Homosexuality selected because of societal function

[glassjester]

I said *compelling* reason ....

That's a compelling reason for those in arranged marriages.

Long term, they are happy and as much in love with one another as those in successful, non-arranged marriages.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I enjoyed it.
It makes me think of both Debussy and Harry Lubin. Weird combination!

Take my opinion with as many grains of salt as you wish. I am highly uncultured!


I don't see why enjoying Ligeti would preclude enjoyment of Beyonce.

I'm glad you enjoyed it! It's quite an atypical piece for Ligeti but your Debussy comment has merit to it. If you see my reply earlier you'll see why Beyonce (or similar ilk) just can't appeal, to me at least.

 

[Rusha]

That's a compelling reason for those in arranged marriages.

Nope ... any marriage that begins with a third party stating "I want you to marry this person for" is off to a disaster in the making.

Long term, they are happy and as much in love with one another as those in successful, non-arranged marriages.

Your making the claim doesn't make it so ...

Why in the world would anyone wish to FORCE another marriage on someone they claim to care about?

Here are some statistics that give you an idea of where these lovely *forced* marriages take place:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/arranged-marriage-statistics/

Arranged / Forced Marriage Statistics


Arranged Marriage Statistics

	Data
Annual number of arranged marriages worldwide	26,250,000
Percent of marriages in the world that are arranged	53.25 %
Global divorce rate for arranged marriages	6.3 %
Average number of years older the male is from the female in an arrange marriage	4.5 years
India Arranged Marriage Statistics	Data
Percent of marriages in India that are arranged	88.4 %
India divorce rate	1.2 %

Forced Marriage Statistics	Data
Number of girls globally who are forced to marry before the age of 18	11,250,000
Percent of girls in developing countries who are forced to marry before the age of 15	11 %
Percent of girls who were forced to marry before a certain age	Percent
South Asia - before age 18	46.4 %
Bangladesh - before age 15	27.3 %
Africa - before age 18	42 %
Niger - before age 15	26 %
Kyrgyzstan - before age 18	21.2 %
Kazakhstan - before age 18	14.4 %

:nono:

 

[annabenedetti]

You don't have to find it interesting.
Just entertaining.

You can do it.
I believe in you.

:freak: Why should he?

 

[Stripe]

I doubt there is simple gene for homosexuality. My guess is that there are epigenetic factors in interaction with the pre-natal environment like MrDante already said. There is research that suggests that it is more common in men with older brothers. I have no idea if this is true in other animals as well. If it is, it might be a mechanism (not in the sense of all youngest males are homosexuals, but statistically) that has been preserved due to an evolutionary advantage. But that is fairly speculative. The fact that it is so prevalent in the animal kingdom suggests that populations that have a certain % of homosexual individuals are selected for.

It's not OK to be a homo.

If homoism is genetic, natural selection should have wiped it out, if evolution is true.

 

[Tambora]

Here it comes .....

What do we say when child molesters say it is their natural orientation and that they cannot change their natural inclinations?

I mean, SOMETHING is causing them to desire little kids, but have no desire for adults.

 

[Stripe]

The original post was meant to demolish the ridiculous arguments against homosexuality based on the teleology of sex. That argument is nonsense, because if it exists in so many species, it suggests a function and thus is aids the reproductivity of a population.

Except your response is question-begging nonsense; it demands that we assume the truth of your Darwinism.

 

[jgarden]

Homosexuality selected because of societal function

To my knowledge, nobody makes a conscious choice as to their sexual orientation!

 

[Selaphiel]

Here it comes .....

What do we say when child molesters say it is their natural orientation and that they cannot change their natural inclinations?

I mean, SOMETHING is causing them to desire little kids, but have no desire for adults.

As I told glassjester: Please point out where I have claimed that something is moral because it is natural.

I never claimed such a thing. What I did was to demolish the arguments that says that homosexuality is unnatural and serves no purpose, as in being damaging to the perpetuation of the species (yet for somehow some of these people celebrate celibacy as a virtue).

It does not follow from that that homosexuality is necessarily moral. However, I fail to see any actual reason to deem it immoral. What is the problem with it? Pedophilia is the abuse of a minor. There is no consent involved and it is destroying the life of those children, this can't be compared with homosexuality.

Homosexuality selected because of societal function

To my knowledge, nobody makes a conscious choice as to their sexual orientation!

Selected as in naturally selected.

 

[Stripe]

What I did was to demolish the arguments that says that homosexuality is unnatural and serves no purpose, as in being damaging to the perpetuation of the species.

You did so with question-begging nonsense. And you do think homos are just OK, so her point stands.

Yet for somehow some of these people celebrate celibacy as a virtue.

If you're not having homo sex, you're not committing a crime. :duh:

I fail to see any actual reason to deem it immoral.

See?

What is the problem with it?

God said it's a real big no-no.

Pedophilia is the abuse of a minor. There is no consent involved and it is destroying the life of those children, this can't be compared with homosexuality.

Sure, it can. Both are crimes.

 

[Crucible]

What is the ratio of gays vs gay marriage right now?

It's a sad, sad number.

All that fighting for nothing- and they have the gull to act like it wasn't simply a war against Christianity.

At least be a man
And admit your reason_

 

[MrDante]

Here it comes .....

What do we say when child molesters say it is their natural orientation and that they cannot change their natural inclinations?

I mean, SOMETHING is causing them to desire little kids, but have no desire for adults.

Two points.
First: most pedophiles are in an ongoing relationship with an adult female.

Second: We know that pedophilia is caused by brain damage. The damage is lesions in the white matter in specific brain sections of the amygdala. The greater the brain damage the younger the preferred victim of the pedophile.

 

[MrDante]

What is the ratio of gays vs gay marriage right now?

It's a sad, sad number.

All that fighting for nothing- and they have the gull to act like it wasn't simply a war against Christianity.

At least be a man
And admit your reason_

Massachusetts has has legalized same sex marriage for years now and the state makes information on things like marriage publicly available in the Massachusetts Registry of Vital Records and Statistics. Looking here we find that same sex marriages account for slightly more than 6% of all marriage. Given the population distribution of sexual orientation that means that gays and lesbians are getting married at higher rates than straight couples.

Are you man enough to admit you were wrong here?

 

[Tambora]

As I told glassjester: Please point out where I have claimed that something is moral because it is natural.

I never claimed such a thing. What I did was to demolish the arguments that says that homosexuality is unnatural and serves no purpose, as in being damaging to the perpetuation of the species (yet for somehow some of these people celebrate celibacy as a virtue).

It does not follow from that that homosexuality is necessarily moral. However, I fail to see any actual reason to deem it immoral. What is the problem with it?

.

I am not saying that you are talking about it being moral or not.
But if there is something inherently natural that controls your orientation or inclinations, then it can be true for pedos as well.

Pedophilia is the abuse of a minor. There is no consent involved and it is destroying the life of those children, this can't be compared with homosexuality.

Well that would be a moral opinion, would it not?
If we are going to dismiss morals for this conversation, and only ponder about if it is "natural" or not, then the same standard should be for both homos and pedos.
I mean, if we consider that a homo cannot choose to change, then the same consideration should be given to the pedo.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I doubt there is simple gene for homosexuality. My guess is that there are epigenetic factors in interaction with the pre-natal environment like MrDante already said. There is research that suggests that it is more common in men with older brothers. I have no idea if this is true in other animals as well. If it is, it might be a mechanism (not in the sense of all youngest males are homosexuals, but statistically) that has been preserved due to an evolutionary advantage. But that is fairly speculative. The fact that it is so prevalent in the animal kingdom suggests that populations that have a certain % of homosexual individuals are selected for.

Since you have no knowledge of what causes homosexual desires, you are correct: you are "guessing". I covered the topic extensively in Part 2 of my WHMBR! threads, showing that the LGBTQ movement after spending millions upon millions of dollars couldn't come up with any valid evidence showing that they were "born that way". More importantly I showed testimony from hundreds and hundreds of people showing that environmental factors (molestation during childhood, growing up in a dysfunctional family: a distant or abusive father, a overbearing mother, etc.) created those same sex desires. EX-'gays' are the LGBTQ movement's worst enemy, as they've shown that change is possible and that no one is born with perverted desires, meaning that hate crime laws are not needed to protect people whose behavior is changeable.
Check out the index on page 1 of Part 4's WHMBR! thread, there's numerous links backing what I just said.

Well no, I knew I saw the opposite sex differently to my own gender as young as five. I didn't understand why completely but now as an adult I can tell I was simply wired as heterosexual. That isn't a preference and homosexual attraction for me is not only completely out of the window but I would posit for anyone else who would identify as heterosexual themselves. Where it comes to music I was born with perfect pitch, obviously not a choice in itself but I was drawn to music that was more 'off the beaten track' as a kid and I didn't then nor 'choose' now to love the music I do. What you seem to be arguing is that people can alter their attractions over a course of time which is a very weak argument. I'm never going to be interested in listening to a 'Take That' boy band album as I find pop music to be insidiously bland and dull for the most part. In much the same way I wouldn't ever buy a poster of such a boy band as I happen to be straight and that ain't gonna change whether I live to 107...

You're slipping Art: You only made 3 references to you being a heterosexual, you said it 8 times in one post in another thread.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

If we are going to dismiss morals for this conversation, and only ponder about if it is "natural" or not, then the same standard should be for both homos and pedos.
I mean, if we consider that a homo cannot choose to change, then the same consideration should be given to the pedo.

The same could be said for a serial killer. They'll testify they can't help themselves. Jeffry Dahmer was practicing his ensuing nightmare on animals, as a child. And AIDS is like a weapon of mass destruction.

Further, what is the real difference between homosexuality and bestiality? Why don't we "marry" men and pigs? Shouldn't a man be allowed to "marry" the farm animal he loves (translation: "love", synonym for "lust" in American vernacular)? Adopt children, raise them as upstanding, American bestials? Perhaps pastors should be prosecuted, who speak out against pig fornication? And you who say, "Well, that's not the same thing!" Oh, isn't it? Aren't you just being intolerant, unprogressive, bigoted, trying to keep pig fornicators in the closet, deny pig fornicators their equal protection?

TOL has enough fractured doctrine, to, much less, find credibility in logical and moral crack babies, who champion those things God calls vile, Romans 1.

Isaiah 5

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

 

[Selaphiel]

I am not saying that you are talking about it being moral or not.
But if there is something inherently natural that controls your orientation or inclinations, then it can be true for pedos as well.

It can.

But as I said. The original post was a reply to someone who claimed homosexual was immoral because it was unnatural, did not lead to reproduction and thus failed the achieve the goal of sex. That is what I argued against. It was this person who committed the problematic logical jump from an "is to an ought". Even worse, this person relied on lousy biology, and thus would have been wrong even if deriving an ought from an is was an unproblematic endeavour.

Well that would be a moral opinion, would it not?

Yes, and? Nothing wrong with offering moral argument for or against something.

If we are going to dismiss morals for this conversation, and only ponder about if it is "natural" or not, then the same standard should be for both homos and pedos.

Once again, I have not dismissed morals. I have dismissed one particular argument against homosexuality. I have yet to see a good moral argument against homosexuality apart from "it says so in the Bible", which is really more of an observation than an argument.

I offered a moral argument for why pedophilia was morally problematic.

I mean, if we consider that a homo cannot choose to change, then the same consideration should be given to the pedo.

You really need to view my post as a reply to a certain argument. I have neither argued that 1) Natural = moral or 2) Moral opinions are not allowed

 

[Tambora]

I have yet to see a good moral argument against homosexuality apart from "it says so in the Bible", which is really more of an observation than an argument.

And I have yet to see a good moral argument in support of a man poking his pee-pee in another man's feces chute.(Sorry, but there is just no way to say it without being a tad graphic.)
Whether moral or immoral, natural or unnatural, it's just downright filthy.
And it (homo butt poking) is useless when considering the survival continuation of the species.
Other than a perverted and filthy way of self gratification, what use is it for the species?

 

[Stripe]

And I have yet to see a good moral argument in support of a man poking his pee-pee in another man's feces chute.(Sorry, but there is just no way to say it without being a tad graphic.)
Whether moral or immoral, natural or unnatural, it's just downright filthy.
And it (homo butt poking) is useless when considering the survival continuation of the species.
Other than a perverted and filthy way of self gratification, what use is it for the species?

Well, he seems to like it. :idunno:

 

[Tambora]

Well, he seems to like it. :idunno:

That seems to be the only argument for it.
If it feels good, do it, no matter how filthy or useless to the species it is.