Freethought & Rationalism Archive

conkermaniac · 08-12-2003, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ihmhi
I live in New Jersey. We get a newspaper called the Star Ledger.

<offtopic>
Ah, the good ol' Star Ledger. Haven't seen a copy in almost three years. When I was in fourth grade, I actually got an editorial published in the Sunday papers.

</offtopic>

Shadowy Man · 08-12-2003, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ihmhi
If two people want to marry, then they have every right to do so.

And what if three people want to get married?

Autonemesis · 08-12-2003, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ihmhi
We were made to survive and procreate.

Made? By whom? Says who?

Quote:

I must admit that genetics isn't a perfect science (there are many genetic diseases and defects). No matter how moral and upstanding a homosexual person may be, from a scientific point of view, I fail to see how they can help the race progress.

Ever heard of a guy name Foucault? How about a fellow named Tesla? What about Turing, does that name ring a bell? There's three examples of homosexuals helping the "race progress." (assuming an ordinary meaning of the word "progress"). I can turn up more if you think it will help.

Kruzkal · 08-12-2003, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
And what if three people want to get married?

They go to a country/place where polygamy and/or polyandry is acceptable.

__________________

Philosophy - Questions that cannot be answered
Religion - Answers that cannot be questioned

Shadowy Man · 08-12-2003, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kruzkal
They go to a country/place where polygamy and/or polyandry is acceptable.

And why should it be unacceptable in the United States?

Nowhere357 · 08-12-2003, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Anyway, according to Darwin's theories, if something doesn't have the will to procreate, then it is unnatural.

I wonder if you would consider a mule to be "unnatural", since it is unable to breed.

Peter Kirby · 08-12-2003, 10:23 AM

The moral issue belongs in Moral Foundations... so I just want to make a "scientific" point.

Homosex-uality, when applied to animals, refers to those animals who have sex with those of the same gender.

Heterosex-uality is those who have sex with those of the opposite gender.

These are not mutually exclusive. The so-called "bisexuality" option means that the animal has sex with males and females.

Certainly, a genetic predisposition to avoid sex with the opposite gender will inhibit the spread of your genes. Call this "anti-heterosex-uality."

What is non-Darwinistic, then, is anti-heterosex-uality, not a male doing it with a male.

Homosex-uality is at worst neutral as to survival (when not coupled with anti-heterosex-uality) and could even improve the spread of your genes. Why?

You're the alpha male, you show your dominance to the other males by fucking them in the ass, and you get all the select females that mating season.

How does this apply to human beings? Women aren't as turned on by gay men.

That's in 21st century American culture. In other cultures it would be neutral to reproductive success. For example, in ancient Greece, commonly a woman was for babies and a handsome lad was for fun. The men would often by homo-sex-ual but not anti-hetero-sex-ual.

Not that passing on genes is a moral imperative--that belongs in another forum.

best,
Peter Kirby

Kruzkal · 08-12-2003, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
And why should it be unacceptable in the United States?

Ask Bush . . . Just like asking any serious questions to any politicians, you stand very little chance of acquiring a straight answer.

:boohoo:

__________________

The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is 42

Roland98 · 08-12-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kruzkal
Hence conserving the gay genes for another generation.

Who says that "gay genes" must exist? It could very well be due to environmental factors, not to heredity.

Feather · 08-12-2003, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland98

Who says that "gay genes" must exist? It could very well be due to environmental factors, not to heredity. [/B]

Environmental psychological factors or environmental factors that alter the "normal" growth of a person physically?

In other words, explain, please.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-12-2003, 10:23 AM	#17
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	The moral issue belongs in Moral Foundations... so I just want to make a "scientific" point. Homosex-uality, when applied to animals, refers to those animals who have sex with those of the same gender. Heterosex-uality is those who have sex with those of the opposite gender. These are not mutually exclusive. The so-called "bisexuality" option means that the animal has sex with males and females. Certainly, a genetic predisposition to avoid sex with the opposite gender will inhibit the spread of your genes. Call this "anti-heterosex-uality." What is non-Darwinistic, then, is anti-heterosex-uality, not a male doing it with a male. Homosex-uality is at worst neutral as to survival (when not coupled with anti-heterosex-uality) and could even improve the spread of your genes. Why? You're the alpha male, you show your dominance to the other males by fucking them in the ass, and you get all the select females that mating season. How does this apply to human beings? Women aren't as turned on by gay men. That's in 21st century American culture. In other cultures it would be neutral to reproductive success. For example, in ancient Greece, commonly a woman was for babies and a handsome lad was for fun. The men would often by homo-sex-ual but not anti-hetero-sex-ual. Not that passing on genes is a moral imperative--that belongs in another forum. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.