Considering the means of procreation in vertebrate (and even some invertebrate) species, I would consider it counterproductive, except in * Homo sapiens, * in which there is some irony–since not every instance of copulation, of course, results in pregnancy. As for assertions by gays about what is "natural, " I tend to be somewhat skeptical.
I’m not going to dig through to find it, but I’m quite sure I posed that exact question in this thread several months or years ago when it was first active.
Just goes to show how productive these arguments are.
Unrelated to the current topic, but if you click on the number of replies next to a thread title on the forum page, it will open a new window with a list of all the thread participants and their total number of posts in the thread. Clicking on that number will do a search and return all the posts they made in the thread. Handy for finding a comment when you know who made it but not when.
And the Jehovah’s Witnesses are an organization in the same way the Nazis, the KKK, and Al Qaeda are organizations.
“In the same way,” eh? I guess we’re supposed to conclude that “organization” and “malevolent organization” are synonymous.
Among natural things, I could also include ladybugs, cats, pineapples, New England autumn scenes, honey, and twittering songbirds–these things too are natural.
So “organization” and “natural” are terms too general to invest with good or bad * ipso facto. *
Well, exactly. If you want to say something is bad, you need to point to another characteristic of it other than whether it’s natural or not. When you point to an organization, you need to point to whether it’s malevolent or not, for example. And when you point to sexual preference, you need to point to whether it’s ______________.
Help me out here. I can think of some words to fill in the blank, but none of the bad ones apply to homosexuality.
Well, I could think of “normal” and "deviant, " but then again from what I’ve picked up over time it seems to be too subjective to confine to such clear-cut description.
Okay, so those words don’t work. What words do?
The words I’d use, by the way, are things like, “consensual,” “non-coercive,” and maybe even “honest.” Those seem like good ways to judge a sexual preference. Do you have better words?
Let’s say “deviant” is an acceptable label. Are left handed people deviant? Are redheaded people deviant? What percentage of the population has to have a trait for it to be deviant and not normal?
And if it’s not a matter of percentage of population, then what does “deviant” mean? Is it bad? Requiring of regulation?
Golly, I couldn’t say. Can this topic be taken up from a physiological point of view?
Sure, I guess. Are left-handed people or red-headed people physiologically deviant, and if so, what ramifications does that or should that have?
No. The question wasn’t how common it is, the question was what trait you can point to when you want to decide whether it’s good or bad. Unless you can show that physiological rareness correlates with goodness or badness, it’s irrelevant.
Isn’t this ultimately just a struggle to find some justification for one’s opinion? I guess it’s fine (well, not fine, just not something anyone else should feel compelled to address) for someone to disapprove of homosexuality or even to hate it if that’s their personal opinion, but to try to tease out some kind of scientific reason, well… that’s kind of an uphill battle, wot?
Welllllll, on the one hand, yeah, opinions are like assholes. On the other hand, some opinions are undoubtedly better than others, and justifying your opinions is pretty much the entire point of rhetoric.
I can justify my opinion that homosexuality is nothing to get upset over, and have done so at length in the past. This forum is devoted to justifying opinions. If an opinion cannot be justified, that’s a pretty good sign that it’s the goatse of opinions.
Oh no, now dougie is off to google goatse! How will that influence his approval of the gay agenda? (holding my breath)
Well, the efforts for a scientific argument tend to relate to reproduction, right? I don’t get it - one could be gay 99% of the time and still reproduce, because the sexual aspect of reproduction is actually a pretty minor investment of time and effort. If it was more like a couple had to have sex constantly for nine months in order to complete a pregnancy, then I can see homosexuality being something of a distraction, I guess.
Of course, a species that had such a high burden associated with reproduction would almost certainly go extinct. That’s why science-fiction shows and books that talk about aliens with absurdly elaborate mating procedures (not rituals, but actual procedures, like the mating couple have to stay physically connected for days at a time) always cracked me up - how did they possibly survive long enough to build spaceships?
It’s a tangent, but the main topic seems to be going nowhere anyway.
I guess my point is that everyone has one, but some have bigger holes than others.
Well played.
Goatse?
When I brought up the matter of physiology, I did so specifically because physiology doesn’t deal with “good” and “bad.” At most the terms would be “proper” and “improper” or, to use a circumlocution, such and such part of the body is to be used for this or that. In short, physiology doesn’t deal with moral issues.
Then we come full circle: the question is, what terms can you apply to sexuality to determine whether it’s good or bad? You suggested “malevolent” is a term we can apply to an organization to distinguish between Jehovah’s Witnesses and Klansmen; how do we do something similar for sexuality?