Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[klatukatt]

-not suited for this board---

[Spock]

OK GUYS- poor taste is no substitute for dialogue. IF you can't stay on topic without this, we'll close the topic for a time.

[EarthBound]

and the topic is.....??? OH!!!!! Sorry.

Ok, here's the thing, love is live is love....but "Some" would say "We can only love certain 'others' or else it is 'unsanctioned love' and an abolminal sin....lovely

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Somehow, klatty, I knew Spock wouldn't let that through.

Though, seriously, Spock, I really think only the last sentence was unacceptable.

EB, that ain't the way it is.

[klatukatt]

godsdamn! If only everyone would learn from that story! Now it's blocked!

I have always said that women all have to be a tiny bit attracted to other women because the female body is just too beautiful.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

I have always said that women all have to be a tiny bit attracted to other women because the female body is just too beautiful.

I agree with that, from my personal feelings anyway.

Though I must add that the male body is gorgeous. It stands to reason that men would be a tiny bit attracted to each other too.

Though I think sexuality is a non-linear spectrum. Some people will find themselves on an extreme end of things and only be attracted to men, say.

[The Gaffer]

Yup.

[BeardofPants]

Oh definitely. We're all a little bit gay, some of us are just more so.

[Butterbeer]

well i agree with the Komrade K and Nurv ... but i am not so sure it works both ways Nurv, at least to such an equal way ... i do not find men physically attractive at all... i'd be a lesbian though!

BB's mind wanders off .. outside of time and space, on paths of which he will not tell .... naked, i was sent back for a time .... Sir Ian Mckellen is gay btw ... are we to deny the right of Gandalf himself to get married?

...er... wsrong thread again ...*damn darts* ...

i mean is it wrong for Gandalf to be gay?

What of the Ents and treebeards? I mean ... the entwives haven't been around for a fair old while .... plenty of hardwood in the forests ...

do we, if we make moral judgments about homosexuality apply them equally to mankind as to animals or fictional / mythical creatures?

We knbow that some animals display homosexual or 'gay' behaviour in nature: does this then mean it is a natural thing, and that only man in his arrogance has deemed it 'dodgy'?

Or do we apply the same moral viewpoints on homosxuality to horses, orcs, ents, Miar, Wizards and ...er.. Balrogs?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Though I think sexuality is a non-linear spectrum.

That's worth saying twice.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

plenty of hardwood in the forests ...

Wouldnt this cause a fire eventually though?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Wouldnt this cause a fire eventually though?

No, you can't start fires just by rubbing two sticks together!

Please don't mod that, it's t3h funnee and not too over the top!

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

well i agree with the Komrade K and Nurv ... but i am not so sure it works both ways Nurv, at least to such an equal way ... i do not find men physically attractive at all... i'd be a lesbian though!

Maybe you're right. The non-linear spectrum might not apply in the same way to everyone. Is sexuality complicated or what?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

We knbow that some animals display homosexual or 'gay' behaviour in nature: does this then mean it is a natural thing, and that only man in his arrogance has deemed it 'dodgy'?

I think this is an equivocation on "nature". If by "a natural thing", you mean one found beyond the sphere of direct human control and in the domain of plants and animals, than yes. But if one say's something is or is not natural, they generally mean natural in a different sense, namely, the fundamental way that things are or ought to be. In which case, I say that it is not natural.

Originally Posted by Nurv

No, you can't start fires just by rubbing two sticks together!

Scandal!

[Elfhelm]

Is a "non-linear spectrum" something like a color wheel?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I think this is an equivocation on "nature". If by "a natural thing", you mean one found beyond the sphere of direct human control and in the domain of plants and animals, than yes. But if one say's something is or is not natural, they generally mean natural in a different sense, namely, the fundamental way that things are or ought to be. In which case, I say that it is not natural.

I don't think natural is meant to be used to say that something ought not to exist. If something is natural, it occurs without excessive manipulation. GMO's could be deemed unnatural, but there is certainly a grey area.

Homosexuality is natural, whether you agree with it or not. If you don't, you could go on to say that while it is natural, it is not good for you, sort of like Red tide.

To say that it is not natural is misleading. You can agree that it occurs in nature without giving homosexuality a stamp of approval.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Scandal!

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Is a "non-linear spectrum" something like a color wheel?

Yeah, something like that, I think. My mental image is a little hazy.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think natural is meant to be used to say that something ought not to exist. If something is natural, it occurs without excessive manipulation. GMO's could be deemed unnatural, but there is certainly a grey area.

Homosexuality is natural, whether you agree with it or not. If you don't, you could go on to say that while it is natural, it is not good for you, sort of like Red tide.

To say that it is not natural is misleading. You can agree that it occurs in nature without giving homosexuality a stamp of approval.



Yeah, something like that, I think. My mental image is a little hazy.

Nurv,

Your second paragraph is so very close to recognizing that one can disagree with the gay agenda without condemning the persons, do you really mean it?
Because when I have taken that tack I have been accused of all sorts of evils that were not in fact true. The data, remember?

Occurrence in nature is not a stamp of approval. That is a good recognition. When I have argued from that stance, I have been further accused of all the PC evils.

And it's not a color wheel, its a spiral!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I think this is an equivocation on "nature". If by "a natural thing", you mean one found beyond the sphere of direct human control and in the domain of plants and animals, than yes. But if one say's something is or is not natural, they generally mean natural in a different sense, namely, the fundamental way that things are or ought to be. In which case, I say that it is not natural.

Well of course its NATURAL if its found in NATURE. There has to be a reason for its existence in populations in nature. Its not all coincidence. And what the heck do you mean by "way things ought to be" exactly? According to whom? Just because you dont like certain aspects of nature doesnt make them 'wrong'. The question is always WHY it occurs not how can we explain it away. There must be some benefit to it if you see it across species and within such a wide variety of environments.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I think this is an equivocation on "nature". If by "a natural thing", you mean one found beyond the sphere of direct human control and in the domain of plants and animals, than yes. But if one say's something is or is not natural, they generally mean natural in a different sense, namely, the fundamental way that things are or ought to be. In which case, I say that it is not natural.

Male big horn sheep live in what are often called "homosexual societies." They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males "effeminate."

Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in "penis fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.

As this list of activities suggests, having homosexual sex is the biological equivalent of apple pie: Everybody likes it. At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia. You name it, there's a vertebrate out there that does it. Nevertheless, most biologists continue to regard homosexuality as a sexual outlier. According to evolutionary theory, being gay is little more than a maladaptive behavior.

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/200...p?page=all&p=y

Reply by PZ Meyers:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...osexuality.php

So I'm not sure what you mean by "the fundamental way thngs are or ought to be" and that "that it is not natural".

You mean that even though rams often mount each other in the wild, this is against the way things ought to be? How so?
Is this a result of the Fall? Did they not exhibit this behaviour in the Garden? Are they morally at fault?

The US government actually has an extensive program to breed homosexual behavior out of male sheep. For economic, not moral reasons, of course, but it apparently hasn't worked too well so far.

[Elfhelm]

Small correction there. Bonobos aren't just "one of" of closest relatives. They ARE our closest relative. Until recently we were told that chimpanzees were our closest relative, and their male dominant society was given as evidence that similar human societies were more natural. But bonobos are a closer relative, so by the same argument, diverse sexual behaviors are natural. Which is, of course, a jumping to conclusions. In my opinion, humans, like crows, imitate the most successful relations they see, so sometimes they are one way and sometimes another (Polynesian marriage customs, for instance, were the most successful way to survive). Which could mean that in our period of overpopulation, non-progenitive forms of sexual behavior might be more successful for the species as a whole. And maybe it's high time we took a clue from the bonobos. They don't make war, like chimps, they make love.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think natural is meant to be used to say that something ought not to exist. If something is natural, it occurs without excessive manipulation. GMO's could be deemed unnatural, but there is certainly a grey area.

Ever hear of the phrase "nature of things" "nature of the universe" "nature of man" etc.? That's what I'm talking about.

Homosexuality is natural, whether you agree with it or not. If you don't, you could go on to say that while it is natural, it is not good for you, sort of like Red tide.

I disagree, and you don't seem to have posited any sort of reason for me to change my opinion, so I'll leave it at that.

To say that it is not natural is misleading. You can agree that it occurs in nature without giving homosexuality a stamp of approval.

But no, I just said that's an equivocation on nature. Read what I write!
[/QUOTE]