Homosexuality selected because of societal function

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Why would I waste my time reading such studies? First homosexualist Selaphiel links a study about homosexuality amongst fruit flies,
http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4774681

and now you're talking about homosexuality amongst mice?

Obviously the LGBTQ movement is hard up for evidence that homosexuality is hardwired in humans, so they waste taxpayer dollars on worthless and irrelevant supposed "studies".

Au contraire.

These researchers came to quite the opposite conclusion.
That study destroyed the "hardwired" theory.

And if they'd come up with an opposite finding would there be validity to it?

Essentially, they took some hetero- mice. (Male mice that sought female mates, and did not seek out sexual activity with males.) They put them all together in a cage, got them high on some cocaine derivative, and they went homo. And they stayed homo afterwards, too. Even when not high. They avoided sexual contact with females after that, and sought only homosexual activity.

It wasn't hard-wired.
It's because they got high.

If I ever come across two male mice buggerizing one another (how I'd know that they were both male is beyond me) I'll tell them to stay off the drugs.

 

[patrick jane]

Au contraire.

These researchers came to quite the opposite conclusion.
That study destroyed the "hardwired" theory.

Essentially, they took some hetero- mice. (Male mice that sought female mates, and did not seek out sexual activity with males.) They put them all together in a cage, got them high on some cocaine derivative, and they went homo. And they stayed homo afterwards, too. Even when not high. They avoided sexual contact with females after that, and sought only homosexual activity.

It wasn't hard-wired.
It's because they got high.

I believe that very many homosexuals are, or were drinking and drugging -

 

[glassjester]

what other choice would a couple have if to be abstinent, at least after a certain point if they believed the same?

Here's my Catholic response (expected, I'm sure): NFP

 

[Arthur Brain]

This is kinda sensitive, but my thoughts are that if the mouth is used to stimulate ejaculation of sperm, then it's being used for something it was not intended and would be a misuse.
So it would be a no-no.

A little more sensitive ...

Spoiler

My thoughts about giving it a little kiss or a caress with my hand would be affectionate, but not done to make it ejaculate on my mouth or my hand.
The whole point of the sperm is find an egg, and there ain't no egg on my mouth or hands.
So that's obviously not where the organ was meant to ejaculate.
So by any definition, it would be "unnatural" to use the organ to ejaculate anywhere other than where it was intended to ejaculate.

Ok, so for you, any sort of sexual act whereby male ejaculate isn't potentially fertilizing female ova is a complete no no. Fair enough although without trying to get particularly graphic in turn; the male body has a habit of sometimes doing so involuntarily at times during the night where the recipient is a sheet or some such...

 

[glassjester]

And if they'd come up with an opposite finding would there be validity to it?

They're not ever going to find a gay-gene.

If I ever come across two male mice buggerizing one another (how I'd know that they were both male is beyond me) I'll tell them to stay off the drugs.

It'll be too late. :sigh:

 

[glassjester]

the male body has a habit of sometimes doing so involuntarily at times during the night where the recipient is a sheet or some such...

That's not immoral, as it occurs involuntarily.

 

[glassjester]

I believe that very many homosexuals are, or were drinking and drugging -

Yep.

Not merely by coincidence.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If you were morally opposed to Ligeti's music, your ear might not find it so pleasing.

I could only be morally opposed to the man, not the music.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's not immoral, as it occurs involuntarily.

Yet natural.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Here's my Catholic response (expected, I'm sure): NFP

Clarify in a bit more detail?

 

[glassjester]

Yet natural.

I think you'd agree that no involuntary occurrence is an immoral (or moral) choice, as it was not a choice at all.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's not random.
Our values, our morals, affect our perceptions.
We don't just rely on physical sensations.

Hitler might have had a really comfy sweater.
But I'd still be uncomfortable wearing it.

And certain things are outside of any personal remit - like perfect pitch for example (again). You do not get to choose it and you don't get to decide it somehow doesn't exist by the same token.

Will you please start to use a different argument for your position, because this is beyond tiresome now.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I think you'd agree that no involuntary occurrence is an immoral (or moral) choice, as it was not a choice at all.

But it's still a fact that the male body naturally depletes sperm involuntarily and usually I'd say without any chance of it fertilizing an egg? Why is that?

 

[glassjester]

Clarify in a bit more detail?

This is pretty far off-topic, no?

I encourage you to read up on it:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/what-is-nfp/
http://www.catholic.com/browse/all/natural family planning/all/all

Or you may prefer to hear a discussion, in podcast form:
http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/contraception-vs-nfp-3861#

That's an extremely informative podcast, by the way.
It's a call-in show, and the host(s) usually field all kinds of objections to Catholic moral teaching, and doctrine.

Here are more recent episodes (you may or may not be interested).
http://feeds.feedburner.com/catholic/cal

 

[Tambora]

Ok, so for you, any sort of sexual act whereby male ejaculate isn't potentially fertilizing female ova is a complete no no. Fair enough although without trying to get particularly graphic in turn; the male body has a habit of sometimes doing so involuntarily at times during the night where the recipient is a sheet or some such...

A sexual act with that particular organ, yes it is a waste of time because the organ cannot do what it was designed to do --- give sperm to eggs.
I don't think one can make the argument that the organ was designed (whether by God or evolution) to function inside a mouth or a butt.

"If it feels good, do it", is not a good argument for the functional purpose of the organ (or anything else for that matter).
So the whole "gratification" argument is bunk and shouldn't even be used in this argument.

 

[glassjester]

But it's still a fact that the male body naturally depletes sperm involuntarily and usually I'd say without any chance of it fertilizing an egg? Why is that?

Seriously?

 

[Arthur Brain]

A sexual act with that particular organ, yes it is a waste of time because the organ cannot do what it was designed to do --- give sperm to eggs.
I don't think one can make the argument that the organ was designed (whether by God or evolution) to function inside a mouth or a butt.

"If it feels good, do it", is not a good argument for the functional purpose of the organ (or anything else for that matter).
So the whole "gratification" argument is bunk and shouldn't even be used in this argument.

Well if you're going to include the possibility of evolution into the equation then it actually kinda makes sense that there are non reproductive sexual practices that occur, heterosexual or otherwise. If every heterosexual fertile married couple always engaged in intercourse that could result in a child without any precautions then the planet would be overrun.

And that isn't to say that evolution itself isn't part of the 'grand design'.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Please don't tell me I have to spell this out?

 

[glassjester]

Yes, seriously. Please don't tell me I have to spell this out?

Succubi.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I wasn't aware that one had to know the intricate details of therapy for any kind of harmful behavior (alcoholism, drug addiction, pornography addiction, homosexuality, etc.) in order to acknowledge that they've helped countless people leave those extremely harmful desires behind.



Again: I wasn't aware that one had to know the intricate details of therapy for any kind of harmful behavior (alcoholism, drug addiction, pornography addiction, homosexuality, etc.) in order to acknowledge that they've helped countless people leave those extremely harmful desires (and behaviors) behind.

Where is that written and who presents that as the truth?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
You linked a website from a UK homosexual activist showing what supposedly went on in one UK reparative therapy office. I refuted it with an article from legitimate psychologists.



One has to remember that these psychologists and therapists are dealing with people who as children, were subjected to unmentionable acts of sexual perversion by adult homosexuals. These unmentionable acts of sexual perversion committed on children by adult homosexuals, 'raped' those innocent children's minds when it came to normal sexual relationships. Change is difficult for people who are subjected to those horrific acts of perversion, but as I'd shown through hundreds and hundreds of testimonies from EX homosexuals, not impossible.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Actually the pedophiles and pederasts of the LGBTQ movement have only been successful thus far in outlawing therapy for minors in 4 or 5 states, against the wishes of parents that truly want to help their children overcome perverse sexual desires.



What is bunk, that 4 or 5 states have outlawed therapy for minors? That those statutes were against the wishes of those children's parents who wanted their child to overcome perverse sexual desires? Be specific Art.

The truth is that you didn't know what goes on in these centers. Your own personal blog is no yardstick for truth either. Frankly you are just too boring to address for the most part nowadays so you carry on with the pompous self righteous waffle etc. You're good for the inadvertent bit of comedy (as that giant clanger just here a short while ago) but that's about it.