, usually young military age males.  If humans were only animals, and not something more ... then you might be right.  But then conservatives would also be right, that everything should be competition, and any sign of human compassion, of cooperation is deeply subversive and must be stamped out.  Think of the Nazi plans for Aryan women and Nazi youth ... and you get the picture.  If the purpose of humanity is to produce Nazis, then I would contend that we serve no useful purpose.

Now that was polemics.  IMHO ... people are to be both competitive and cooperative.  That moderate family life (which can come is any number of forms) is beneficial both the the people involved, and society at large.  That adopted children are proof that biological descent isn't the only way.  And that given adoption, and artificial insemination ... lesbian and gay couples are quite as productive as the dysfunctional circus provided by ordinary hetero couples.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Dionysiou

#203
Quote from: stromboli on February 19, 2016, 08:03:09 PM
It has been observed in primate groups- monkeys and chimps- that homosexual members play a role in both nurturing and caring for individual members of the social group not their offspring. There is the famous story of a homosexual gorilla couple that adopted an orphan and cared for it to adulthood.

Gays don't contribute through providing offspring, but in a social group they can fulfill other roles that benefit the group. A society of primates is a fairly complex group- they have interactions very similar to a human tribe in terms of defining leadership, certain members that serve to gather food, others watch the tribe and so on. They may not play a central role in a social group, but they do serve to fill in and provide support for the group.

Consider also that they have contributed in a large way to human society. Some of the more famous LGBT people:

Socrates
Christopher Marlowe
Michelangelo
Leonardo da Vinci
Francis Bacon
Shakespeare
Hadrian (as in the wall)

Oscar Wilde
Quentin Crisp
Harvey Milk
Gertrude Stein
Alice Toklas

Alexander the great (Monarch)
Leonardo da Vinci (Architect, painter, inventer...go on)
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky(composer)
Pietro Aretina (playwright)
Walt Whitman (writer)
Samuel Butler (writer)
Oscar Wilde (novelist)
Michelangelo (architect, sculptor)
George Rose (politician)
James Ivory (mathematician, scientist)

Alan Turing (pretty much invented computers)

And some others not on here. You can make the case that heterosexuals could be just as productive, but apparently they do not in themselves represent a detriment to society. And there is yet more to be learned, so in that respect the jury is still out.

They have been productive members of society historically and have contributed. So they do serve a function, though maybe not by your set of rules. 

Legit. I've got no vendetta against gays. It's not something I'm actively trying to change, don't care. Of course there are smart and successfull gay people in history. My point has been that I couldn't objectively give them a function in nature. You could be right about the support roles though. I get that they are born that way and can't control their sexual inclination, like many other sexual tendencies I mentioned. I'm just convinced that these inclinations are a result of something going wrong and that's why everyone is getting defensive. I'm not blaming them for it and don't expect people to begin researching a treatment. It's just another symptom of an imperfect world which is accepted. My brother is a good example of a good contribution to society, so are most gay people I meet. They are still people who deserve respect as much as anyone.


Dionysiou

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 19, 2016, 07:49:06 PM
Cope?  Yeah, I do--I let go of a little ignorance on a daily basis--it is amazing what science and curiosity can uncover.  Seems, tho, that you and coping are having a harder time.  You read a very narrow band of opinion and adopt it as the 'truth'--and you seem to think you are not so easily duped.  What can I say?????  There are none so blind as the blind that denies their blindness.  When I was growing up, lefthanded children were taught to use their right hand in everything so that their left-handedness could be fixed.  You are still back in those days.  Why don't you try reading some rudimentary biology.

Everyone's an expert right. Why are you even making a fuss? Get on with your life.

Dionysiou

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 19, 2016, 08:07:23 PM
(Ignoring for a second the attempt at reducing romance to mere pleasure) So?  Lots of things humans do provide no utilitarian benefit.

Legit. I'm not saying it has to provide more.

Dionysiou

Quote from: TrueStory on February 20, 2016, 12:10:45 AM
Obviously you have never studied evolutionary biology.   Ones genetic load is actually quite high when helping ones parents and siblings raise offspring, and when humans lived in smaller groups that may have had limited resources it would be beneficial to have more support raising a few offspring than to have many offspring, so being only attracted to sexual relationships that can't lead to viable offspring would help the fitness of both the parents and their offspring in those situations.  AKA cooperative breeding.

There are many examples cooperative breeding in other animals, especially birds.

Legit. This could be an explanation.

Dionysiou

Quote from: Baruch on February 20, 2016, 12:12:49 AM
Dionysiou ... you are assuming that human society and human reproduction serve a useful purpose.  If they do not, then individualism and non-reproduction are superior, not inferior.  But many religious folks think very much like Darwin ... ironically ... that their purpose is to inseminate as many females as possible, in violent chimpanzee-like alpha male displays, and that the purpose is to produce the largest number of adults possible, usually young military age males.  If humans were only animals, and not something more ... then you might be right.  But then conservatives would also be right, that everything should be competition, and any sign of human compassion, of cooperation is deeply subversive and must be stamped out.  Think of the Nazi plans for Aryan women and Nazi youth ... and you get the picture.  If the purpose of humanity is to produce Nazis, then I would contend that we serve no useful purpose.

Now that was polemics.  IMHO ... people are to be both competitive and cooperative.  That moderate family life (which can come is any number of forms) is beneficial both the the people involved, and society at large.  That adopted children are proof that biological descent isn't the only way.  And that given adoption, and artificial insemination ... lesbian and gay couples are quite as productive as the dysfunctional circus provided by ordinary hetero couples.

In some cases for sure. Gay couples can serve a role in society as a whole. De-population for one. Even if they didn't, it doesn't matter anyway. I'm not sure if lesbian and gay adoption is a good idea long term though. i won't get into it though.

Baruch

Quote from: Dionysiou on February 20, 2016, 12:51:23 AM
In some cases for sure. Gay couples can serve a role in society as a whole. De-population for one. Even if they didn't, it doesn't matter anyway. I'm not sure if lesbian and gay adoption is a good idea long term though. i won't get into it though.

Good enough.  I have idealistic druthers about anything other than a hetero couple, and with strong gender identities, for "proper" modeling of social assimilation.  There is an unrealized idea in this discussion ... how ordered society should be.  Some prefer it to be very anarchic, others prefer it to be very ordered.  A highly ordered society isn't forgiving of gays and other bohemians.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Dionysiou on February 19, 2016, 07:18:02 PM
We got what, 90% of the population in humans and animals as straight?  That's the default balanced state.

Again without defining was is a balanced state, your statement is meaningless.

QuoteSince i can already provide evidence of the benefit straight couples have in nature, it's your job to tell me how homosexuality does. So enlighten away.


Stomboli's post put a nail in that coffin with a list of past LGBT who contributed immensely to the advancement of our civilization.