Queer people of faith

wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Queer people of faith

As a total faggot, I sometimes wish I was born earlier, before the AIDS epidemic began. Why? Because, at that point in history, being queer also meant you were a skeptic and freethinker, if not a downright atheist. The guy you were fucking wouldn't have to take a condom out of his ass and go to church the next morning.

 

After the AIDS epidemic, we saw lots of gay men running back to faith. This is when the gay-friendly churches were founded, later to be follow by the gay Jewish and gay Muslim help groups.

 

As someone who was president of my university's queer organization, and someone who has been relatively active in the community (ie, sleeps around a a shitload), I will certainly say that queer people of faith outnumber those who are freethinkers. We even have queers who are "waiting for marriage." The only thing I'd say is notable is the high amounts of New Age faiths, such as Wicca.

 

Now, there was a good two years where my religion and my queerness overlapped, and that was because I couldn't think of a rational way to reject my religious beliefs, and my understanding of Islam had always been rather liberal anyway. But, when I did find a way out, oh boy did I jump off that boat.

 

So, honestly, for other queers here, or others with at least some vague familiarity with the community, does the high amount of religious folk these days bother you? Unlike me, not all of them want a way out of faith. Certainly they're not as dogmatic as the straight ones, but still, why do they resign themselves to religious groups, where 90% of the believers find their lifestyle and feelings an abomination, as opposed to a philosophical position that almost anyone who holds it affirms their rights? It's just moronic.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:STFU, Brian.

Sandycane wrote:

STFU, Brian. You're a day late and a dollar short, as usual.

You wouldn't recognize 'vulgar' if it sh1t in your face.

 

I knew you'd have this reaction. People often do when you put a mirror to their face.

I do know what "vulgar" means and I find it funny that you used the word "shit" in trying to tell me what "vulgar" meant.

It would be "vulgar" to shout " escargot tastes like shit" If you were at the Ritz. It is not "vulgar" merely to use a word. Otherwise if I thought it was "vulgar" for you to use the word shit in this context, I would call it vulgar.

Unlike you, I understand in this context you are merely putting an explanation point on your opinion. A wrong opinion none the less, but "shit" is merely your way of saying "Shut the fuck up". See how I can not give magic to words by not typing "STFU" and also at the same time know why you are doing it rather than demand you don't do it at all?

"Vulgar" to me is ignoring history. "Vuglar" to me is deciding for others what they can or cannot say no matter the context.

The difference between you and me is I know what context is and you don't.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
goddammit, i'm tired of this

goddammit, i'm tired of this shit!  everybody gettin fuckin' pissy and writing in CAPS all the goddamn time...doesn't anybody ever turn it the fuck OFF for two goddamn seconds (see, you got me doin' it)?

this started as a damn good thread about who likes to fuck what, and i think that's wonderful.  but then it got all shitty, like so many other similar threads here.  well, i'm takin' it back! 

ahem, as for me, gimme a beautiful blonde nordic chick with pale skin and blue eyes who can quote dylan thomas and talk soviet history, and has an enormous rack, and just watch me salivate!

now, everybody shut the fuck up if you have anything heavy to say, have a glass of wine with me (i'm on my sixth) or light up a spliff (never done it myself, but to each his own), and listen to otis motherfuckin' man redding!

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:goddammit, i'm

iwbiek wrote:

goddammit, i'm tired of this shit!  everybody gettin fuckin' pissy and writing in CAPS all the goddamn time...doesn't anybody ever turn it the fuck OFF for two goddamn seconds (see, you got me doin' it)?

this started as a damn good thread about who likes to fuck what, and i think that's wonderful.  but then it got all shitty, like so many other similar threads here.  well, i'm takin' it back! 

ahem, as for me, gimme a beautiful blonde nordic chick with pale skin and blue eyes who can quote dylan thomas and talk soviet history, and has an enormous rack, and just watch me salivate!

now, everybody shut the fuck up if you have anything heavy to say, have a glass of wine with me (i'm on my sixth) or light up a spliff (never done it myself, but to each his own), and listen to otis motherfuckin' man redding!

 

May the god of delusion bless you for getting us back on track!

I prefer Marvin to Otis though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxUWaX0Ta_Q&feature=related

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:goddammit, i'm

iwbiek wrote:

goddammit, i'm tired of this shit!  everybody gettin fuckin' pissy and writing in CAPS all the goddamn time...doesn't anybody ever turn it the fuck OFF for two goddamn seconds (see, you got me doin' it)?

this started as a damn good thread about who likes to fuck what, and i think that's wonderful.  but then it got all shitty, like so many other similar threads here.  well, i'm takin' it back! 

ahem, as for me, gimme a beautiful blonde nordic chick with pale skin and blue eyes who can quote dylan thomas and talk soviet history, and has an enormous rack, and just watch me salivate!

now, everybody shut the fuck up if you have anything heavy to say, have a glass of wine with me (i'm on my sixth) or light up a spliff (never done it myself, but to each his own), and listen to otis motherfuckin' man redding!

 

You are being vulgar. Wait, no you're not.

Me, I like Asians. But pretty much can go with any hot looking woman. Angolina Jolie. Kathrine Hepburn was hot for her time.  Both atheists to boot. Nothing hotter than that to me.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:I prefer

Sandycane wrote:

I prefer Marvin to Otis though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxUWaX0Ta_Q&feature=related

 

yes, ma'am!  awww, shit!  i can't take it!  it's so good, it hurts!

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
I saw Marvin in concert

I saw Marvin in concert about 35 years ago in Radio City Music Hall in NYC... I can't remember who my date was though.

When he did this song, he walked out on stage in a silk leopard print robe and by the time the song was finished he was only wearing silk leopard print briefs.

OMG!!!!

You talk about group sex!!! Every woman in the audience was in pure ecstasy!!! (possibly some men, too )

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:I saw Marvin

Sandycane wrote:

I saw Marvin in concert about 35 years ago in Radio City Music Hall in NYC... I can't remember who my date was though.

When he did this song, he walked out on stage in a silk leopard print robe and by the time the song was finished he was only wearing silk leopard print briefs.

OMG!!!!

You talk about group sex!!! Every woman in the audience was in pure ecstasy!!! (possibly some men, too )

I think Gauche is going to come in any minute and tell us that you must have stumbled upon a room full of sexual degenerates.

He knows about this stuff, apparently...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I think Gauche

redneF wrote:

I think Gauche is going to come in any minute and tell us that you must have stumbled upon a room full of sexual degenerates.

He knows about this stuff, apparently...

Yeah, I'll bet 98% of the women in that auditorium would have gone 'back stage' in an instant.

I know I would have.

... but, that was a long time ago.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:redneF

Sandycane wrote:

redneF wrote:

I think Gauche is going to come in any minute and tell us that you must have stumbled upon a room full of sexual degenerates.

He knows about this stuff, apparently...

Yeah, I'll bet 98% of the women in that auditorium would have gone 'back stage' in an instant.

Uh oh.

What was that?

The sound of Gauche's bubble exploding?...

Gauche wrote:
Women feel social pressure not to have sex.

 

Sandycane wrote:
I know I would have. 

You dirty gurl, you.

C'mon, nobody is that charming.

Sandycane wrote:
... but, that was a long time ago.

You must mean the right one hasn't cum along yet...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Sandycane

redneF wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

redneF wrote:

I think Gauche is going to come in any minute and tell us that you must have stumbled upon a room full of sexual degenerates.

He knows about this stuff, apparently...

Yeah, I'll bet 98% of the women in that auditorium would have gone 'back stage' in an instant.

Uh oh.

What was that?

The sound of Gauche's bubble exploding?...

Gauche wrote:
Women feel social pressure not to have sex.

 

Sandycane wrote:
I know I would have. 

You dirty gurl, you.

C'mon, nobody is that charming.

Sandycane wrote:
... but, that was a long time ago.

You must mean the right one hasn't cum along yet...

... and from my neck of the woods, chances are slim to none that he ever will. Slim pickins in my little world. But, that's okay... I've had enough excitement to last 10 lifetimes.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Sandycane

redneF wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Yeah, I'll bet 98% of the women in that auditorium would have gone 'back stage' in an instant.

Uh oh.

What was that?

The sound of Gauche's bubble exploding?...

 

 

 

redneF wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

I know I would have.

 

You dirty gurl, you.

C'mon, nobody is that charming

 

Sandycane wrote:

 ... but, that was a long time ago.

Red, it seems as though our sandycane here was much more of a bad ass in her earlier years and has mellowed out a little although she would probably still jump her favorite rockstars bones if the opportunity arrose.  Oh sandy...


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:Red,

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Red, it seems as though our sandycane here was much more of a bad ass in her earlier years and has mellowed out a little although she would probably still jump her favorite rockstars bones if the opportunity arrose.  Oh sandy...

True but, ... only in my dreams.

Considering I'm 50+ and my favorite rockstars are at least that old or dead, it ain't gonna happen.

'Bad ass' is an understatement... if you only knew...

But, look at me now. This is what old age and maturity does to a person.

So, live it up because one day you'll be looking at life through my eyes, and when you give advice to the next generation you want to at least know what you're talking about... they won't listen to you, though. I never did listen when I was younger.  But, it still feels good to dish out life lessons to the young and foolish.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandy, I didn't ever see

Sandy, I didn't ever see things 'thru your eyes', AFAICR, back when I was your age...

But I do feel I have some purpose in life, not so much in 'dishing out advice', but more in trying to help both the "young and foolish" and the "older and still foolish", as well as those simply puzzled by the absurdities of human society, and the mysteries of the Universe, to understand "Life, the Universe, and Everything", ie passing on some of what I have gathered in half-a-century or more of thinking, observing, and learning...

Including trying to remain open to learning stuff from others...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


wingless_sephiroth
atheist
wingless_sephiroth's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:[...]that

Sandycane wrote:

[...]that while you may be 'queer', you're not really a homosexual at heart... and that you've just not figured out how to have an intimate relationship with a woman.

Why not? Seems to me, not every hetero relationship has the man 'wearing the pants'. You see it all the time, some men who are 'hen-pecked' - and like it - and women who are completely submissive to their spouses - and like it that way.

[...]

So, I don't think your dream is unattainable at all. I do think you have found it easier to settle for less though. Why couldn't you find a woman who wants to wear the pants, while still being a woman and you being the man?

 

You do have to admit at this point, your comment betrays several heterosexist views. You state that you don't know how I could be dominated by a man (yet, I suspect, you let yourself be dominated by men), you state that I'm lowering my standards by going with the gender I am much more attracted to, and last but not least you imply that finding the right woman would be better than settling for a guy. I mean, I'm not angry, but maybe you don't like the whole queer thing? As long as you don't think you should have a legal or moral advantage, I don't really care.

 

In the gay community I tend to be the masculine guy: I generally attract the effeminate men. I think those are silly constructs, but thus far, that's how the gay community is overwhelmingly organized. So, if you were to meet me in real life, I'd think you'd see I am very much the same. Yeah, there are men who wanted to be dominated by women. That's it's own genre of attraction though, a genre which I think would be fun, but I don't necessarily belong to. At this point, I'd say topping a woman would be more fun than her topping me, but at times I've thought otherwise.

 

As far as men being a low standard than women, not true; I find men on a whole exponentially more attractive physically and romantically than women. The latter romance, I will concede, may be a social construct. And heck, if you yourself will allow a man to dominate you sexually, why not me? Plus, I also switch off as well. He dominates me, I dominate him; depends on the day, and the guy. Unless I'm misjudging you, you're only getting on end of the stick: his. But, don't be fooled: the effeminate guy can go on top, and the masculine guy on bottom. They may be both effeminate, or both masculine. They may switch off every few months, or maybe after every around. Maybe they don't even use constructed terms like 'masculine' or 'feminine'.

 

Additionally, I think we're all 'bisexual', but I state I am homosexual because I have romantic and sexual attractions solely for men, and are attracted to men much more often. For women, once in a while I'll find one sexually attractive (many women are like this, yet they would not identify as bisexual), and then I never have any romantic attraction. I would guess it's akin to you, once in a while, finding a woman to be utterly gorgeous. However, sexuality is based both on physical and romantic attraction, which is why studies where they show nude pics to individuals to gauge their response have been criticized as not being representative of the spectrum of human attraction.

 

But where I do agree with you is on there possibly being a woman out there I'd go for. The point of me stating there are women with pants on is that it might happen. But, why should I prefer that over male relationships: you seem to imply I should! I will fall in love whoever I will fall in love with, whether that is a man or a woman. I don't care, I am open about that much. But, I don't think finding a perfect woman is any better (or any less) than just finding a perfect guy. And I do think it's statistically way higher to find the right guy, considering how rare I find any female to be attractive in any damn way.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
wingless_sephiroth wrote:You

wingless_sephiroth wrote:

You do have to admit at this point, your comment betrays several heterosexist views. You state that you don't know how I could be dominated by a man (yet, I suspect, you let yourself be dominated by men), you state that I'm lowering my standards by going with the gender I am much more attracted to, and last but not least you imply that finding the right woman would be better than settling for a guy. I mean, I'm not angry, but maybe you don't like the whole queer thing? As long as you don't think you should have a legal or moral advantage, I don't really care.

I appreciate your frankness. The reason I felt you were lowering your standards (settling) is because of what you said in your previous reply... it was how I interpreted what you said. Sorry if I was wrong. And yes, try as I do to understand the whole queer thing, I don't understand it and I feel that it is abnormal. Sorry but, that's just the way it is.

 

Quote:
In the gay community I tend to be the masculine guy: I generally attract the effeminate men. I think those are silly constructs, but thus far, that's how the gay community is overwhelmingly organized. So, if you were to meet me in real life, I'd think you'd see I am very much the same. Yeah, there are men who wanted to be dominated by women. That's it's own genre of attraction though, a genre which I think would be fun, but I don't necessarily belong to. At this point, I'd say topping a woman would be more fun than her topping me, but at times I've thought otherwise.
Okay.

 

Quote:
As far as men being a low standard than women, not true; I find men on a whole exponentially more attractive physically and romantically than women. The latter romance, I will concede, may be a social construct. And heck, if you yourself will allow a man to dominate you sexually, why not me? Plus, I also switch off as well. He dominates me, I dominate him; depends on the day, and the guy. Unless I'm misjudging you, you're only getting on end of the stick: his. But, don't be fooled: the effeminate guy can go on top, and the masculine guy on bottom. They may be both effeminate, or both masculine. They may switch off every few months, or maybe after every around. Maybe they don't even use constructed terms like 'masculine' or 'feminine'.
Why not you being dominated by another man? Because two men together is not 'natural'... just as two women together isn't. Sorry but, that's just the way I see it. Mind you, I'm not saying 'right' or 'wrong'... it's just not the way Nature intended it to be, imo.

 

Quote:
Additionally, I think we're all 'bisexual', but I state I am homosexual because I have romantic and sexual attractions solely for men, and are attracted to men much more often. For women, once in a while I'll find one sexually attractive (many women are like this, yet they would not identify as bisexual), and then I never have any romantic attraction. I would guess it's akin to you, once in a while, finding a woman to be utterly gorgeous. However, sexuality is based both on physical and romantic attraction, which is why studies where they show nude pics to individuals to gauge their response have been criticized as not being representative of the spectrum of human attraction.
I can identify others, men and women, as being attractive without being sexually attracted to them. I think Greek Goddess has a beautiful face but, that doesn't mean I want to have sex with her.

 

Quote:
But where I do agree with you is on there possibly being a woman out there I'd go for. The point of me stating there are women with pants on is that it might happen. But, why should I prefer that over male relationships: you seem to imply I should! I will fall in love whoever I will fall in love with, whether that is a man or a woman. I don't care, I am open about that much. But, I don't think finding a perfect woman is any better (or any less) than just finding a perfect guy. And I do think it's statistically way higher to find the right guy, considering how rare I find any female to be attractive in any damn way.

Why should you prefer a woman over a man? Because it is the natural thing to do... again, IMO. It's not beneficial to the species to have the same sex attracted to each other. I'm not judging you personally for your choices but, I do feel that there is a reason why you feel the way you do and I don't think it's 'normal'.

I'm sorry and I don't mean to hurt your feelings (you probably don't give a shit what I think anyway, and there's no reason why you should) but, that's just the way I see it.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Sandy, I

BobSpence1 wrote:

Sandy, I didn't ever see things 'thru your eyes', AFAICR, back when I was your age...

No, I don't suppose you did. What does 'AFAICR' mean?

Quote:
But I do feel I have some purpose in life, not so much in 'dishing out advice', but more in trying to help both the "young and foolish" and the "older and still foolish", as well as those simply puzzled by the absurdities of human society, and the mysteries of the Universe, to understand "Life, the Universe, and Everything", ie passing on some of what I have gathered in half-a-century or more of thinking, observing, and learning...

Including trying to remain open to learning stuff from others...

I am always open to learning stuff from others... but, it is all passed through my moral filter. There is a difference between being open and being gullible and being open doesn't mean accepting. I can be open to new ideas and still reject them as not being worthy of being applied to my life.

Case in point: homosexuality. I can be open to the fact that there are homosexuals and they have the same legal rights as I do but, I don't have to accept them as fitting into my moral standards or,  being normal.

I think there is waaay too much moral relativism associated with atheism and I don't agree with the bulk of it.

(fire away )

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AFAICR = "As far as I can

AFAICR = "As far as I can recall".

Morals should be based on minimizing harm to others, not on personal 'yuck' reactions.

Hence acts between consenting adults should not be subject to 'moral' judgement. Personal taste and aesthetics fair enough, but 'right' and 'wrong' should be based on more 'objective' criteria.

Basing any 'moral' principles on some subjective reactions to particular consensual acts is precisely what I find offensive about Theistic 'morality'. That and the ''thought-crime' aspects of other 'commandments'.

'Gullibility' is not relevant at all to being 'open'. Of course you should apply a proper critical/sceptical filter when presented with any new information.

A 'moral' filter??? Learning the facts about something should inform your moral judgement on that issue, but not lead you to filter out any of the facts and their implications, even if 'yucky'.

Homosexuality is no less 'normal' than many other activities people indulge in. You don't have to 'accept' it into your personal world, just don't try and make it a moral issue. That is very much an example of moral relativism, basing your morals on your personal reaction to some act. So you are unconsciously contradicting yourself when you claim you don't like moral 'relativism'.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:AFAICR =

BobSpence1 wrote:

AFAICR = "As far as I can recall".

Morals should be based on minimizing harm to others, not on personal 'yuck' reactions.

Hence acts between consenting adults should not be subject to 'moral' judgement. Personal taste and aesthetics fair enough, but 'right' and 'wrong' should be based on more 'objective' criteria.

Basing any 'moral' principles on some subjective reactions to particular consensual acts is precisely what I find offensive about Theistic 'morality'. That and the ''thought-crime' aspects of other 'commandments'.

'Gullibility' is not relevant at all to being 'open'. Of course you should apply a proper critical/sceptical filter when presented with any new information.

A 'moral' filter??? Learning the facts about something should inform your moral judgement on that issue, but not lead you to filter out any of the facts and their implications, even if 'yucky'.

Homosexuality is no less 'normal' than many other activities people indulge in. You don't have to 'accept' it into your personal world, just don't try and make it a moral issue. That is very much an example of moral relativism, basing your morals on your personal reaction to some act. So you are unconsciously contradicting yourself when you claim you don't like moral 'relativism'.

 

Food for thought. I'll chew on it for a while before I respond.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Uh oh.What was

redneF wrote:

Uh oh.

What was that?

The sound of Gauche's bubble exploding?...

You're such a meanie-pooh.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Morals

BobSpence1 wrote:
Morals should be based on minimizing harm to others

 

According to whom? And, how many claim this as a principle yet repeatedly fail to do so in practice?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:AFAICR =

Homosexual behavior is not 'normal'.

Normal is two members of the opposite sex, having sex, for the purpose of procreation. This is the intended purpose of sex.... in all species.

How can a person with a logical mind and respect for scientific facts justify homosexuality?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:True but,

Sandycane wrote:
True but, ... only in my dreams.

Considering I'm 50+ and my favorite rockstars are at least that old or dead, it ain't gonna happen.

 

 

Yeah, or they have to take mega viagra to get it up. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Homosexual

Sandycane wrote:

Homosexual behavior is not 'normal'.

Normal is two members of the opposite sex, having sex, for the purpose of procreation. This is the intended purpose of sex.... in all species.

How can a person with a logical mind and respect for scientific facts justify homosexuality?

 

As another perspective, there are many documented cases of creatures other than humans in same sex relationships - including having regular sex, including raising offspring.  The infamous book on the two male penguins is only one example.  Another is a rather lengthy tome,

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302891...

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

You don't have to buy it, I found it at my library, so you can ask for an interlibrary loan and look at it for free if you want.

From the book:

Quote:

Astounding as it sounds, a number of scientists have actually argued that when a female Bonobo wraps her legs around another female ... while emitting screams of enjoyment, this is actually "greeting" behavior, or "appeasement" behavior ... almost anything, it seems, besides pleasurable sexual behavior.

 

Some people will believe anything to avoid reality.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Homosexual

Sandycane wrote:

Homosexual behavior is not 'normal'.

Normal is two members of the opposite sex, having sex, for the purpose of procreation. This is the intended purpose of sex.... in all species.

How can a person with a logical mind and respect for scientific facts justify homosexuality?

WTF? 

I'm not a homosexual, and I am not a politically correct zombie, but... what you're saying is really stupid.  I would use the word ignorant but you obviously do posses the knowledge.  

You obviously understand that homosexuality is not a choice, much as if you prefer vaginal sex versus anal or the other way around.  You are pretty much hardwired a certain way.  It is obviously a much more complex issue than a simple sexual preference, but for you to state that it is not normal... as if they're acting out of their nature, or committing some sort of abomination.  What you probably are trying to point out is that it's not normal for two men to have sex for the purpose of procreation.  In which case, thank you captain obvious.  Human beings do not have sex for procreation only.

As for justifying homosexuality? relative to what? What do you mean to justify exactly, a male being attracted to another male, or that male acting on that attraction? 

You sound a like Jean, are you sure you're not a closet Calvinist? 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Sandycane

Ktulu wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Homosexual behavior is not 'normal'.

Normal is two members of the opposite sex, having sex, for the purpose of procreation. This is the intended purpose of sex.... in all species.

How can a person with a logical mind and respect for scientific facts justify homosexuality?

WTF? 

I'm not a homosexual, and I am not a politically correct zombie, but... what you're saying is really stupid.  I would use the word ignorant but you obviously do posses the knowledge.  

You obviously understand that homosexuality is not a choice, much as if you prefer vaginal sex versus anal or the other way around.  You are pretty much hardwired a certain way.  It is obviously a much more complex issue than a simple sexual preference, but for you to state that it is not normal... as if they're acting out of their nature, or committing some sort of abomination.  What you probably are trying to point out is that it's not normal for two men to have sex for the purpose of procreation.  In which case, thank you captain obvious.  Human beings do not have sex for procreation only.

As for justifying homosexuality? relative to what? What do you mean to justify exactly, a male being attracted to another male, or that male acting on that attraction? 

You sound a like Jean, are you sure you're not a closet Calvinist? 

 

I missed this - call me Capt. Oblivious.

There is a perfectly justifiable evolutionary reason for homosexuality.  I don't have any published papers on the subject as it is my own - ahem - brilliant idea.

Think of a small hunter-gatherer family group.  The goal is to have grandchildren.  Children who can raise children.  Those children and their mother who is nursing them can not hunt for themselves.  During some stages, mom will have to cut back on gathering as well.  I read somewhere - I won't bother to look it up but I'm sure if you really want to you can for yourself - that normal child rearing cycle for hunter-gatherer moms was 5 years between children.  Without birth control.  Moms nursed as long as they could because breast milk is more reliable than solid foods.  Make sense?  And mom didn't have enough spare fat to ovulate while breast feeding.

So my theory is that any non-breeding members of the family would contribute to child rearing without competing for scare resources.  The more successful aunties and uncles a child had growing up, the more food was available for the child.  So homosexuality actually increased the likelihood of children reaching adulthood - which is the goal.  Just having scads of children who starve to death before they can reproduce is not increasing the population.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Homosexual

Sandycane wrote:

Homosexual behavior is not 'normal'.

Normal is two members of the opposite sex, having sex, for the purpose of procreation. This is the intended purpose of sex.... in all species.

How can a person with a logical mind and respect for scientific facts justify homosexuality?

It happens, in most primate species, in more than an just isolated instances.

Sex is definitely not just for reproduction in these groups, including ourselves. It also serves for bonding two individuals, and and the group in general, to varying degrees. These are scientific facts. Read about bonobos, one of the two main groups of chimpanzees.

Would you condemn infertile heterosexual couples, who know they are infertile, to abstinence?

So it is not 'unnatural'. Total abstinence from sex is far more unnatural, abnormal. Do you condemn that?

I'm not trying to 'justify' it. It is a fact, one of the multitude of ways people interact, and one of the most harmless, and most enjoyable to the participants. If you want to mention STD's, then that applies to hetero sex as well.

You would be far more justified in condemning over-eating, by your thinking. The primary purpose of eating is for nourishment, not for pleasure, and over-eating is far more definitely harmful to health than over-indulgence in sex.

Only a minority of humans devote their lives entirely or largely to helping others. That is also an example of behaviour that is 'not normal'.

"Intended"? By whom or what??

We are not robotic mechanisms, just 'designed' to eat and reproduce

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Sandy, I

BobSpence1 wrote:

Sandy, I didn't ever see things 'thru your eyes', AFAICR, back when I was your age...

But I do feel I have some purpose in life, not so much in 'dishing out advice', but more in trying to help both the "young and foolish" and the "older and still foolish", as well as those simply puzzled by the absurdities of human society, and the mysteries of the Universe, to understand "Life, the Universe, and Everything", ie passing on some of what I have gathered in half-a-century or more of thinking, observing, and learning...

Including trying to remain open to learning stuff from others...

This coming from the guy who's country plagiarized our Constitution, is still under British rule, and has fucked up animals with pouches and slow animals who should be extinct and hangs upside down all the time. HOW THE HELL DO YOU PEE?

(note to self, did I think this, or type it?)

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey Brian, I am typing this

Hey Brian, I am typing this while the news podcast I listen to is playing a speech by some ni.., woops, I mean some black guy, over there. 

How can the USA so abandon their traditions to elect someone like that?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:As another

cj wrote:

As another perspective, there are many documented cases of creatures other than humans in same sex relationships - including having regular sex, including raising offspring. 

I'm sure there are also documented cases of people who poke their eyes with pencils or drool constantly but, that doesn't make them 'normal'.

Quote:
 The infamous book on the two male penguins is only one example.  Another is a rather lengthy tome,

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302891...

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

You don't have to buy it, I found it at my library, so you can ask for an interlibrary loan and look at it for free if you want.

Ask my librarian for it?  I don't think so.

Quote:

From the book:

Quote:

Astounding as it sounds, a number of scientists have actually argued that when a female Bonobo wraps her legs around another female ... while emitting screams of enjoyment, this is actually "greeting" behavior, or "appeasement" behavior ... almost anything, it seems, besides pleasurable sexual behavior.

Some people will believe anything to avoid reality.

  This is true.

The difference between me and the rest of you politically correct persons is that I am not trying to change your minds about how you feel on the subject of homosexuality... as you are trying to change mine. I view homosexuality as not normal. Simple as that.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane

Sandycane wrote:

wingless_sephiroth wrote:

You do have to admit at this point, your comment betrays several heterosexist views. You state that you don't know how I could be dominated by a man (yet, I suspect, you let yourself be dominated by men), you state that I'm lowering my standards by going with the gender I am much more attracted to, and last but not least you imply that finding the right woman would be better than settling for a guy. I mean, I'm not angry, but maybe you don't like the whole queer thing? As long as you don't think you should have a legal or moral advantage, I don't really care.

I appreciate your frankness. The reason I felt you were lowering your standards (settling) is because of what you said in your previous reply... it was how I interpreted what you said. Sorry if I was wrong. And yes, try as I do to understand the whole queer thing, I don't understand it and I feel that it is abnormal. Sorry but, that's just the way it is.

 

Quote:
In the gay community I tend to be the masculine guy: I generally attract the effeminate men. I think those are silly constructs, but thus far, that's how the gay community is overwhelmingly organized. So, if you were to meet me in real life, I'd think you'd see I am very much the same. Yeah, there are men who wanted to be dominated by women. That's it's own genre of attraction though, a genre which I think would be fun, but I don't necessarily belong to. At this point, I'd say topping a woman would be more fun than her topping me, but at times I've thought otherwise.
Okay.

 

Quote:
As far as men being a low standard than women, not true; I find men on a whole exponentially more attractive physically and romantically than women. The latter romance, I will concede, may be a social construct. And heck, if you yourself will allow a man to dominate you sexually, why not me? Plus, I also switch off as well. He dominates me, I dominate him; depends on the day, and the guy. Unless I'm misjudging you, you're only getting on end of the stick: his. But, don't be fooled: the effeminate guy can go on top, and the masculine guy on bottom. They may be both effeminate, or both masculine. They may switch off every few months, or maybe after every around. Maybe they don't even use constructed terms like 'masculine' or 'feminine'.
Why not you being dominated by another man? Because two men together is not 'natural'... just as two women together isn't. Sorry but, that's just the way I see it. Mind you, I'm not saying 'right' or 'wrong'... it's just not the way Nature intended it to be, imo.

 

Quote:
Additionally, I think we're all 'bisexual', but I state I am homosexual because I have romantic and sexual attractions solely for men, and are attracted to men much more often. For women, once in a while I'll find one sexually attractive (many women are like this, yet they would not identify as bisexual), and then I never have any romantic attraction. I would guess it's akin to you, once in a while, finding a woman to be utterly gorgeous. However, sexuality is based both on physical and romantic attraction, which is why studies where they show nude pics to individuals to gauge their response have been criticized as not being representative of the spectrum of human attraction.
I can identify others, men and women, as being attractive without being sexually attracted to them. I think Greek Goddess has a beautiful face but, that doesn't mean I want to have sex with her.

 

Quote:
But where I do agree with you is on there possibly being a woman out there I'd go for. The point of me stating there are women with pants on is that it might happen. But, why should I prefer that over male relationships: you seem to imply I should! I will fall in love whoever I will fall in love with, whether that is a man or a woman. I don't care, I am open about that much. But, I don't think finding a perfect woman is any better (or any less) than just finding a perfect guy. And I do think it's statistically way higher to find the right guy, considering how rare I find any female to be attractive in any damn way.

Why should you prefer a woman over a man? Because it is the natural thing to do... again, IMO. It's not beneficial to the species to have the same sex attracted to each other. I'm not judging you personally for your choices but, I do feel that there is a reason why you feel the way you do and I don't think it's 'normal'.

I'm sorry and I don't mean to hurt your feelings (you probably don't give a shit what I think anyway, and there's no reason why you should) but, that's just the way I see it.

Your problem with homosexuality is the same as it is with blacks. You see life as a script, a label, instead of a range.

In our original beef over "nigger" in Huckleberry Fin and the use of. You had an absolutist solution to a complex problem. I think whatever good intent you think you have, you suffer from the same blanket solution problem solving MOST of humanity has.

We understand that you think homosexuality is "not normal". Instead of putting it in language like that, I would put it in terms of STATISTICAL RATIO. Gays do not make up a majority of our species population. But that does not make the observation of such an "abnormal" event anymore than being left handed is "abnormal". Otherwise you should treat albino people with white eyes the same as gays.

Of course you don't understand gays because you are not gay. Just like I cannot understand what it is like to be a woman.

CONTEXT.

My mom will never understand why I don't believe. But she still loves me as much as if I did believe.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Hey Brian,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Hey Brian, I am typing this while the news podcast I listen to is playing a speech by some ni.., woops, I mean some black guy, over there. 

How can the USA so abandon their traditions to elect someone like that?

 

What's wrong with being a "ni"? Better than swimming with stingrays  CRICKEY! What? Too soon?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:"Intended"?

BobSpence1 wrote:
"Intended"? By whom or what??

Bobspence reaches the tip of the iceberg on another important point: "nature" is not an entity in the sense of being intelligent and creating things with a specific purpose -like, say a Renaissance toy maker, or a blacksmith. It's just a metaphor people use in lieu of an elaborately described physical reality that allows for things like organic life, or stars, or what-have-you.

 

Sandy, nature didn't "intend" anything about you. Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about you, the human species, or anything else.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:The

Sandycane wrote:

The difference between me and the rest of you politically correct persons is that I am not trying to change your minds about how you feel on the subject of homosexuality... as you are trying to change mine. I view homosexuality as not normal. Simple as that.

Change your mind? Naaahhh. Correct your highly misguided assumptions about how the human species functions (or, in your case, that they weren't in fact "created" or designed)? Possibly...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BOB ANSWER YOUR SKYPE CALLS

BOB ANSWER YOUR SKYPE CALLS DUDE

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Seriously, Sandy,I'm sure

Seriously, Sandy,

Quote:

I'm sure there are also documented cases of people who poke their eyes with pencils or drool constantly but, that doesn't make them 'normal'.

That is a stupid statement. Comparing homosexual acts to acts of self-harm is particularly illogical and revealing of your deeply irrational attitude to homosexuality. It is not analogous to 'homosexuality' in any sense

'Drooling' is just a a messy problem, and also irrelevant.

Neither involves acts which would be expected to be pleasurable, in stimulating basic physiological reactions, in other than pathological cases. They also do not involve interactions between two people.

Homosexual and all kinds of non-reproductive sex are thoroughly documented to occur at far more than marginal levels in other species.

I gave you examples of behaviours which are even less 'normal', yet do not attract such reactions, and some which actually invoke praise, and other all-too-normal behaviour, such as over-eating, especially in the USA, that are clearly harmful and should be discouraged. 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Bob answer your skype calls

Bob answer your skype calls

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: Comparing

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Comparing homosexual acts to acts of self harm is particularly illogical and revealing of your deeply irrational attitude to homosexuality. It is not analogous to 'homosexuality' in any sense

  

   Masochism equates nicely with the concept of self harm.  It is a sexual paraphilia that exists among both heterosexual and homosexual practitioners.  It is consensual on the part of the "victim".  It can be viewed as self harm in that context.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
   Neither involves acts which would be expected to be pleasurable, in stimulating basic physiological reactions, in other than pathological cases.
 

    To masochists pain = pleasure=sexual arousal.  It's just another fetish even if you can't understand it.  

               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

 

   

BobSpence1 wrote:
 

         They also do not involve interactions between two people.

  

 

       They don't have to involve two people.  Look up Albert Fish.  He used needles.

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Homosexual

Sandycane wrote:
Homosexual behavior is not 'normal'.

Normal is two members of the opposite sex, having sex, for the purpose of procreation. This is the intended purpose of sex.... in all species.

Oh jeez.

"Normal" is a vague, inept term here. If your point is that it is uncommon, then you would necessarily have to hold all uncommon human behavior and practices as abnormal. If your point is that it is detrimental to the survival of a species under natural selection, then clearly, as Bob stated, you'd have to hold other kinds of behavior, such as abstinence, as abnormal. If you define normal as two members of the opposite sex having sex in order to reproduce, then two members of the same sex having sex or having sex for any other reason is definitively abnormal.

All of these are fine so far, on some if you bite the bullet, but then you're also implying that "normal" is good and "abnormal" is bad, which you have not justified. This seems to be the most important part of it.

It is not technically correct to say that it is the purpose of living things to reproduce; purpose implies a consciousness, which evolution certainly does not have, as it is not even an entity. Virtually all individual sexually reproducing organisms do not really have the mental capacity for their sex to have a "purpose." It is merely behavior that they exhibit, determined by their instincts and environment. In the very few animals that are intelligent enough for this to apply, sex is definitely not only used for procreation; it is also used for pleasure, pair/group bonding, and serves other social functions. Nowadays, in humans, it is arguably used more for pleasure than procreation.

Sandycane wrote:
The difference between me and the rest of you politically correct persons is that I am not trying to change your minds about how you feel on the subject of homosexuality... as you are trying to change mine. I view homosexuality as not normal. Simple as that.

I cannot change how you feel, but I can try to address what I see as problems with the way you're thinking about the subject. If your only message was that you feel uncomfortable about homosexuality, then you wouldn't have written most of what you've written.

Such as: 

"How can a person with a logical mind and respect for scientific facts justify homosexuality?"

With this, you're implying that a person with a logical mind and respect for scientific facts would consider homosexuality to be unjustified. But, what does it mean for it to be justified or unjustified? It just means good and bad, doesn't it? All I can see is that you're playing with semantics, being vague, and then, you retreat back onto subjectivism. It is quite inconsistent. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i can't think of anything

i can't think of anything more tedious than a normal fuck.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
I think you were trying to

I think you were trying to be nice to me in your reply and I appreciate that. I will try to do the same.

Brian37 wrote:

Your problem with homosexuality is the same as it is with blacks. You see life as a script, a label, instead of a range.

In our original beef over "nigger" in Huckleberry Fin and the use of. You had an absolutist solution to a complex problem. I think whatever good intent you think you have, you suffer from the same blanket solution problem solving MOST of humanity has.

I don't now and never have had a 'problem' with Black people... or, 'gays' for that matter. I'm not going to rehash the Huck Finn thread.

Quote:
We understand that you think homosexuality is "not normal". Instead of putting it in language like that, I would put it in terms of STATISTICAL RATIO. Gays do not make up a majority of our species population. But that does not make the observation of such an "abnormal" event anymore than being left handed is "abnormal". Otherwise you should treat albino people with white eyes the same as gays.
So, now, you have a problem with the language I am using. Ironic, don't you think? I will agree, they are a minority but, that does not change the fact that they are also 'abnormal'... just like albinos, lefties, people who stutter, have club feet or cleft palates. I do not have a phobia towards anyone who is not normal and I do not discriminate against them either. I am simply saying they are 'not normal' I don't understand why you people have a problem recognizing the difference between 'normal' and 'abnormal'. Maybe you do but, your PC police won't allow it?

Quote:
Of course you don't understand gays because you are not gay. Just like I cannot understand what it is like to be a woman.
True but, you ( &nbspEye-wink and I are normal while gays are not. I don't have to understand something to know it's not normal. I don't understand the mind of a serial killer but, I think you and I would both agree that is not normal behavior.

Quote:
CONTEXT.

My mom will never understand why I don't believe. But she still loves me as much as if I did believe.

So she says. Just kidding.

 

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Seriously,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Seriously, Sandy,

Quote:

I'm sure there are also documented cases of people who poke their eyes with pencils or drool constantly but, that doesn't make them 'normal'.

That is a stupid statement.  Comparing homosexual acts to acts of self-harm is particularly illogical and revealing of your deeply irrational attitude to homosexuality. It is not analogous to 'homosexuality' in any sense

'Drooling' is just a a messy problem, and also irrelevant.

This was in reply to the quote posted by cj that implied homosexuality is normal because there are documented cases of it. Simply because something is documented does not make it normal. So, my example is entirely relevant.

Quote:
Neither involves acts which would be expected to be pleasurable, in stimulating basic physiological reactions, in other than pathological cases. They also do not involve interactions between two people.
So, according to your definition of 'moral', a thing is moral as long as there is pleasure involved and no harm? Come on, Bob, be serious.

Quote:
Homosexual and all kinds of non-reproductive sex are thoroughly documented to occur at far more than marginal levels in other species.
See above reply regarding the credibility of 'documented' cases.... documentation does not = normal behavior.

Quote:
I gave you examples of behaviours which are even less 'normal', yet do not attract such reactions, and some which actually invoke praise, and other all-too-normal behaviour, such as over-eating, especially in the USA, that are clearly harmful and should be discouraged. 

According to your definition of 'moral', why should over-eating be discouraged since it is pleasurable to those who do it? I agree, though, over-eating, and homosexual behavior, are not normal.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Sandycane

butterbattle wrote:

Sandycane wrote:
Homosexual behavior is not 'normal'.

Normal is two members of the opposite sex, having sex, for the purpose of procreation. This is the intended purpose of sex.... in all species.

Oh jeez.

"Normal" is a vague, inept term here. If your point is that it is uncommon, then you would necessarily have to hold all uncommon human behavior and practices as abnormal. If your point is that it is detrimental to the survival of a species under natural selection, then clearly, as Bob stated, you'd have to hold other kinds of behavior, such as abstinence, as abnormal. If you define normal as two members of the opposite sex having sex in order to reproduce, then two members of the same sex having sex or having sex for any other reason is definitively abnormal.

Yup, we're on the same page here....

Quote:
All of these are fine so far, on some if you bite the bullet, but then you're also implying that "normal" is good and "abnormal" is bad, which you have not justified. This seems to be the most important part of it.
If I recall, the only reason I tossed in the 'good/bad' thing was after Bob said something is not immoral unless it causes harm. So, I said homosexuality causes harm to the species in regards to survival and procreation. I don't really think being a homosexual is either good or bad - just yucky... and not normal.

Quote:
It is not technically correct to say that it is the purpose of living things to reproduce; purpose implies a consciousness, which evolution certainly does not have, as it is not even an entity. Virtually all individual sexually reproducing organisms do not really have the mental capacity for their sex to have a "purpose." It is merely behavior that they exhibit, determined by their instincts and environment. In the very few animals that are intelligent enough for this to apply, sex is definitely not only used for procreation; it is also used for pleasure, pair/group bonding, and serves other social functions. Nowadays, in humans, it is arguably used more for pleasure than procreation.
Did I say the purpose of living things is to reproduce? NO I did not. I said the purpose of sex, intended by Nature, is survival of the species and reproduction. Do you want to also argue that the purpose of breathing is not to sustain life??? And, yes, sex is not ONLY for procreation, it can also be simply for pleasure... just as breathing can be for the purpose of smelling a rose.

Just as there is purpose in the design of a bee hive or the root structure of a particular tree. If bees built hives any way they wanted, just because it made them feel good, they would soon become extinct. If trees decided to grow their roots above ground because it felt good having them in the breeze instead of in the dirt, there wouldn't be any trees eventually. (yes, silly examples but, I hope you get the point)

Sandycane wrote:
The difference between me and the rest of you politically correct persons is that I am not trying to change your minds about how you feel on the subject of homosexuality... as you are trying to change mine. I view homosexuality as not normal. Simple as that.

Quote:
I cannot change how you feel, but I can try to address what I see as problems with the way you're thinking about the subject. If your only message was that you feel uncomfortable about homosexuality, then you wouldn't have written most of what you've written.
I did not write all that I have because 'I feel uncomfortable about homosexuality'. In a nutshell, all I am saying is that it's not normal.

Quote:
Such as: 

"How can a person with a logical mind and respect for scientific facts justify homosexuality?"

With this, you're implying that a person with a logical mind and respect for scientific facts would consider homosexuality to be unjustified. But, what does it mean for it to be justified or unjustified? It just means good and bad, doesn't it? All I can see is that you're playing with semantics, being vague, and then, you retreat back onto subjectivism. It is quite inconsistent. 

I'm a woman. I can be inconsistent if I want to. It makes me feel good sometimes and causes no physical harm to anyone.

... and according to Bob, that is morally acceptable.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
I did a little digging and

I did a little digging and found some well documented facts myself:

Morality and evolution

See also: Evolution of morality

Some evolutionary biologists believe that morality is a natural phenomenon that evolves by natural selection.

 In this case, morality is defined as the set of relative social practices that promote the survival and successful reproduction of the species, or even multiple cooperating species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Homosexuality practiced by a

Homosexuality practiced by a proportion of a population, as long as there is adequate overall fertility, is not a problem for survival of the species.

There is also evidence that those individuals inclined toward homosexuality contribute significantly to the success of the group in other ways, so are a net positive, especially when we are actually tending to over-population.

At least one genetic predisposition to homosexuality appears to be the expression in males of a gene that is very positive and functional in females. So the overall effect of that gene is definitely positive.

Would you condemn infertile couples because they are not able to breed?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Homosexuality practiced by a proportion of a population, as long as there is adequate overall fertility, is not a problem for survival of the species.

Your opinion? Personally, I think homosexuality is a symptom of an overall larger problem with our society. While fertility may at the present time be 'adequate', it is a fact that infertility rates are soaring and the population growth rates in civilized countries is in decline. If this combination continues, survival of the human species is threatened to extinction.

Quote:
There is also evidence that those individuals inclined toward homosexuality contribute significantly to the success of the group in other ways, so are a net positive, especially when we are actually tending to over-population.
I never said they don't contribute 'in other ways'. You are assuming they are a net positive. That remains to be seen.

Quote:
At least one genetic predisposition to homosexuality appears to be the expression in males of a gene that is very positive and functional in females. So the overall effect of that gene is definitely positive.
I'm not disputing the positive effects of this particular gene you mention (that I know nothing about). I will question whether or not it is normal for a man to possess this gene. Can you be more specific or, site sources of this information for me?

It has also been documented that male infertility is linked to synthetic estrogen used in the linings of canned products. Would you call this a net positive, too?

Quote:
Would you condemn infertile couples because they are not able to breed?
What?

No, and I'm not 'condemning' gays either... but both gays and non-fertile couples are abnormal.

 

(ps: I just found out that if you are editing a reply and someone replies to it, your edited version will disappear into cyberspace.)

Here is what I was adding to my previous reply:

Speaking of insects, as I was earlier:

Though animals may not possess moral behavior, all social animals have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living to be worthwhile. Typical examples of behavioral modification can be found in the societies ants, bees and termites. Ant colonies may possess millions of individuals. E. O. Wilson argues that the single most important factor that leads to the success of ant colonies is the existence of a sterile worker caste. This caste of females are subservient to the needs of their mother, the queen, and in so doing, have given up their own reproduction in order to raise brothers and sisters. The existence of sterile castes among these social insects, significantly restricts the competition for mating and in the process fosters cooperation within a colony. Cooperation among ants is vital, because a solitary ant has an improbable chance of long term survival and reproduction. However as part of a group, colonies can thrive for decades. As a consequence, ants are one of the most successful species on the planet, accounting for a biomass that rivals humans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

 

So, is it possible that because of the over-population of the planet, human genetics is (d)evolving to utilize a similar system as that of ants?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:If I recall,

Sandycane wrote:
If I recall, the only reason I tossed in the 'good/bad' thing was after Bob said something is not immoral unless it causes harm. So, I said homosexuality causes harm to the species in regards to survival and procreation.

Homosexuality only seems like it is necessarily detrimental without reference to empirical observations and some more unintuitive details in genetics. The very fact that there are many homosexual humans and that homosexual behavior has been documented in at least hundreds of other species demonstrates that the genes have some potential benefits. For example, it could be a gene that increases female promiscuity or it could even be some group selection theory.

Sandycane wrote:
I don't really think being a homosexual is either good or bad - just yucky... and not normal.

You need to define "normal."

If you're defining 'normal sex' as sex between two people of the opposite gender for the purpose of procreation, then you're completely outside of any dictionary definitions. I don't mind that, but then you need to be consistent and justify your premises; by your definition, any intercourse that does not conform to that standard is considered not normal. Furthermore, "not normal" could not mean weird or unnatural in any way, as that would be an ad hoc.

Sandycane wrote:
]Did I say the purpose of living things is to reproduce? NO I did not. I said the purpose of sex, intended by Nature, is survival of the species and reproduction. Do you want to also argue that the purpose of breathing is not to sustain life??? And, yes, sex is not ONLY for procreation, it can also be simply for pleasure... just as breathing can be for the purpose of smelling a rose.

That is essentially the same thing; it is exactly what I am getting at. Perhaps you simply need to be more careful with your language.

Nature does not "intend" anything, as it is not conscious. So, sex does not have a "purpose;" that is a category error. Only individual intelligent living things can have a purpose for anything.

Sandycane wrote:
If trees decided to grow their roots above ground because it felt good having them in the breeze instead of in the dirt, there wouldn't be any trees eventually. (yes, silly examples but, I hope you get the point)

It is a perfect example for my point because the tree is not conscious. It does not "decide" to put its roots in the ground. It does not "feel good." It put its roots in the ground because that is in its genes. True, it would die if its roots grew into the air, but that does not mean the "purpose" of the roots is to go into the ground. That does not mean that nature "intended" for the roots into the ground. That kind of anthropomorphism opens the door to a lot of intuitive errors in thinking. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:While

Sandycane wrote:
While fertility may at the present time be 'adequate', it is a fact that infertility rates are soaring

Okay, how do you know this for a fact? You don't have to show me a source; just tell me how you know.

I know that infertility rates in China are increasing. For the U.S., I can only found sources that contradict your claim. This study by students at a college in Massachusetts appear to show that infertility is decreasing.

http://biology.wsc.ma.edu/biology/students/posters/popmodel/infertility/

Sandycane wrote:
and the population growth rates in civilized countries is in decline.

Okay, and how do you know this?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:This is

Sandycane wrote:

This is true.

The difference between me and the rest of you politically correct persons is that I am not trying to change your minds about how you feel on the subject of homosexuality... as you are trying to change mine. I view homosexuality as not normal. Simple as that.

You know, bigotry used to anger me at one point.  Nowadays I just pity bigots.  You are taking an unreasonable approach to this, so this has nothing to do with how I feel, I'm quite indifferent on homosexuals in general, I don't feel strongly one way or another.  I may be a little biased because my closest friend is gay, however, his sexuality comes up extremely seldom.  I'm also not a politically correct person.  There are a lot of things that anger me, things that seem unreasonable.  But to find someone not normal because they were born a certain way...  People that think that way actually disgust me.  

There is no way to justify your position short of saying you feel a certain way and that's that.  There really is no difference between how you think, and how a theist thinks.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Homosexuals are not harmful

Homosexuals are not harmful to society. Period. They can contribute to everything except fertilization. They can hunt, grow crops, help in raising and caring for the children, so even on such occasions freeing the women to have more children, etc, etc.

In many species, only a small proportion of the males actually get to procreate, the ones who gather groups of females under them in 'harems'.

Only a small number of males are needed for procreation - it is the number of females who limit the population growth. So again, even a major proportion of homosexual males would not necessarily have an impact on a species' reproduction rate.

There is also the fact that a significant number of men are not exclusively homo or hetero sexual.

Here is one article that seems to be related to what I was saying about a gene that is present in some women that seems to have some influence on their male children being disposed to homsexuality.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology