aliensex

Originally posted by Loghead I have dedicated my life to getting postmodernist people drunk. I'll drink to that!

Originally posted by Loghead An excellent point! Bravo! Now, add Althusserian structuralism to the ingredients and mix. Ah, but do you not detect the funk of an incorrigible postmodernist in these words I vomit?

Originally posted by charliedango I thought I made it pretty clear before. A debate over gay marriage is useless because as society evolves it will be accepted into the mainstream. Resistance to this is a futile endeavor because it's not in sync with the changing times. That's not what you want to know though, is it? You want to know how I feel about homosexuality and gay marriage. You want to know if you should attack my opinion or support it based solely on my personal viewpoint on the matter. Well here it comes... I've never been close enough to anyone homosexual to say whether or not if it's genetic or just a lifestyle choice. With every fiber of my heterosexual being I oppose homosexuality because I cannot fathom being attracted to someone of the same sex as me. I can go the rest of my life with or without homosexuals in this world and not give it another thought. I know a lot of gay people and some members of my wife's family are gay, but I don't avoid them because of it. It costs me too much to put distance between me and the people I don't agree with. I don't actively protest the homosexual lifestyle, even though I don't agree with it. People are entitled to live their own lives and do as they feel. Who am I to tell someone else how to live? I do what I feel is right and I try my best to live happily. If I had a gay son or daughter, I wouldn't disown them. It would be just one of the many obstacles to overcome throughout life that would result in my changing frame of mind. I would evolve beyond the person I was before. That's my persepctive on that. I hope that makes more sense than the last 5 posts I've dedicated to this thread. Bon mot! I wish more people were as understanding and able to overcome their personal dispositions in their social lives as you seem. Just one minor nitpick: a recent study suggests that male homosexuality has to do with the womb environment during the development of the fetus, making it neither a choice nor genetic. And a general point: In discussions about behavior, it's important to remember that genes mostly predispose us to "learn" (i.e. develop synapses in our brain) in certain ways instead of prescribing our actions outright, and also that not everything we "learn" is conscious or something we can choose to do anything about at all.

Originally posted by boogienights Potaetoes what's your' point? That Lgehrig4 is gonna try killing Jewish people? That's pretty ridiculas, and these issues have nothing in common, maybe you were saying that to be funny. Hitler firmly believed that homosexuality is unnatural. I'm very happy that Lgehrig4 isn't drawing the conclusion that they should be eliminated. Also, why do you keep saying that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina? This is a fact that everyone (I hope) is familiar with, but I don't see how it implies anything.

Originally posted by boogienights I don't know but boys have a penis and girls have a vagina, to me it really couldn't get anymore clear than this. You can stick a weewee in a mouth or a butt also, fyi. The fact that sticking it in a hoohah sometimes results in a baby is a fortuitous coincidence, just like everything natural ever.

Originally posted by Lgehrig4 If homosexuality was the intent (I only say intent b/c I don't know of any way to put this) of nature we woldn't be having this conversation. I understand this, but nature never intends anything, nature never aims for anything, nature has no goal and no motivation. If you want to use your chosen semantic, homosexuality is the intent of nature simply because it exists. Then, it's up to us to determine via moral judgements which of these things that nature intended (i.e. things that happened) are good and which ones are bad. I personally feel that homosexuality is as natural as can be, that homosexuality isn't bad because it in and of itself causes no suffering, and that the reason for this conversation is to ultimately rid the internet of these sorts of conversations.

Originally posted by Lgehrig4 You'll have to excuse my limited vocabulary. I may not always choose the best words to express my views. Never said "unnatural". Did a baby with 12 fingers develop normally? Is cancer a normal/healthy growth of cells or a disease? All of these are natural yes. I have a heart murmur. Is it natural? Yes. Does my heart beat like a normally functioning heart should? No. Marriage evolved is what I said. Your example proves this. You have to ask yourself why these things aren't desirable. I'd answer that cancer and heart murmur aren't good because they cause suffering, and most of us would probably agree. I think the best definition for normalcy is its prevalence in a given context, and homosexuals are quite prevalent in most developed societies. Homosexuals can't change what they are without suffering, and society discriminating against homosexuals causes them suffering. Therefore discriminating against homosexuals isn't good. Note that I'm using a really simple ethical framework here for the sake of argumentation; this is not meant to be an endorsement of utilitarianism or whatever. It's just that most people can usually find common ground in deciding that suffering isn't desirable. My point about marriage was that it didn't originally have much to do with ensuring that two people with different sexes procreate and raise a child together.

Originally posted by Lgehrig4 Wow, it didn't know it was possible to take what I said this far out of context Congratualtions! No reply from me. I'd have an easier time teaching algebra to a hamster.....and I barely know algebra myself Don't get indignant when you face a backlash from people whose lifestyles you just deemed unnatural.

YYYEEEEEEEEEHAWW!!! LET'S ARGUE ON THE INTERNET!!!! Originally posted by Lgehrig4 I am not religious nor do I have anything against homosexuality. when a man lusts after another man or woman lusts after another woman there is a problem. Genetic? Learned? Who knows, but it goes against the nature of all living creatures - to procreate and continue the gene pool. I would never avoid or disrespect a person for being gay because they feel, care and have the same needs as heteros and outside of our sexual preferences we are the same. I will not, however, pretend that everything is normal because it is not! Lusting after the same sex is not what nature intended. An albino lacking pigment is not what nature intended. A mentally retarded person is not result of the perfectly developed fetus. That said, IMO the benefits of marriage should be only be for couples made of one man and one woman. Why? Not because God said so. Not because it is disgusting. Because only man and woman and create a child and raise the child to do the same therefore continuing the race(many do a poor job these days). Marriage evolved because humans have a reproductive instinct and ability to rationalize. Nature doesn't intend anything, nature happens. There is nothing unnatural, but there are things that are immoral. When you make a judgement like you're making in the post above, you are making a moral judgement. There is solid research out there hypothesizing that a homosexual family member used to be an evolutionary advantage in a large family. Marriage is a social construct originally established to control the distribution of power and the sexuality of women. Please pick up a book about early (around 20,000-10,000 B.C.) societies where most children were raised collectively. Unless you define it, there is no such thing as a perfectly developed human fetus, and you should note that any definition you can give will beg the question. Being myopic just because it makes sense to you is intellectually dishonest.