Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The Purpose of Homosexuality

LGBT Purpose Homosexuality

  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#41 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:42 PM

I think perhaps sparky meant that most people have biases.  I think that that's true.  I'm biased against organized religion (working on it), just as an example.
Posted Image

#42 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:43 PM

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 08:32 PM, said:

Homosexuality only accounts for about 10% of the population, in no way does that prevent over population, as it leave 90% of the population free to reproduce at will.

The over population in preventer in the human animal are low sperm count, and in time of famine amenorrhea, which are more universal controls.

Sparky::
Do you read your own posts?  You began with an argument claiming homosexuality was a defect because if ALL humans were homosexual the species couldn't survive.  To switch to a 10% argument in midstream is disengenuous at best.

If ALL humans were homosexual, that would indeed inhibit overpopulation while still permitting the survival of the species.   Are the two things you mentioned also ways humans naturally prevent overpopulation?  Yes.  Are they the only possible ways humans naturally prevent overpopulation?  No.  Must natural population controls be universal?  No.  Are non-universal populations controls necessarily defects?  No.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#43 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:46 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 04:33 PM, said:

... I would even challenge your claim that most people are bigots.  Do you have evidence or is this statement just some unfounded personal belief?
All sorts of tribal wars, the inquisitions, the holocaust, the Arab Israeli thing, ethic cleansing, Black White relation in America, the hell of Haiti, and sub-Saharan Africa, and the list goes on. There is even report as of today of a genocidal war going on in Sudan I believe.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#44 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:53 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 04:41 PM, said:

... Do you read your own posts?  You began with an argument claiming homosexuality was a defect because if ALL humans were homosexual the species couldn't survive.  To switch to a 10% argument in midstream is disengenuous at best. ...
Two different points, they don’t intersect, your combining then does not support your argument. One was a hypothetical, “a what if,” and the other was factual conditions as they exist. Your point was based on condition as they are now, so only the 10% point applies.

Sparky::

Edited by emsparks, 17 June 2004 - 03:54 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#45 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:57 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 04:41 PM, said:

... If ALL humans were homosexual, that would indeed inhibit overpopulation while still permitting the survival of the species.   Are the two things you mentioned also ways humans naturally prevent overpopulation?  Yes.  Are they the only possible ways humans naturally prevent overpopulation?  ...
I standby what I said, in it's completeness, forced insemination ultimately fails, to insure the survival of a species.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#46 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:59 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 17 2004, 08:40 PM, said:

I think perhaps sparky meant that most people have biases.  I think that that's true.  I'm biased against organized religion (working on it), just as an example.
Fair enough, Lil.  I consider a bias a long way from bigotry; but maybe some folks don't.  I am biased in favor of chocolate ice cream; but I'm not a bigot.  I won't refuse to eat any other flavor.  I'm not closed minded to the positive qualities of vanilla.

I share a bias against organized religion; but I don't think any less of the practioners of organized religions.  No do I discriminate against them.  Nor do I describe them as defective.  Organized religion is an abstract concept.  Its practitioners are people.  

Biases in regard to concepts and things is normal.  They are often informed by experience.  But the real key is that bias indicates a preference.  A bias can change; a biased person remains open to new information and tolerant.  However, bigotry indicates intolerance and blind adherence.  For evidence, I'll quote Webster's "bigot:  a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc. "
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#47 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:01 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 04:41 PM, said:

,,, Must natural population controls be universal?  No.  Are non-universal populations controls necessarily defects?  No.
In order to limit over population in an environment yes they must be nearly universal, a normal defect rate means there will be a small percentage of offspring.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#48 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:06 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 04:57 PM, said:

... I'm not a bigot. ...
With respect you are a reasonably well-feed member of a modern society, you can afford not to be a bigot. Most people in this world have no such luxury, as they scramble for their daily bread..

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#49 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:08 PM

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 08:51 PM, said:

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 04:41 PM, said:

... Do you read your own posts?  You began with an argument claiming homosexuality was a defect because if ALL humans were homosexual the species couldn't survive.  To switch to a 10% argument in midstream is disengenuous at best. ...
Two different points, they don’t intersect, your combining then does not support your argument. One was a hypothetical, “a what if,” and the other was factual conditions as they exist. Your point was based on condition as they are now, so only the 10% point applies.

Sparky::
No.  My point was based on your original argument about ALL humans and homosexuality being a defect.  I even quoted you.  I used your words.  The ten % point does not apply.  I have continued to address the argument that you now describe as hypothetical.  But I believe you originally presented it as simple proof that homosexuality is a defect.

Quote

I standby what I said, in it's completeness, forced insemination ultimately fails, to insure the survival of a species.

And to save time, if your argument is now about forced insemination rather than homosexuality, are you ready to concede that homosexuality is not a defect?
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#50 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:17 PM

^^^
The quote was…

“I will tell you what makes homosexuality a defect, a disorder, and that is simply. If all the human beings where homosexual to the exclusion of the opposite sex then by the laws of survival of the genome, the race would not survive, there would be an ever decreasing pool of progeny. A race cannot survive by forced insemination, which is what you would need if all the members of a given race where homosexual.”

If someone is a homosexual they do not want to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, which is a point you missed. Also in order to insure a healthy genome you need large-scale procreation, something your not going to get if the two partners don’t like having sex with one another. Like I said I stand by my argument…

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#51 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:18 PM

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 09:04 PM, said:

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 04:57 PM, said:

... I'm not a bigot. ...
With respect you are a reasonably well-feed member of a modern society, you can afford not to be a bigot. Most people in this world have no such luxury, as they scramble for their daily bread..

Sparky::
With the same respect,

Have we met?  Do you know me personally?  What makes you so sure I'm not one of those people scrambling for their daily bread?  How do you know that I don't live on ramen noodles when I can get them and go without when I can't?  Are you sure I've never had to survive for three weeks with nothing to eat but but a small jar of peanut butter?  Do you assume I own the computer I use to visit here on the few occasions I do?  For all you know I may be jobless, homeless and completely lacking transportation.  

And for the record, I have met many well fed and well educated bigots during my lifetime.  Bigotry is not a characteristic limited to the underpriviledged.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#52 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:24 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 05:16 PM, said:

[... Have we met?  Do you know me personally?  What makes you so sure I'm not one of those people scrambling for their daily bread?  ...
If you where scrambling for your daily bread, you wouldn't waste you time on the Internet, as life and death are far more important then this argument.

Sparky::

Edited by emsparks, 17 June 2004 - 04:25 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#53 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:24 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 05:16 PM, said:

.. And for the record, I have met many well fed and well educated bigots during my lifetime.  Bigotry is not a characteristic limited to the underpriviledged.
True, but being able to over come it is seen most often in the well fed.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#54 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:26 PM

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 09:15 PM, said:

^^^
The quote was…

“I will tell you what makes homosexuality a defect, a disorder, and that is simply. If all the human beings where homosexual to the exclusion of the opposite sex then by the laws of survival of the genome, the race would not survive, there would be an ever decreasing pool of progeny. A race cannot survive by forced insemination, which is what you would need if all the members of a given race where homosexual.”

If someone is a homosexual they do not want to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, which is a point you missed. Also in order to insure a healthy genome you need large-scale procreation, something your not going to get if the two partners don’t like having sex with one another. Like I said I stand by my argument…

Sparky::
You might check out Levi-Strauss and "The Elementary Structures of Kinship."

Further, more current research is showing that a species needs a far smaller gene pool to survive than humans used to believe.

Since you brought up history earlier, I believe that historically humans engaged in quite a lot of arranged marriages.  I understand that in a great many of those marriages the two people didn't like each other.  I also understand that while many couples may have hated each other, they still produced progeny.

Perhaps this point is easier for a woman to understand than a man, but it is very possible to have sex with someone you don't like and to have progeny from that act.  Homosexuality does not prevent the production of progeny.  

You may stand by your argument.  However, if you were standing next to a wall that shaky, I'd feel ethically bound to warn you that it might collapse on you.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#55 FlatlandDan

FlatlandDan

    Sophisticate

  • Islander
  • 8,824 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:27 PM

I'm not a mod or anything, but it would be nice if people would avoid calling people they have never met bigots.

Hint, hint.

-Dan

:ninja:
My candle burns at both its ends;
It will not last the night;
But oh, my foes, and oh, my friends --
It gives a lovely light."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay

#56 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:31 PM

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 09:22 PM, said:

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 05:16 PM, said:

[... Have we met?  Do you know me personally?  What makes you so sure I'm not one of those people scrambling for their daily bread?  ...
If you where scrambling for your daily bread, you wouldn't waste you time on the Internet, as life and death are far more important then this argument.

Sparky::
Or I could just be distracting myself from the misery of my life and my desire for death.  After all, if my option upon leaving this computer is a bed in a local gutter, why wouldn't I prefer this?

Quote

(Consubstantial @ Jun 17 2004, 05:16 PM)
.. And for the record, I have met many well fed and well educated bigots during my lifetime. Bigotry is not a characteristic limited to the underpriviledged. 


True, but being able to over come it is seen most often in the well fed.

And on what evidence do you make that claim?  After all, the well fed have more investment in the status quo; thus they have more reason to retain their bigotry.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#57 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:42 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 05:24 PM, said:

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 09:15 PM, said:

^^^
The quote was…

“I will tell you what makes homosexuality a defect, a disorder, and that is simply. If all the human beings where homosexual to the exclusion of the opposite sex then by the laws of survival of the genome, the race would not survive, there would be an ever decreasing pool of progeny. A race cannot survive by forced insemination, which is what you would need if all the members of a given race where homosexual.”

If someone is a homosexual they do not want to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, which is a point you missed. Also in order to insure a healthy genome you need large-scale procreation, something your not going to get if the two partners don’t like having sex with one another. Like I said I stand by my argument…

Sparky::
You might check out Levi-Strauss and "The Elementary Structures of Kinship."

Further, more current research is showing that a species needs a far smaller gene pool to survive than humans used to believe.

Since you brought up history earlier, I believe that historically humans engaged in quite a lot of arranged marriages.  I understand that in a great many of those marriages the two people didn't like each other.  I also understand that while many couples may have hated each other, they still produced progeny.

Perhaps this point is easier for a woman to understand than a man, but it is very possible to have sex with someone you don't like and to have progeny from that act.  Homosexuality does not prevent the production of progeny.  

You may stand by your argument.  However, if you were standing next to a wall that shaky, I'd feel ethically bound to warn you that it might collapse on you.
My sister who is a lesbian activist taught me a very interesting point as did a number of gay friends. A Gay not having sex with the opposite sex is not about not liking to have sex with then, it’s about not being able to even conceive of it. Now as I have said, not in so many  words Homosexuality is a continuum, and there are homosexuals that can have sex with the opposite sex, but they are not the majority according to my sister.

The people in arranged marriages, could always fantasize about another member of the opposite sex, while using their partner. Most Gays would find the act in its self repugnant.

Your are quite right about the size of the genetic population, however, the problems with inbreeding will catch up to you sooner or later. One has to be careful of numbers games.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#58 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:49 PM

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 09:40 PM, said:

Your are quite right about the size of the genetic population, however, the problems with inbreeding will catch up to you sooner or later. One has to be careful of numbers games.

Sparky::
I anticipated this point; that is why I suggested the Levi-Strauss.  Research shows that limited populations can breed through genetic defects and end up with a cleaner gene chart as a result.

As to the rest, I have many homosexual friends.  And while some find the idea of sexual relations with the opposite sex repugnant and even inconceivable, others have told me that if sexual relations with the opposite sex were their only option for having children, they would do so.

I think you are also ignoring the many homosexual individuals who have married members of the opposite sex and had children.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#59 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 04:57 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 05:47 PM, said:

...
I think you are also ignoring the many homosexual individuals who have married members of the opposite sex and had children.
No I'm not.

Maybe my examples need work, it does not change the fact that Homosexuality is a defect.

If the chemo allows I'll pick this up tomorrow..

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#60 Spacekiddy

Spacekiddy

    Engineer, Keeper of Harper's Wit and File D

  • Islander
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 18 June 2004 - 07:30 AM

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 10:55 PM, said:

.... Maybe my examples need work, it does not change the fact that Homosexuality is a defect.
Excuse me? None of my friends are defective -they work perfectly fine thank you very much.
Why does loving someone, of the same sex, make one defective?
--Spacekiddy--

A dose of randomness...
If the choice is between red and blue, pick seven.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Purpose, Homosexuality

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users