Written by Rasputin on 01.07.2015 at 20:18

That is the problem, we have people, to include some on this forum that argue that the main reason behind sex, or should I say the purpose of sex for procreation is not true. I know how stupid that sounds, and that is why I challenged here, whoever it was, to stop using condoms and pills and just have sex, and let us see how long will his GF stay un-pregnant.

You clearly believe in God, or some other intentional creator or designer. Even so, I could ask you: so what? So what if God intended sex for procreation; why should we stick to his plan? If you make a stool with the intention that people will sit on it, but I buy it instead to use it as a bedside table, how the fuck is that not my business?

(I will spare you the embarassement of going into the numerous examples of human life that go against the "natural", i.e. evolutionary-historical function of human bodily functions. If you don't understand human civilisation is one long history of being inventive with the stuff that comes "naturally" to us, you should rethink matters.)

But honestly, many people don't buy the God-argument, and even those who believe in him often consider that created things can have many uses, for business and pleasure alike.

Written by IronAngel on 01.07.2015 at 20:25

Written by Rasputin on 01.07.2015 at 20:18

That is the problem, we have people, to include some on this forum that argue that the main reason behind sex, or should I say the purpose of sex for procreation is not true. I know how stupid that sounds, and that is why I challenged here, whoever it was, to stop using condoms and pills and just have sex, and let us see how long will his GF stay un-pregnant.

You clearly believe in God, or some other intentional creator or designer. Even so, I could ask you: so what? So what if God intended sex for procreation; why should we stick to his plan? If you make a stool with the intention that people will sit on it, but I buy it instead to use it as a bedside table, how the fuck is that not my business?

(I will spare you the embarassement of going into the numerous examples of human life that go against the "natural", i.e. evolutionary-historical function of human bodily functions. If you don't understand human civilisation is one long history of being inventive with the stuff that comes "naturally" to us, you should rethink matters.)

But honestly, many people don't buy the God-argument, and even those who believe in him often consider that created things can have many uses, for business and pleasure alike.

So you do not think the main purpose for sex is procreation? I said it once, I will say it again, who ever thinks that, stop using condoms and pills and we will see. If people want to change what sex is, it is up to them, up to the individual, but that still does not change the main purpose. Main purpose to have colon is to defecate, and it will still be to defecate, regardless of the fact if someone likes taking it up the ass.

I do not believe sex has any "purpose" whatsoever, in general. Individual instances of sex may have purpose, if the participants are doing it for a purpose (or someone put them to it).

Make no mistake: this is something you have to believe unless you believe in God, a personified Mother Nature or some other grand plan. There can be no purpose that isn't someone's purpose. No doubt there are people who claim to be atheists but still cling to teleological assumptions; phrases like "this is as nature intended" or "the natural way of things" are remnants of a teleological world-view that has only incompletely transitioned to a naturalistic, causal model of explanation (i.e. the "scientific world-view").

I don't blame you for making the mistake, though. Many biology text books speak in teleological terms, too. You may have been told, for instance, that trees withdraw the green from their leaves before they drop them in order to preserve energy (or whatever). This is not true, of course: the trees have no such intention. It's just that trees that did happen to do so, by some freak mutation, were the ones that survived natural selection. (Pardon if the biological details are inaccurate; the principle, however, is sound.)

What do you believe, then? If this is too invasive a question, you don't have to answer, but it is pretty much the key to disagreement in this matter. Either you have a mystical, teleological world-view, or you are just not thinking clearly. There's no middle ground that I can see.

Written by Rasputin on 01.07.2015 at 20:21

I am not arguing for incest and bullshit like that, I am just telling that that is coming. I mean, if we look at the current mantra "do what thou wilt" and as long as "it does not hurt anyone" at least incest, if not pedophilia will pass. I mean, we have groups in the USA, and I remember last year we had a brother and a sister who loved each other and were consenting adults, so my point is, it is just a matter of time until SJW pick up the fight and agree with this insanity.

I mean, in the USA for the most part, people overlook the issue with Islam and pedophilia, so part of it is accepted as cultural, so we are only lacking a culture to surface, because transracial, transabled or whatever will be here to stay, because extreme liberalism makes it happen.

Denmark recently passed a law that banned bestiality. Same-sex marriage became legal three years before. For incest and pedophilia you still receive imprisonment.

Bestiality is legal to various degrees in Hungary, Cambodia, Mexico, Colombia, Romania, Japan but homosexual marriage is not preformed in them.

I doubt there is a principle more than simply cultural references.
Moral principles are not very convincing, people tend to psychologically rationalize what they feel comfortable with into 'principles'.
You can dislike homosexuality, that's fine, but if you don't have very good reasons you won't convince people that already feel comfortable with it.

You are confusing function with purpose, causation with intention, which leads to a very muddled, pseudo-scientific world view. You speak as if someone designed biological organisms with a particular purpose in mind, as if there was a personified Mother Nature or Natural Selection which gave a rat's ass about whether you procreate or not. The purpose of a species is not to procreate, contrary to what people like to claim; it just so happens that those who do so effectively by chance pass on their genes more effectively, too. This is not good or bad, natural or unnatural, the goal of nature any more than extinction is. It just is; an arbitrary, uncaring and meaningless fact. You cannot base a moral or teleological argument on such empirical happenstance.

It seems that you have taken the first step from a teleological theistic world view towards a "scientific" one of cause and effect, but you still cling to old phrases and ways of thinking that break when you no longer assume a God or intentional Cosmos behind the empirical world. You need to let go your intuitive common sense preconceptions and join us in the enlightened heights of clarity. "Common sense" is the most misleading, dangerous bias humans are plagued with.

Now, the fact that sexual procreation is so predominant today is because of its success in evolutionary history. But that really has no implication for human life. Applied to any other area of life, such an argument would be absurd: imagine if biologists demonstrated that humans have a certain kind of digestive system because at one point in history, the diet was limited and everyone who could not digest a certain kind of berry died. (Equivalent examples are probably very common.) Nobody would make the argument that the "purpose" of our digestive systems is to digest those berries, let alone insist that we should stick to eating only those berries because it's "natural."

I repeat: there can be no purpose other than someone's purpose. This is true by definition; you can look it up in any dictionary. So unless you believe there is a someone who made people (Mother Nature, God, World-Spirit), you cannot believe there is purpose in nature, no matter how stupid you think it sounds. You are simply wrong, period. If you tried to weasel out of it by redefining the word (as "function", perhaps), it would no longer have the same implications. You can argue that someone should do X because it is intended (given that you respect the original intention), but you can't really argue someone should do X because it happens to be its mechanistic function.

We cannot leave the natural (i.e. real) world, so everything we do is natural. Our capacity to act is the result of evolution, so you can't even argue we do something contrary to the "laws" of evolution. If humans have evolved to act intentionally, seek happiness and use their natural functions to produce pleasure in innovative ways, that's the natural matter of fact. Indeed, our survival depends on us solving problems and overcoming limitations imposed by our bodies and surroundings; wearing clothes to ward off the cold is pretty much equivalent to using contraception to ward off unwanted STDs and pregnancies, and both are entirely natural inventions. In fact, if you believed in an intentional creator, our capacity for problem-solving would be pretty strong evidence to argue that's what nature or God intended.

Written by deadone on 01.07.2015 at 09:59


Though I agree with Rasputin in that there's not been much done in terms of research into causes of homosexuality. I do think it's a form of disorder - after all primary purpose of sex is procreation and sex with same gender doesn't really promote this concept. Same applies to transexualism (i.e. feeling like you're the wrong gender).

Could be a way to prevent over population. If whatever percent of a population is naturally attracted to a relationship that can't reproduce naturally then it would help keep the species numbers down.
What causes an attraction to any physical characteristic in particular?

Mind that my caution against "common sense" is not just philosophical-skeptical diatribe, it is firmly based on observation. The one thing in common with all natural sciencies, as far as I have studied them, seems to be that the more they advance and the further we penetrate the structure of reality, the stranger and less intuitive the results become. Common sense falls short of grasping reality, and the gap is only going to get bigger.

Evolution is still somewhat comprehensible, though we struggle to rid ourselves of teleological assumptions (as evident in this topic). But who can really claim to intuitively understand string theory, mathematics in more than three dimensions, or the reduction of behaviour and belief to chemicals and electric signals in the brain? We should be less sure of ourselves and more open to re-evaluate common-sense practices based on the best knowledge of reality available to us.

Written by M C Vice on 02.07.2015 at 10:34

Written by deadone on 01.07.2015 at 09:59


Though I agree with Rasputin in that there's not been much done in terms of research into causes of homosexuality. I do think it's a form of disorder - after all primary purpose of sex is procreation and sex with same gender doesn't really promote this concept. Same applies to transexualism (i.e. feeling like you're the wrong gender).

Could be a way to prevent over population. If whatever percent of a population is naturally attracted to a relationship that can't reproduce naturally then it would help keep the species numbers down.
What causes an attraction to any physical characteristic in particular?

Well it could be, but it begs the question, is it something that is intentionally created, or is it just an accident? From what I learned in my Biology classes, it is quite easy to fuck up a baby during gestation by introducing hormones through either food and water. I don't deny that we had homosexuals for centuries, but what I find interesting is that now we seem to have them more than ever. I don't know. I said it before, it is a genetic aberrations, hormonally induced changed of the wiring in the brain during gestation and/or a mutation of a gene. They are trying right now to push the agenda of heteronormativity, meaning, that being a hetero individual is just normative, which I find to be very stupid. Homosexuals and other derivatives are the outliers, not the heterosexuals, but everything insane is normal now, so who knows.

Written by deadone on 02.07.2015 at 03:06

Written by IronAngel on 01.07.2015 at 22:06

I do not believe sex has any "purpose" whatsoever, in general. Individual instances of sex may have purpose, if the participants are doing it for a purpose (or someone put them to it).

No offence but this is perhaps the stupidest comment I've ever read in my life.

Given that if a male mammal or reptile or bird has unprotected sex with a female of the same species (some exceptions like big cats aside), there is a likelihood of the female becoming pregnant than it's obvious i's biological purpose is procreation just like a stomach's purpose is processing of food and a leg's purpose is mobility and a brain's function is control and coordination.

Whether there is purpose in procreation is another question entirely but biological function cannot be ignored.


This thread is evolving into a great example of common sense being flushed down the toilet.


(And no I'm not homophobic. I think homosexuals have as much right to have relationships just like anyone else. My point is more at looking at what causes it to basically understand how human beings work.)

Very well put. I agree with your points.

Written by IronAngel on 01.07.2015 at 22:06

I do not believe sex has any "purpose" whatsoever, in general. Individual instances of sex may have purpose, if the participants are doing it for a purpose (or someone put them to it).

Make no mistake: this is something you have to believe unless you believe in God, a personified Mother Nature or some other grand plan. There can be no purpose that isn't someone's purpose. No doubt there are people who claim to be atheists but still cling to teleological assumptions; phrases like "this is as nature intended" or "the natural way of things" are remnants of a teleological world-view that has only incompletely transitioned to a naturalistic, causal model of explanation (i.e. the "scientific world-view").

I don't blame you for making the mistake, though. Many biology text books speak in teleological terms, too. You may have been told, for instance, that trees withdraw the green from their leaves before they drop them in order to preserve energy (or whatever). This is not true, of course: the trees have no such intention. It's just that trees that did happen to do so, by some freak mutation, were the ones that survived natural selection. (Pardon if the biological details are inaccurate; the principle, however, is sound.)

What do you believe, then? If this is too invasive a question, you don't have to answer, but it is pretty much the key to disagreement in this matter. Either you have a mystical, teleological world-view, or you are just not thinking clearly. There's no middle ground that I can see.

You do not "believe" and it fine, but that does not make it true, regardless how hard you tried to fight it and argue it. For me, both the scientific and creationist theory are one and the same. The scientists claim various things on how the universe came to be, be it Big Bang or any other theory, and the theologians that it was God that created us, yet neither can describe and explain what created the first matter, or what created God. Both of them essentially argue sui generis ex nihilo. So for the time being, I am an Agnostic, and I think that there is more to the universe than I can fathom with my mind, and leave it at that.

Now, what I keep seeing, not only here, but mostly everywhere where there are debates of this nature is a simple question, of are we a human animal or are we of divine origin. I can agree that humans possess animal traits, but humans possess higher consciousness and should act accordingly, instead of always reverting to the argument of "well, the animals do it."

Since you are so keen on the "evolution theory" I must point out that even Darwin had interesting ideas about sex, procreations and the origin of the species. Natural Selection may take a variety of forms and act on any behavioral, morphological, developmental or physiological traits of an organism. However, certain types of selection are unique in their features, and they are often treated as special categories of selection. One of these "special" categories is that of sexual selection.

Darwin was the first to realize the existence and importance of sexual selection, which he defined as "the advantage which certain individuals have over others of the same sex and species solely in respect of reproduction".

The main function, purpose, reason, cause, effect, or whatever you want to call it, behind mating/sex is reproduction, driven by instinct to reproduce. This is why we have animals fight over mates, species after species to be able to win over the female in order to procreate. Why would Peacocks and other birds perform such a delicate mating ritual in the time of year when the females are ovulating if the instinct was not there to procreate. They could arguably do that all the time, but they don't. Deer, lions and other cats, birds, and fish and almost every animal imaginable does this, and it sure as fuck is not just because of pleasure, because most sexual encounters in animals are brief and to the point. I think it is you who keeps twisting and changing what it obvious to suit some agenda.

I think it is pretty natural thing to look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and understand that as humans we have basic functions, the bare minimum to have a functioning and thriving human being. That is the word I was looking for, every specie is attempting to thrive and progress forward. Self actualization, Esteem, love/belonging, safety, physiological needs like water, food, excretion, are all needed for homeostasis. We can see this in some animals as well, apes and Chimpanzees, they themselves have some of those needs to be part of their complex society.

For allegedly a world without any purpose, randomness of primordial muck, the life on this planet is anything but simple. While philosophers argue that it is a logical fallacy to argue that if something is complex it is not a sign of divine intervention (snowflake for instance), they are still not able to create anything without DNA, without simple amino acids, nucleotide chains or whatever. And for such a simple world, and for such a simple human, we need a hundreds of disciplines to explain something that is allegedly simple and evolved from a single cell organism without explaining where the single sell organism came from. I have no idea how we are here, why we are here, but to say that all of it just happened out of nothing and nothing is connected and it does not matter, to me sounds like lunacy, but I am a lunatic and I am proud to be one since what goes for "normal" these days, or "educated" scares the fuck out of me.

Written by Rasputin on 02.07.2015 at 10:59

I don't deny that we had homosexuals for centuries, but what I find interesting is that now we seem to have them more than ever. I don't know. I said it before, it is a genetic aberrations, hormonally induced changed of the wiring in the brain during gestation and/or a mutation of a gene. They are trying right now to push the agenda of heteronormativity, meaning, that being a hetero individual is just normative, which I find to be very stupid. Homosexuals and other derivatives are the outliers, not the heterosexuals, but everything insane is normal now, so who knows.

There's probably the same % of homosexuals now as in the past, just more of them are open these days as there's less discrimination against them.

Written by M C Vice on 02.07.2015 at 12:29

Written by Rasputin on 02.07.2015 at 10:59

I don't deny that we had homosexuals for centuries, but what I find interesting is that now we seem to have them more than ever. I don't know. I said it before, it is a genetic aberrations, hormonally induced changed of the wiring in the brain during gestation and/or a mutation of a gene. They are trying right now to push the agenda of heteronormativity, meaning, that being a hetero individual is just normative, which I find to be very stupid. Homosexuals and other derivatives are the outliers, not the heterosexuals, but everything insane is normal now, so who knows.

There's probably the same % of homosexuals now as in the past, just more of them are open these days as there's less discrimination against them.

I wish we could test that theory. We don't have the data. While I agree with you that more of them are in the open, I still think that there is more here than we are seeing. Plus, as I mentioned in one of the earlier posts, I keep noticing that homosexuality is becoming or is a fad among college kids, so many embrace that lifestyle for whatever reason, or to say the least, more of them are "experimenting" so not necessarily all of them are gay in the truest sense.

Written by deadone on 02.07.2015 at 13:54

Written by Rasputin on 02.07.2015 at 10:59


Now, what I keep seeing, not only here, but mostly everywhere where there are debates of this nature is a simple question, of are we a human animal or are we of divine origin. I can agree that humans possess animal traits, but humans possess higher consciousness and should act accordingly, instead of always reverting to the argument of "well, the animals do it."

Actually from what I see people do the same as animals. The difference is higher level of intelligence and consciousness as well as social development means our darwinian escapades are far more abstracted and often devolve into the inane.

E.g.

1. Career/money hungry types
2. Social territorial groups at school or work.
3. Intra family struggles for supremacy (e,g. my 2 aunts!).
4. Quests for satisfaction of more abstract needs especially once basic needs are met (Maslow's Hierarchy as you mention). Once your stomach is full and your comfortable one starts needing other needs for things such as power, prestige, spirituality, accomplishment etc. Some of this is actually basic natural selection in action - prestige and power are no different to being the alpha male in a pack of wolves.

And you talking about "not acting like animals" is a bit hilarious cause you engage in typical animalistic behaviour such as pack mentality (e.g. anti- multiculturalism, your very pro-Serbian and anti-homosexual - nationalism is animalistic territorialism, anti-homosexuality is herd behaviour again as homosexuality is frowned upon in Orthodox Christian societies such as Russia and Serbia).

I don't bother with high minded ideals. I recognise that we are just animals and ones that in fact signify the supremacy of primal evolutionary urges. We have gone from some mammalian apes in Africa to a globe spanning terraforming parasite - the ultimate in evolution and natural selection.

A part of animalistic tendencies will always remain, that goes without saying, but to constantly go by the least common denominator, like I already mentioned is detrimental. Multiculturalism is a utopian ideal, I am pro-Serbian because I am Serbian, and you are also pro-Croatian because of your Croatian heritage, the question is how aware of it are you. You support Australia and want to defend its interests so you are patriotic. I don't view homosexuality wrong because of religion, I view it as an aberration because it is one.

If we are just animals, then we should do what animals do, right? No, I disagree with that, we should be held to a higher standard.

Written by deadone on 02.07.2015 at 13:38

Your problem is you're shoving gods and meaning into it. The basic biological function of sex and sex organs can't be disputed. . It doesn't have to have a purpose just like life and the universe itself doesn't have to have a purpose (contrary to what insignificant human animals want to think to give meaning to their fleeting existence on this backwater planet).

In essence you're turning this into a religious and even existential question when we're talking about why some people are the way they are.

Not me; I told Rasputin that sex has no inherent purpose, only the purposes individuals practice it for. You disagreed with this. You yourself used phrases like "for the sake of procreation" and "rewarding with pleasure", which imply a conscious intention. Now you're going back on that and conceding the point, which is fine. It does mean my previous points still stand unrefuted. I am not turning the question into anything; I am simply responding to what is said, sticking to arguments that are valid and criticising arguments that aren't. That religious, political, moral and existential assumptions have relevance here is due to the topic itself.

This is not just semantics. This is a classic trick of fallacious argumentation, where you begin with one premiss and derive certain conclusions from it; and when the validity of that premiss is questioned, you adjust it and suppose you have successfully defended your original argument. It is a very different thing to say "The purpose of sex is to procreate, and therefore X" than to say "Sex between fertile men and women often results in procreation, and therefore X".

For instance, you might say homosexuality is a disorder. For that to be the case, you need some normative standard by which to judge. Now, you could look to nature for that standard, and say homosexuality is a disorder because it fails to fulfill the purpose of sex. To this, I would counter that (unless you assume an intentional Creator) there is no purpose in nature, only states of affairs. People may have various intentions, but sex in general has no normative goal we must respect. Alright, so you concede this and say there may be no purpose, but certainly there is function, average behaviour, evolutionary efficiency. I have no qualms with this, but by now you have lost sight of the original argument: mere function or statistics can't provide the norm you need to label homosexuality a disorder (naturally, scientifically).

This may not be the exact argument you had in mind, but it is more or less a reconstruction of this discussion, or what I was responding to. For Rasputin to succeed, he would need the kind of purpose in nature that has moral significance. If he can't meet the criticism of his teleology and opts for a weaker term ("function" or whatever) he can't really derive from that any of the strong conclusions he wants.

Function, in any case, amounts to what a feature actually does. To discover the function of sex for contemporary humans in today's society, you need to study what is actually happening. Off the top of my head, sex enables population growth; it fosters emotional bonds between couples; it serves as a recreational activity; it may define one's identity; it causes emotional distress; it is a tool of subordination and dependency; the list goes on. This is all descriptive: sex's function is what it actually does, and there is no reason to posit a "primary function" that is more "important" than other functions. Evolutionary history is fairly irrelevant here. It is a point of intellectual curiosity and may help understand genetics better. Other than that, though, it does not have immediate relevance to political or moral discussions. I don't see what valid point you could possibly want to make regarding homosexuality by referring to the evolutionary function of sex for procreation.

Here's a Wikipedia quote for clarity:

Quote:
Function is not the same as purpose in the teleological sense. Evolution is a blind process which has no 'goal' for the future. For example, a tree does not grow flowers for any purpose, but does so simply because it has evolved to do so. To say 'a tree grows flowers to attract pollinators' would be incorrect if the 'to' implies purpose. A function describes what something does, not what its 'purpose' is. However, teleological terminology is often used by biologists as a sort of shorthand way of describing function, even though they know it is technically incorrect.

I am not terribly interested in the biology behind homosexuality, personally. Sure, I might read a good article if one came my way, but such layman's curiosity would apply to many other biological questions too. I agree with you that the biological (neurological) basis of homosexuality, like human behaviour in general, is still insufficiently understood. I am also prepared to suppose that cultural factors have an impact; it would be weird if they didn't. (So no, I don't fully buy the politically correct "You can't cure homosexuality/I am who I am" slogans because they are too absolute, but so are most opinions in life.) I just don't see what political or moral relevance any of this has; it is often wielded as a cautionary flag to justify mistreatment of homosexuals. Even if you isolated a mutated homosexuality gene, it should have no bearing on our treatment of homosexuals in society. We are all mutants and there is no "normal" in nature. Some mutations just happen to be more common than others, and there is no inherent merit in frequency.

Written by IronAngel on 02.07.2015 at 10:34

Mind that my caution against "common sense" is not just philosophical-skeptical diatribe, it is firmly based on observation. The one thing in common with all natural sciencies, as far as I have studied them, seems to be that the more they advance and the further we penetrate the structure of reality, the stranger and less intuitive the results become. Common sense falls short of grasping reality, and the gap is only going to get bigger.

Evolution is still somewhat comprehensible, though we struggle to rid ourselves of teleological assumptions (as evident in this topic). But who can really claim to intuitively understand string theory, mathematics in more than three dimensions, or the reduction of behaviour and belief to chemicals and electric signals in the brain? We should be less sure of ourselves and more open to re-evaluate common-sense practices based on the best knowledge of reality available to us.

Very true. In everyday life one can rely on common sense /most/ of the time, but when we venture into scientific realms, many things common sense tells us is false because common sense was "developed" without said scientific developments in consideration. The noneuclidean geometry of general relativity, and the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics certainly is a part of this, and as you said, in the case of evolution, the problem is the instinctive clinging to theistic worldviews where everything has a (false sense of) purpose.

I will not make an attempt to argue with the ones spoken below, but I must point out how insanely misrepresented evolution and natural selection is in common perception, even among those people who accept it. Most people want to see a deterministic purpose behind any evolutionary developments, but the truth is, it is just a stochastic process without any drive or purpose. Random mutations occur in populations that go in every possible "directions", and over an extremely large timeframe, the ones whose mutations are beneficial to the local environment will have an ever slightly larger chance of survival, which over even larger timeframes will result in said local population of species developing in a certain way that is beneficial to immediate survival.
But the mutations themselves do not happen as an adaptive mechanism. Popular perception of cause and effect are swapped here.

Of course most people, even reasonable, intelligent people, will not be able to accept this, for this goes against their (flawed) perception of the world named 'common sense'. This is why I believe, to some extent, that everybody should be taught more mathematics, even if they will never ever use it again in their lives.

As someone who have studied mathematics extensively, I believe the abstractation found in modern high-end mathematics makes people who study it much more capable of abstractation and understanding of logical structures that sill somehow defy common sense.

Written by Rasputin on 02.07.2015 at 14:14

I don't view homosexuality wrong because of religion, I view it as an aberration because it is one.

Or really? Do you have access to medical research the rest of us don't?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormality

Even the medical terminology is normative; even if you were to find homosexuality on the list of genetic disorders, it would still be an arbitrary human decision to set a certain model of DNA as the norm to compare others to. That is to say, you would still have to argue and convince us why such a relative deviation should warrant different treatment in society. You seem to have trouble separating these two worlds from each other.

Written by IronAngel on 02.07.2015 at 16:09

Written by Rasputin on 02.07.2015 at 14:14

I don't view homosexuality wrong because of religion, I view it as an aberration because it is one.

Or really? Do you have access to medical research the rest of us don't?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormality

Even the medical terminology is normative; even if you were to find homosexuality on the list of genetic disorders, it would still be an arbitrary human decision to set a certain model of DNA as the norm to compare others to. That is to say, you would still have to argue and convince us why such a relative deviation should warrant different treatment in society. You seem to have trouble separating these two worlds from each other.

To you everything is normative, your logic is normative as well.

If for the sake of the argument we look at your normative nature, while homosexuality exists in a miniscule form, meaning, it happens at random because the animals don't know any better, yet not a single animal remains in a homosexual relationship, but goes back to the heterosexual relationship, and these are animals mind you. Regardless of purpose, point and function, a simple deductive observation of nature shows us that all species struggle for survival and are fighting to thrive. I cannot believe that I have to explain all of this. I don't know what freaking world you live in but this is nature. Any species, any animal who cannot procreate for XYZ reasons is in a catastrophic position, since the DNA is not propelled into the future. This is why only the strongest have survived, and their DNA legacy is present today. From just naturalistic view, anything and I mean anything that impedes this is a detriment. Men and women being sterile, cancers, tumors, disorders be it genetic, be it psychological are impeding the progress forward. I said it before, regardless of whatever bullshit you are spewing, when a child is born with two heads and three arms and no legs, we all know that the child is disabled, and cannot function as a regular human individual because of that impairment. I also said before, that homosexuality was removed from the list of disorders due to the lobby "NOT ACTUAL EVIDENCE" but lobby and politics, and from that point on, anyone who attempted to prove or disprove it was shut down. You have better luck burning a Quran in front of ISIS and surviving then saying something that the libertard LGBT community disagrees with. Transexual, transabled, hermaphrodite, asexual...all of these things are disorders when applied to human specie. I cannot believe that I have to explain all of this.

So out of curiosity, what do you deem a disorder, or are disorders normative to you as well?

I watched this doco about pedophiles the other day. There was this guy who was attracted to little kids, though he had never acted on it.It was similar to if you were gay, it wasn't something he wanted, but he couldn't even commit because it would be breaking the law.

I guess what i'm saying is it could be like a sickness...being gay

Written by [user id=136611] on 03.07.2015 at 09:36

I watched this doco about pedophiles the other day. There was this guy who was attracted to little kids, though he had never acted on it.It was similar to if you were gay, it wasn't something he wanted, but he couldn't even commit because it would be breaking the law.

I guess what i'm saying is it could be like a sickness...being gay

Exactly like heterosexuality, too. We are what we are, these are empirical facts with no inherent meaning. Every human is slightly different, and there is no explicit norm which a "normal" person might perfectly embody. So when we determine sickness and disorder, we are making a social judgement call: this phenomenon is too different, this thing is harmful.

I cannot help being left-handed, and I am certainly a deviation from the average. We could very well label it a genetic disorder, but we don't because there is no reason to. When you label something a sickness or a disorder, it is not a scientific description of what the phenomenon is; it is a judgement call to say: this thing needs to be treated and prevented, this is not an acceptable state of affairs and we don't want it in our society.

So yes, Rasputin: a disorder is, by definition, normatively defined. It is plain in the word itself: dis-ORDER! What is order if not a normative state of affairs, the way things should be? If you do not understand this, and the difference between normative and descriptive in general, come back to this conversation after you've taken some English classes. Then you might go through my previous posts and actually answer any of the numerous arguments and examples directed at you, instead of repeating nonsense that has been dismissed as irrational many times over.

This means homosexuality can be a disorder if we want it to. (Just like being red-haired or schizophrenic.) But no amount of scientific research can decide that question. It is precisely political lobbying and moral argumentation that must make the case. You have to convince us that it really is harmful, undesirable and effectively treatable, and that we should take active measures to prevent it. This is not science, this is politics.

Written by [user id=136611] on 03.07.2015 at 09:36

I watched this doco about pedophiles the other day. There was this guy who was attracted to little kids, though he had never acted on it.It was similar to if you were gay, it wasn't something he wanted, but he couldn't even commit because it would be breaking the law.

I guess what i'm saying is it could be like a sickness...being gay

Like I said, the only difference between being "gay" and a pedophile is the age thing, and age thing is arbitrary or to say my new favorite phrase "normative" to define adult and a minor.

I spoke to quite a few homosexuals both at work, in college and places of business, and almost every single one stated they would want to be straight if they could, so by their own admission they feel "wrong." This is one of the reasons why I still stand on my position of it being a form of an illness and/or disability, regardless of the liberal agenda to make it look like something brave and empowering.

Written by IronAngel on 03.07.2015 at 11:47


Exactly like heterosexuality, too. We are what we are, these are empirical facts with no inherent meaning. Every human is slightly different, and there is no explicit norm which a "normal" person might perfectly embody. So when we determine sickness and disorder, we are making a social judgement call: this phenomenon is too different, this thing is harmful.

I cannot help being left-handed, and I am certainly a deviation from the average. We could very well label it a genetic disorder, but we don't because there is no reason to. When you label something a sickness or a disorder, it is not a scientific description of what the phenomenon is; it is a judgement call to say: this thing needs to be treated and prevented, this is not an acceptable state of affairs and we don't want it in our society.


This means homosexuality can be a disorder if we want it to. (Just like being red-haired or schizophrenic.) But no amount of scientific research can decide that question. It is precisely political lobbying and moral argumentation that must make the case. You have to convince us that it really is harmful, undesirable and effectively treatable, and that we should take active measures to prevent it. This is not science, this is politics.

i smell what ya cookin

Written by Rasputin on 04.07.2015 at 04:34


Like I said, the only difference between being "gay" and a pedophile is the age thing.

The only difference between being "heterosexual" and a pedophile is the the age thing.

Written by deadone on 04.07.2015 at 01:21

Again you're loading human values into natural function.

No. This is my entire point: whenever you say "normal" you stop describing nature and start making judgement calls. No such thing as "normal" exists outside a human (or otherwise sentient) system of norms. You and Rasputin keep trying to come up with examples of "natural" normalcy and disorder, but it's nothing but a case of muddled thought. (Even a statistical average is only the result of human selection of data, but we need not argue that since a statistical average would have no relevant consequence to the topic.)

That is not to say we should consider everything normal, or everything abnormal - in some cases, making drawing such lines can be practical. Plenty of sicknesses are with good reason treated and prevented. But you must not hide behind nature; you must acknowledge the role of human judgement in making these distinctions, and take responsibility. If society treats homosexuals different than heterosexuals, it is not because "nature, duh" but always because humans chose to do it. The point is: you need to justify that decision.

Of course researching the factual causes of homosexuality is fine. I said as much. I personally don't find it interesting and it has no political relevance (the kind Rasputin at least wanted to attribute to it; i.e. he is withholding moral judgement until there is more research), but the same can be said of most science. Some people take too absolute a stance on this topic, but it is a reaction to bigotry like Rasputin's. Homosexuality can be studied like any other phenomenon, with no ethical implications. It is very possible we find means of stimulating or preventing the development as we isolate some genetic and social causes. But so what?

Written by Rasputin on 04.07.2015 at 04:34

Written by [user id=136611] on 03.07.2015 at 09:36

I watched this doco about pedophiles the other day. There was this guy who was attracted to little kids, though he had never acted on it.It was similar to if you were gay, it wasn't something he wanted, but he couldn't even commit because it would be breaking the law.

I guess what i'm saying is it could be like a sickness...being gay

Like I said, the only difference between being "gay" and a pedophile is the age thing, and age thing is arbitrary or to say my new favorite phrase "normative" to define adult and a minor.

seems to me you're biggest XXXXX in this planet, only brainless morron would say it , seems you don know anything about anything, your theory are base on race, hate and and blindness....

Written by Bad English on 06.07.2015 at 01:05

Written by Rasputin on 04.07.2015 at 04:34

Written by [user id=136611] on 03.07.2015 at 09:36

I watched this doco about pedophiles the other day. There was this guy who was attracted to little kids, though he had never acted on it.It was similar to if you were gay, it wasn't something he wanted, but he couldn't even commit because it would be breaking the law.

I guess what i'm saying is it could be like a sickness...being gay

Like I said, the only difference between being "gay" and a pedophile is the age thing, and age thing is arbitrary or to say my new favorite phrase "normative" to define adult and a minor.

seems to me you're biggest XXXXX in this planet, only brainless morron would say it , seems you don know anything about anything, your theory are base on race, hate and and blindness....

It could be worse, I could be fapping to EU and be scared of Russia like you

Written by deadone on 07.07.2015 at 02:54

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 04.07.2015 at 10:53

Written by Rasputin on 04.07.2015 at 04:34


Like I said, the only difference between being "gay" and a pedophile is the age thing.

The only difference between being "heterosexual" and a pedophile is the the age thing.

My thoughts exactly.

I wonder what Rasputin's take on anal sex between heterosexuals, group sex, multiple sexual partners, cheating on one's partner and anything outside of missionary position is? Are they one step away from pedophilia too?

I am fairly certain that anus has a purpose for expelling waste, but who knows, new trends these days will make it hip to eat shit a la 2 girls one cup style and that would be ok I guess. I can see the appeal in sticking your dick in a lot of shit...mhm, must be a glorious feel...and smell.
Group sex? Hmm, well, I have a traditional view on relationships and marriage, so I cannot say I support it, but if you want to bring another guy to your bed, or a woman, that is up to you. Cheating should go without a comment from me.

I don't know, are they? Maybe we should consult the Catholic church, they have the most experience with all of this.

Written by deadone on 07.07.2015 at 05:34

Written by Rasputin on 07.07.2015 at 05:20

I am fairly certain that anus has a purpose for expelling waste, but who knows, new trends these days will make it hip to eat shit a la 2 girls one cup style and that would be ok I guess. I can see the appeal in sticking your dick in a lot of shit...mhm, must be a glorious feel...and smell.
Group sex? Hmm, well, I have a traditional view on relationships and marriage, so I cannot say I support it, but if you want to bring another guy to your bed, or a woman, that is up to you. Cheating should go without a comment from me.

I don't know, are they? Maybe we should consult the Catholic church, they have the most experience with all of this.

1. Me thinks anal sex has been around a lot longer than the internet.

2. Group sex - again as old as humans and even done by some of our other primate cousins (bonobo apes and chimpanzees). Kama Sutra was written about 1800 -2200 years ago so arguably even older than the Christian sexual traditions that you ascribe too.

My point is if you regard homosexuality as one step away from pedophilia are these deviations from Christian norms also one step away from pedophilia?

The traditional Christian and Islamic takes on sex are vile and extremely derogatory against women - sex is viewed as an necessary evil. Women are seen as evil seductresses peddling Satan's wares.

You are correct, it has been there for a while.

Group sex, you are correct has been done and still happens among the humans, and again it is not something I endorse, if not for STD's, and breaking the value of sex and fidelity in one way, then for separating us from animals.

The current trend is sex is just sex, well, if that is correct and everything is normative, it is fine for your spouse to have sex with as many people as she wants, because it is just sex, right? Since marriage is just a social concept.

Where do we draw the line?

Written by deadone on 09.07.2015 at 01:53

Written by Rasputin on 08.07.2015 at 19:55


Group sex, you are correct has been done and still happens among the humans, and again it is not something I endorse, if not for STD's, and breaking the value of sex and fidelity in one way, then for separating us from animals.

STDs can be avoided. As for fidelity, value of sex and separating us from animals, I don't see how enforcing certain sexual behaviours over others does any of this.

And bare in mind monogamy is present in some animal species as well who "mate for life." So hw does monogamy separate us from animals?

And why are we pretending that we're not animals?. Animals are far better than most people. Most dog owners know this!

Quote:
The current trend is sex is just sex, well, if that is correct and everything is normative, it is fine for your spouse to have sex with as many people as she wants, because it is just sex, right? Since marriage is just a social concept.

Where do we draw the line?

Wherever the fuck we want really - just like we always have. Hence it was ok for pedophilia in ancient Greece or Afghanistan but not ok for 21st century Westerners.

It's like any social value - it changes over history.

Depends on a STD, some you may get even if you use protection, and others like Herpes, stay with you forever.

Well, if we are animals, then fuck all the rules, laws and regulations, and lets return to the old school times of warlords and tribes, because that's what it seems to be happening.

I for one was content with the way society operated before all this bullshit making a comeback. But, who cares, when Islam takes over, nothing will matter anyway.

I don't really see any other problems in homosexuality, other than the fact that a lot of Social Justice Warriors are trying to empower it even to small children. More and more people are coming out gay in their 2nd to 3rd decade of life. The brain hasn't stopped developing at age 28 for some very normal people. I don't like the idea of empowering homosexuality, because it can seriously mess up some children, when you are trying to pull out a mental illness in their head. And yes it is a mental illness, or at least a result of one. I would compare it to having an unhealthy addiction personality. It's something you will have your entire life, and people who have it should be treated just like others, the only fact is, that in this case, you shouldn't try to help homosexual people, because this sexuality will not harm anyone.

Really I see that the current state of acceptance and how you look on homosexuality is bad, but only for the reason, that right now people are trying to empower it to young people. And the fact that in my country, a Christian church is forced to marry homosexual people. Besides those two, I don't think anything else should be changed in the modern society when it comes to homosexuality.

^Wow, Christian churches are being forced to marry homosexual people? That's bad

I understand homosexuals quest for marriage acceptance but additionaly demanding a church to hold a ceremony is just plain wrong. Aren't they allowed to believe in what they believe now anymore?

I think it's fine to expect officials with a civic function to perform their duties according to the law. As long as the churches want to maintain the right to marry people legally, I suppose they need to adhere to the same standards as the secular magistrate. If, as I think would be the theologically, legally and socially smart move on the long term, the churches were to relinquish their right to enact the legal contract and instead returned to a model where the church ceremony is a confirmation of the pact (and this is the traditional Christian view), the conflict could be avoided. (Of course, most churches would still opt to confirm gay marriages within a few decades, given the overwhelming pressure from within.)

But mostly, in the Nordic countries, the pressure is coming from within the church, not outside. Denmark, with quick googling, seems to be an exception.

As for the "I don't see problems with homosexuality, but it's a mental illness", lol. This is a very curious, half-assed stance: if it's an illness, it should be aggressively treated (with strong clinical evidence of its harmfulness and the effectiveness of treatment). If it's not (which is the overwhelming consensus), then what are you on about? I do think excessive attention to anyone's sexual identity, especially while it's forming, is generally unhelpful and may lead to distortions, but this is certainly not exclusive to homosexuality: "empowering" (I suppose you mean advertising) it to children is hardly different from the heteronormative mantra they're fed day in, day out about how they'll soon be interested in boys/girls and get married etc. Of course, this totalizing narrative has not made homosexuals disappear, so I wonder why you think the opposite would make gays out of straights either.

Written by IronAngel on 04.08.2017 at 08:57

I think it's fine to expect officials with a civic function to perform their duties according to the law. As long as the churches want to maintain the right to marry people legally, I suppose they need to adhere to the same standards as the secular magistrate. If, as I think would be the theologically, legally and socially smart move on the long term, the churches were to relinquish their right to enact the legal contract and instead returned to a model where the church ceremony is a confirmation of the pact (and this is the traditional Christian view), the conflict could be avoided. (Of course, most churches would still opt to confirm gay marriages within a few decades, given the overwhelming pressure from within.)

But mostly, in the Nordic countries, the pressure is coming from within the church, not outside. Denmark, with quick googling, seems to be an exception.

As for the "I don't see problems with homosexuality, but it's a mental illness", lol. This is a very curious, half-assed stance: if it's an illness, it should be aggressively treated (with strong clinical evidence of its harmfulness and the effectiveness of treatment). If it's not (which is the overwhelming consensus), then what are you on about? I do think excessive attention to anyone's sexual identity, especially while it's forming, is generally unhelpful and may lead to distortions, but this is certainly not exclusive to homosexuality: "empowering" (I suppose you mean advertising) it to children is hardly different from the heteronormative mantra they're fed day in, day out about how they'll soon be interested in boys/girls and get married etc. Of course, this totalizing narrative has not made homosexuals disappear, so I wonder why you think the opposite would make gays out of straights either.

I would say you took the words from my mouth, but I can't word my thoughts on these type of things as well as you. Well said!