|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
posted July 02, 2013 09:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Try to poo with spikes in your anus.
I don't see any problems with that. I'd even say that it would be easier for us if we had spikes in our anuses. 
Quote:
What you'd want, that people affirm that homosexuality is the norm? It is not [...]. Impelling moral claims to be considered absolutely normal is ridiculous.
Technically you can say that naturally blond hair isn't the norm and no one can impel that it should be considered normal. If you say to someone naturally blond, however, that he can't name himself a normal person, it could be offensive for him.
Quote:
Hacking the survival mechanism can't be defended from an universal point of view but only accepted as personal choice.
Now that's just absurd. Who are you to say what is the survival mechanism and what isn't? What do you want to say, that nature is heterosexual? It's not. Believe me, our main goal is to survive as a specie, not to reproduce like rabbits - just look at the ants or bees (which are pretty similar to us when it comes to social life).
If anyone of you want to say that homosexualism is unnatural, then it's his own business. He should remember, however, that biology researches are against his theories and that "simple biological facts" aren't necessarily that simple as many think they are.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 10:05 PM |
|
|
Nature is heterosexual. Out of 8 million species, only less than 1% uses homosexuality occasionally. I hear this argument over and over, yet a simple research will fix the issue. You say yourself that our main goal is to survive/reproduce, we were designed for that. Most of us, that's it.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 10:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You say yourself that our main goal is to survive/reproduce, we were designed for that.
Read carefully, I never said that surviving is equal to reproducing. I said that reproducing is one of many elements of surviving. Simply put: surviving > reproducing.
It's natural for us that there are many people who don't have to have any children and yet they are very useful for the whole specie itself. Just look at ants - most of them do not reproduce at all yet they survive very well. Nature is NOT heterosexual nor homosexual nor bisexual nor anything else and will NEVER be, no matter what you believe in.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 10:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Out of 8 million species, only less than 1% uses homosexuality occasionally.
That is not exactly valid since 8 million is the roughly estimated number of ALL species on Earth. Considering there is a huge amount of asexual species like bacteria, fungus, amoeba etc etc.. and animals like insects or fish are not "sexual" organisms but just hardwired to reproduce, the ratio seems a little unfair. Anyway, what nature intends isn't the question here, since marriage is not a thing of nature. It is a social contract humans made up and they can (and did many times in the past) modify the content of it if they want. I agree with you that medical issues related to giving birth shouldn't be taken out of everyone's pocket but other than that, I don't see why gays shouldn't benefit from legal benefits of marriage just like anyone else and call it marriage. Religious institutions have the right to keep their orthodox ways and ceremonies but the secular contract should be available to any couple.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 10:31 PM |
|
|
Homosexuality being normal or not was never an issue for me and I have nothing against social equality. The point where I broke is when they ask the tax payer to contribute to assisted procreation, and then there are a few things to clarify. If an homosexual is proved infertile, that's ok. If he has fully functional organs, then he must not have access to (unless he finances it personally), as EVERYONE from heterosexual category. That's equal rights, as they asked.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2013 10:42 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 22:43, 02 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
Homosexuality being normal or not was never an issue for me
It doesn't seem like that when you were talking about homosexuality not being normal... but I digress.
I kind of agree with you when it comes to assisted procreation for homosexuals though. I don't think anyone should pay for anything that's not actually necessary in any way.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 04:41 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 04:41, 04 Jul 2013.
|
gnomes my opinion on secular marriage is not really what I would try to promote. I am really trying to say if there was a new kind of unity quite comparable to marriage only not using the word marriage, then partly many more would be accepting and partly those who have issues with it couldnt say **** about it.
I really think both sides are hung up on the word marriage. Take that out then it is not marriage. Use human powers to create a new concept only comparable to marriage. It could be homosexual exclsive, or not.
I dont expect this would happen, though. It just has to be marriage, god forbid creating a new romantic or whatever kind of unity but it has to be marriage
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 05:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Nature is NOT heterosexual nor homosexual nor bisexual nor anything else and will NEVER be, no matter what you believe in.
The human species is a heterosexual species no matter how much you deny simple biological facts. It consists of males and females. The male organs and female organs were obviously designed for each other. Males and females are complementary.
Ants are a different species entirely and are "designed" around a colony. Those drone ants are sterile by design.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 07:18 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 07:19, 04 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
The human species is a heterosexual species no matter how much you deny simple biological facts. It consists of males and females. The male organs and female organs were obviously designed for each other. Males and females are complementary.
Males are also not biologically designed - such as it is - to be monogamous. Males have the biological capacity to fertilize as many females as possible in a short period of time, and they remain fertile far longer than females do. One may argue that there are certain evolutionary advantages to monogamy, and it may even be partially encoded in our genes. But right now we're just talking about plumbing, and I'm sorry - since you want to talk what is obviously 'designed' - the plumbing of males is made to service multiple partners. In that sense, marriage - particularly long term marriage - makes no purely biological sense whatsoever.
This kind of strict physical biological reasoning runs into a wall in other areas as well. Women are biologically designed to raise children. It is women who have well developed mammary glands to feed infants. Men do not. What, now, shall we force women to stay out of the workplace when they're raising children because this is what they are biologically "designed" to do? Shall we outlaw bottled formula and forbid men from feeding infants, because it's not their biological role? After all, it's 'obvious' women are made to feed the children. Therefore governments should enforce laws to ensure that's the way it is, right?
Society enables (and even requires) humans to do many things they are not biologically 'designed' to do. So this strict biological line makes very little sense, particularly when it conveniently ignores other strict biological lines that aren't quite as convenient to one's central point of view.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 01:53 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 13:54, 04 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
The male organs and female organs were obviously designed for each other.
Besides what Corribus said - in that case male organs and male anus were also "obviously designed" for each other, since they fit together perfectly. Again - it is invalid to say reproducing is our main goal. We, as a specie, can survive very well without everyone having children, therefore it isn't necessary for all of us to fertilize each other.
Also, if you're saying that we were "designed" for heterosexuality, then why are there still homosexuals who just can't make love to heterosexuals and therefore can't have any children? Evolution should fix this long time ago or at least lower the number of homosexuals to less than 0.1%. Wouldn't it make sense that one homosexual out of twenty heterosexual people is somehow useful for us as a specie while it still remains in our society?
Quote:
Those drone ants are sterile by design.
Workers and soldiers are sterile females while there are plenty of fertile males (these are called "drones") and - in most cases - only one fertile female. By your logic, it would make more sense to have lots of fertile females and few fertile males - after all they would reproduce more often in that case. However, contrary to your beliefs, biology doesn't often rely on "simple facts" and is way more difficult to understand than you seem to think it is.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 03:54 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:54, 04 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
Besides what Corribus said - in that case male organs and male anus were also "obviously designed" for each other, since they fit together perfectly.
This isn't true, either. There is more than just the complimentary shapes which show the penis is biologically made to couple with a vagina. Do we really need to go into it? Moreover, it is not just the genitals which are important to understand 'biological intention', but also the number and rapidity of respective gamete production, rate of arousal and climax, and so forth that distinguishes male from female and shows that males were meant to be promiscuous. (Which really makes you question God's 'design', if he really intended monogamous marriage to be important, but that's getting off track I suppose). Anyway, it's all irrelevant, because it doesn't really matter one lick what the purely biological purpose of our organs is. Marriage is not a biological entity, so what difference does it make? None!
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 04:16 PM |
|
|
What has to do our society constraints/perversions with the fact that heterosexuality is not how nature works? Less than 50 years ago, women stayed home and took care of kids, today our world became such aggressive that they can't do that anymore. But is time based, not nature designed.
"Obviously" for you, male penis and anus were designed to fit. Now tell me, does the anus lubricate naturally when in contact with male organ? YES/NO, please? I know at least 12 organs which can technically go in the anus as well, does this mean they are fit for?
The argument that males are designed to fertilize as many females as possible and as well that they can do that longer can be also dismissed by an endocrinologist, the sperm has extremely low chance to fertilize an ovule, and the female organism is rarely available for reproduction. There can be various explanations, not only one.
I wonder why our century feels the need to redefine everything, from words, concepts to traditions, following local quirks. Saying that homosexuality is not the norm is an insult now? Of course is not the norm, if some disaster occurs and it happens that only males survive, no matter they are gay or hetero, our specie will die in a couple of years. Concerning humanity fate and at universal scale, homosexuals are outsiders.
Now have one single fertile female there and our specie should survive. This is what I mean by the norm, not some moral/religious aspect I really don't care about.
I believe that none should be discriminated following his sexual preferences. Concerning jobs, social activities, it's just nobody's business what one does in private. But now is there such need to redefine mariage and piss of a LOT of people who happen to believe is sacred, for various reasons going from historical facts to religion commandments? Is it so hard to create a new union name which gives same rights? Who would be hurt if homosexual union has a different name? I guess none.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 04:37 PM |
|
|
In the US, "separate and equal" has been tried before, and it wasn't really equal. Also, even if you call it a civil union, the couple and those who know them will usually refer to them as "married", not "civil unioned", because if they behave like a married couple and have the legal status of a married couple, to everyone but some religious conservatives, they are a married couple.
Also, marriage has been redefined in the past. Modern marriages of equality aren't "traditional marriage".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 05:14 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 17:48, 04 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
This isn't true, either.
Quote:
"Obviously" for you, male penis and anus were designed to fit.
Of course it isn't. I was just explaining why Elodin's argument doesn't work. Neither penis-anus nor "We are designed for heterosexuality" logic has anything to do with biology.
Quote:
Less than 50 years ago, women stayed home and took care of kids, today our world became such aggressive that they can't do that anymore. But is time based, not nature designed.
Nature changes over time. Everything is time based by such standards and that leads us to nowhere.
Quote:
The argument that males are designed to fertilize as many females as possible and as well that they can do that longer can be also dismissed by an endocrinologist, the sperm has extremely low chance to fertilize an ovule, and the female organism is rarely available for reproduction.
What's your point? For me that's proving that argument, not dismissing it! If there's a very low chance in fertilizing one female, then naturally we should try to fertilize another one, and another one, and so on! That is if we're talking about biology, not society.
Quote:
Saying that homosexuality is not the norm is an insult now? Of course is not the norm
Your definition of "the norm" is quite insulting for me - a guy who has a girlfriend and yet doesn't want to have any children.
Quote:
if some disaster occurs and it happens that only males survive, no matter they are gay or hetero, our specie will die in a couple of years. Concerning humanity fate and at universal scale, homosexuals are outsiders.
I think your problem is that when you're talking about homosexuality, you're focusing on "What if all people were homosexual?". That's plain wrong, it's like if we don't consider having a president as the norm just because we asked ourselves "What if all people were presidents?". And I hope you're not an anarchist.
Quote:
But now is there such need to redefine mariage and piss of a LOT of people who happen to believe is sacred, for various reasons going from historical facts to religion commandments?
It's a good argument for Christians to leave monogamous marriage alone, but it's also good for Muslims and Tibetans to have polygyny or polyandry legalized. For both of those groups their rights are "sacred" (for various reasons going from historical facts to religion commandments), so which "lot of people" should we piss off?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 05:34 PM |
|
|
I can't believe that the nation of Voltaire, Robespierre, Napoleon and Descartes has done this abomination. I am again losing my little faith I had left in humanity.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 05:38 PM |
|
|
|
Sal , the principle cant be "not pissing conservatives off". They used to be pissed of by interracial marriage and consider that an abomination too, remember.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 06:55 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 19:11, 04 Jul 2013.
|
Under the logic being presented by "the other side" having a separate word for male and female is discriminatory and males and females can't be "equal" unless the same word is used of both. Only the word "person" should be allowed or males and females can't be equal. And no differences in males and females can be acknowledged or obviously the genders can't be equal. Anyone who refers to a person as male or female should be labeled "person-phobic", hater, bigot, and various other negative terms, obviously.
We must pretend that everything is identical because only identical things are equal, eh? An irrational notion to me.
Quote:
What's your point? For me that's proving that argument, not dismissing it! If there's a very low chance in fertilizing one female, then naturally we should try to fertilize another one, and another one, and so on! That is if we're talking about biology, not society.
Or you know, you could keep sleeping with the same woman.
And the penis and vagina were still designed for each other. That is a biological fact.
Nah, there is nothing that proves males were meant to have multiple sex partners. The male is able is ready to fertilize his mate's egg when her body is ready. That does not imply that because his mate can't be constantly impregnated that he is supposed to constantly impregnate someone.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 07:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Under the logic being presented by "the other side" having a separate word for male and female is discriminatory and males and females can't be "equal" unless the same word is used of both. Only the word "person" should be allowed or males and females can't be equal.
Call me crazy, but I am inclined to believe that there'd be much less sexism if the words "male" and "female" were treated in the same way the words "blonde" and "brunette" are now - not to deny the biological difference between males and females, but to not give it any emphasis outside of reproduction and medical care.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 08:05 PM |
|
|
Since I have no idea what the discussion is all about, I have two simple questions:
1) What has nature to do with anything? I was under the impression that we have long stopped letting "nature" run its course, which has led, among others, to an ever increasing life expectancy and a decrease of infant mortality rate. So why point to NATURE?
2) Why limit the LEGAL commitment of two persons for each other to two persons of different sex? As far as I know, two people of equal sex still won't be able to marry in a church, mosque, synagogue or any other temple - so where's the bloody PROBLEM?
Keep in mind that it's the AUTHORITIES who nicked the "marriage" plaque already for their exclusively worldly procedure of legally knitting together two people, who are of different or no religion, so all kinds of people already ARE calling themselves "married", although they are not before any god.
So what's the fuss?
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2013 11:07 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 23:16, 04 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
Under the logic being presented by "the other side" having a separate word for male and female is discriminatory and males and females can't be "equal" unless the same word is used of both.
Marriage isn't the biological stuff while being male or female is. We can change the definition of marriage because we are deciding whether such an union is marriage or not. We can't decide whether this person is male or female (even when we're talking about transsexuals), we can just admit someone is a man or a woman.
Quote:
Or you know, you could keep sleeping with the same woman.
In biological way it's pointless and I explained why.
Quote:
And the penis and vagina were still designed for each other. That is a biological fact.
I can't say it isn't, yet it has nothing to do with gay marriage or even gays themselves. Seriously, are you even reading what I'm saying?
Quote:
So what's the fuss?
I don't really know, I can only say that even if we're talking about biology, gay marriage is as good as traditional marriage.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
