Dumb****s who compare Homosexuality to Pedophilia or Bestiality.

[Apiary Tazy]

Your tiredness precedes you, since I already said that example is stupid and I was proving a point.

[ZeldaGirl]

@ZG: YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT WE CAN'T QUOTE. IM GONNA TAKE THE HIGH SCHOOL COURSE THIS YEAR THANK YOU VERY MUCH D:<

Actually, you don't know us that well I'd imagine, you have no idea what we do or don't know/study. I find your assumptions slightly insulting, and yet quite humorous.
Plus, you're not adding to the conversation in any way other than attempting to discourage and/or insult the both of us.

@ MK: Fine, I'd suggest this one a WHOLE lot more anyway. It's much more well thought out, but it's much much longer tho. Not usually a problem to me, but people tend to complain about it in these sorts of topics. :/

What Single-Parenting Can Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting



PS at ZG: (I actually do also plan to read over my sister's former college books as well (esspecially psychology as it has always fascinated me). So I shall learn SOMETHING soon enough. :p )

After almost 4 years of study, and on the brink of my writing my honors thesis and graduating WITH honors, I can tell when someone is so completely ignorant on the subject. You are full of it. If you WERE a psych student, I would tell you you need a new subject, since your posts clearly indicate a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. However, since you admitted you've never studied it, stop throwing around studies and facts as if you are an expert in the field. You are not. You don't even know what you are looking for when examining the validity and reliability of the studies you are referring to. That link you provided? NOT A PSYCHOLOGIST! Most of the things he cited were no longer available, written by journalists trying to summarize psychological articles (and let me tell you, they rarely do get it completely right), or THEOLOGIANS.

That is not science. Stop throwing it around as if it was.

[Deepfake]

Don't hate me for saying so, Guild + IRHP, but it's reasonable for someone acquainted with a base understanding of logic to say you sound like you've got no scientific background. Your motivations aren't at-all grounded in examination, so much as they are in justifying your own preconceived beliefs. You simply would not be making arguments based on these principles, otherwise. There is no logical basis for them, beside your perceived moral obligation.

I mean, saying pedophilia goes against nature? Most animals haven't got the mind-power to think beyond their next meal, and that's a far cry from the perception of time. Most living things will mate with anything that triggers their urges. I have a cat that humps anything even vaguely resembling another cat.

And this same tired "Natural" with a capital N argument? If you think you're speaking to secularists at all, how could you possibly imagine that we would consider human behavior in any fashion unnatural? Especially knowing that the human mind, and all of its inherent possibilities, are all in existence due to the natural evolution of all things. This being a part of the grand progression.

Looking even further into the scope of everything, and considering the ability of "Natural" to bear the meaning of "normalcy": It could be easily said that the human race, and every variety of its behaviors, has been nothing more than a single, short, and unnatural aberration in the way of all things.

[DarkZero]

We've talked a lot about homosexuality and pedophilia in this topic.

Poor bestiality over there hasn't had his turn yet.

[heh]

IRHP and Vgfian, stop quoting psychology when you clearly have never studied it. You're doing it wrong.

not to say that there arguements are validated by quoting random dudes but i would rather them quote psychologists then pull "facts" out of their ass

[ZeldaGirl]

^But they aren't successfully quoting psychology. They are taking 'studies' not conducted by actual psychologists and trying to use it to prove their point. That, and IRHP clearly does not understand how the DSM-IV works, or why homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder. So, yeah, I find it ridiculous they are trying to take that path.

[heh]

^ i didn't mean to imply they were real psychologists, whoops. pretend that just reads "from somewhere"

[Metal Man]

/me puts his hand to his chin.

Why do you bother telling people who will never change their beliefs what's wrong with them? You'll no sooner raise a mountain into outer space than make IRHP or Guildmaster think outside their belief systems.

[Jenocide]

Nah, forget it.

[Bad Dragonite]

^^Actually, Metal Man, I am constantly refining my belief system. If something doesn't make sense I either try and explain it logically or if that doesn't work, I take it out of my "belief system, and replace it with something that does make sense.

Though I do try and stick to what I believe to be true, and I argue to defend it, that does not make me close-minded. If defending what you know to be true is a sign of close-mindedness, then you're essentially calling everyone who resists anyone elses claims close-minded.

@ AI : You're basing your entire argument around the assumption that animals are the same as humans, even though as you stated, it is quite obvious that animals and humans are not alike.

I mean, saying pedophilia goes against nature? Most animals haven't got the mind-power to think beyond their next meal, and that's a far cry from the perception of time. Most living things will mate with anything that triggers their urges. I have a cat that humps anything even vaguely resembling another cat.

Humans are obviously of higher inteligance than animals, is this not what you're stating here? Human beings are intelligent enough to have set morals, while most animals are only out for self-preservation. Even a dog, as loyal as it will be, will turn on the owner if it means self-preservation, and will not hesitate to eat as much food as it can rather than sharing it with younger pups when it is hungry, it is hardwired into them; however a human doesn't necisarily have to make these choices. They possess higher thinking skills and can choose to sacrifice themselves for the well-being of their friends.

Also, I should note that you speak of homosexual urges to be possibly natural in some people, while this may or may not be true, I'm speaking on the point that any sexual intercourse that causes no actual reproduction goes against what is intended to occur. To deny this is idiocy. It's right in front of your eyes that a male and a male cannot have a child without outside interaction, and yet you still deny that it does go against the physical nature of the human body.

On the subject of whether homosexual urges are natural or unnatural, I can't tell you, I don't know for sure as I don't have any sort of survey. But I can say that someone may have a natural urge to kill someone else, it doesn't make it right in any way, and it doesn't make it natural. This is why we don't classify murder as death by natural causes. A person may have the natural urge to down 800 beers in one night, but usually won't act upon this, as they know their liver will probably explode.

[Jenocide]

Also, I should note that you speak of homosexual urges to be possibly natural in some people, while this may or may not be true, I'm speaking on the point that any sexual intercourse that causes no actual reproduction goes against what is intended to occur. To deny this is idiocy. It's right in front of your eyes that a male and a male cannot have a child without outside interaction, and yet you still deny that it does go against the physical nature of the human body.

I'm sorry... so if a man and a woman have sex with any form of contraception does that mean it's against nature?

What if a woman has sex after menopause when she can no longer produce children?

You can compare heterosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality too with that viewpoint.

Just sayin'

[Apiary Tazy]

Unless you want to say a man is some sort of machine, in which case I'll have to pop you in the mouth. Nothing personal.

Humans are obviously of higher inteligance than animals, is this not what you're stating here? Human beings are intelligent enough to have set morals, while most animals are only out for self-preservation. Even a dog, as loyal as it will be, will turn on the owner if it means self-preservation, and will not hesitate to eat as much food as it can rather than sharing it with younger pups when it is hungry, it is hardwired into them; however a human doesn't necisarily have to make these choices. They possess higher thinking skills and can choose to sacrifice themselves for the well-being of their friends.

Actually, no. Human beings are just as likely to have no set morals, kill it's own young for survival when it believes to, and can even selfishly kill everyone in the room to keep it's sad self alive for a few lingering moments. Intelligence is only as useful as the person using it, and if we had no language, reading, or any idea of civilization, we would be exactly like animals, no more no less.

Also, I should note that you speak of homosexual urges to be possibly natural in some people, while this may or may not be true, I'm speaking on the point that any sexual intercourse that causes no actual reproduction goes against what is intended to occur. To deny this is idiocy. It's right in front of your eyes that a male and a male cannot have a child without outside interaction, and yet you still deny that it does go against the physical nature of the human body.

So, is birth control unnatural? How about just not being capable of having kids? Is that unnatural, because by this standpoint birth control should be illegal and all marriges over 20 years should be abolished because it's no longer natural.

And you're close-minded if you try to disprove me ;)

On the subject of whether homosexual urges are natural or unnatural, I can't tell you, I don't know for sure as I don't have any sort of survey. But I can say that someone may have a natural urge to kill someone else, it doesn't make it right in any way, and it doesn't make it natural. This is why we don't classify murder as death by natural causes. A person may have the natural urge to down 800 beers in one night, but usually won't act upon this, as they know their liver will probably explode.

Murder is very natural, Guild. It just that we don't allow people to do so. Also trying to claim that we don't mark murder as "death by natural causes" as proof it's not natural proves nothing.

Everything humans do is in some way natural, because humans are animals

Now I'm curious. Is "natural" another way of saying "what I want to happen"? hmmmm....

E: Found a Definition.

In scientific usage, a multicellular organism that is usually mobile, whose cells are not encased in a rigid cell wall (distinguishing it from plants and fungi) and which derives energy solely from the consumption of other organisms (distinguishing it from plants).

So, under this definition, Humans are animals. Unless you want to argue that we're plants.

[Valigarmander]

Homosexual and bisexual behavior is well-documented in non-human animals, particularly birds and mammals. That included sexual activity with members of the same sex, parents of the same sex raising young together, and other behaviors. In the animal world this often serves to strengthen the bond between members of a community. Sometimes it's out of necessity, and sometimes it has its own benefits (example: two male birds who end up taking care of young together can defend a much wider area around a nest than one male and one female can). Another popular hypothesis is that homosexuality is an evolutionary mechanism in which homosexual animals can indirectly improve the chances of survival of other young ones in a family group by providing extra food, protection, and nurturing, since they don't typically have their own young to look after. And there's a lot more interesting information on the subject than what I just summarized. Sexuality doesn't have to focus directly on procreation to be natural.

[Deepfake]

Okay, since you're boring me with the same old crap...

Humans are obviously of higher inteligance than animals, is this not what you're stating here? Human beings are intelligent enough to have set morals, while most animals are only out for self-preservation. Even a dog, as loyal as it will be, will turn on the owner if it means self-preservation, and will not hesitate to eat as much food as it can rather than sharing it with younger pups when it is hungry, it is hardwired into them; however a human doesn't necisarily have to make these choices. They possess higher thinking skills and can choose to sacrifice themselves for the well-being of their friends.

Also, I should note that you speak of homosexual urges to be possibly natural in some people, while this may or may not be true, I'm speaking on the point that any sexual intercourse that causes no actual reproduction goes against what is intended to occur. To deny this is idiocy. It's right in front of your eyes that a male and a male cannot have a child without outside interaction, and yet you still deny that it does go against the physical nature of the human body.

On the subject of whether homosexual urges are natural or unnatural, I can't tell you, I don't know for sure as I don't have any sort of survey. But I can say that someone may have a natural urge to kill someone else, it doesn't make it right in any way, and it doesn't make it natural. This is why we don't classify murder as death by natural causes. A person may have the natural urge to down 800 beers in one night, but usually won't act upon this, as they know their liver will probably explode.

If your urge is natural then it isn't necessarily natural. What the **** are you saying. Why do these kind of people even try to make arguments.

Let's get you speaking my language. First of all, to make the argument based on the context of intelligence as the characteristic you choose to discriminate by, you have to define your context of the word natural as pertaining to that. Before you get confused about that like everything else so far, let's say it's in the context of natural behavior limited to animals with an intelligence observably similar to humans in property. This will be necessary in part because I can easily contest the concept that intelligence is only in the possession of humans, as intelligence itself may very well be subjective in purpose. You might find your performance and skills of evaluation very poor to the existence of a whale, for instance. To put it simply, to whales you might be an idiot. If animals do not philosophize in human terms, who is to say that they have any need for it.

And yes, humans are animals, if you are speaking from a scientific background. You're going to have to accept that logic is owned by science. Science isn't an organization like the church you attend, there isn't some doctrine. A scientific process consists of the concept that things can be broken down into logical components with observable outcomes, so we are certain of the cause of the outcome. If you'd like to differentiate that humans are animals unlike other animals, that's fine, but that word does not belong exclusively to your beliefs: it belongs to communication. Your morals did not create that word. See Tazy's post for an appropriate definition.

But limiting the conversation to human-like, observable intelligence does not limit it solely to humans, as Great Apes have been observed to speak sign language and express emotion using human words. So we will have to observe that humans are not specifically those apes, and that we can specify to the definition of humans.

Unfortunately, I see specifying into groups as a tool for untruths. I could say that, for instance, among humans that are homosexual, instances of homosexuality exist as a 100% majority.

Still, taking a trip straight on past that gambit we run into another: Human behavior. As humans do in fact have an intelligence pattern that is used to determine cause and use for behavior, which goes beyond the instinctual, and we can therefore state that it is uniformly natural for humans to reassign use of their biology - for the behavior of sexual intercourse to also function as a mechanism to provoke pleasure. Your insistence of a word such as animal or natural, being an expression of human intellect, illustrates perfectly that ideas are subjective. As such, sex as an idea is subjective. Your use of the concept and its purpose is not universal, that is a failure of your argument.

There are more stumbling blocks for you to limp past, but I will skip past those and ask you:

How do you define the word "natural?" If, in this context, you do in fact simply mean that it is not the predefined use for sex organs, then who defines the use of sex organs beyond the owner of them? The very definition of our intellect, as we humans define it, lends credence to the suggestion that it is absolutely normal for us to redefine purposes:


in·tel·lect
1.
the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one wills; the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge.

That we have intellect means that we inherently understand and practice the many possibilities of our concepts, of our tools, and of our actions. The act of limiting their meaning goes against the "nature" (as you have defined it) of our intellect. Your claims fall apart over this. You have chosen to build an argument that goes against my judgement in this, and you have proven that choice is subject to experience, and natural by your own description.


Still, we can always choose an alternate bottomless chasm to banish this argument into. You have not provided a reason for the lack of childbirth to be universally incorrect.

You have also given me the option to, following your lead in discriminating between varieties of animal intellect, further class humans into a single persons rather than a group. Humans are individuals. To deny this is idiocy. That you should consider every single person under the same context as having been normal is lunacy: We only group humans together in language because we can draw a line there. This is our language.

There is no human hive-mind that dictates normalcy among humans as some conglomerate: that is an idea. Good is an idea. Taste is an idea. Lamps are an idea. These are only words. Simply drawing up comparisons because you have observed other lifeforms fitting a similar description to yourself is so utterly unimaginative, and I would be ashamed to have a mind that could not perceive its own perceptions.

Your meta is severely lacking, son.






Similarly, you have handily proven with your 800 beer scenario that natural does not equal good, therefore the character of homosexuality as being bad (according to you) is not necessarily caused by being unnatural.

Strangely enough, even if we were to assume that homosexuality were wrong somehow by extension of not being the origin of penises, vaginas, and their use, this does not preclude homosexuals from mating heterosexually to have children. It also helps to justify pedophilia as the product of a heterosexual purpose, and widens the gap between homosexuality and pedophilia.



Most importantly, how can you prove, universally, that your mindset was ever remotely the most common among humans? We don't have some sort of telepathic, time-traveling device that can conjure up the minds of every human that ever lived to evaluate them in an unbiased fashion and determine what is the ultimate majority opinion of the matter. If you're seriously willing to make the assumption that yours is, you're already in error and nobody should ever consider your opinion legitimate, as you are willing to make judgments with little concrete reason. Any accuracy you experience would then be coincidence.

[Kargath]

Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation

To save you the trouble of reading through this whole thing:



I've heard the things IRHP was talking about having been discredited a long time ago, but I figured I'd find you a source.

That paper starts with a 'pro-gay' position, and isn't worth much due to that. (See page 2 bullet points)

[DarkZero]

bumpquote

^^Slight correction: Pedophilia is a mental condition. Child molestation is a rape act.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

When I say "defined as", I'm referring to the people who are too dense to learn the difference.

Also, my thoughts on the thread topic: Homosexuality is similar to the two in that it's a sexual preference that does not suit procreation. But that's where the similarity stops.

[Metal Man]

^^Actually, Metal Man, I am constantly refining my belief system. If something doesn't make sense I either try and explain it logically or if that doesn't work, I take it out of my "belief system, and replace it with something that does make sense.

And I'm the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.

[spooky scary bearatons]

Gays arising from straight families are likely influenced by various outside factors, or by being molested. Normal, ideal circumstances would be unlikely to yield a high ratio of homosexuals.

just shut the **** up

[heh]

* Metal Man;1222880 puts his hand to his chin.

Why do you bother telling people who will never change their beliefs what's wrong with them? You'll no sooner raise a mountain into outer space than make IRHP or Guildmaster think outside their belief systems.

provide empirical evidence that IRHP or Guildmaster will never change their beliefs or learn anything that could potentially change their beliefs in the future.

while you are doing that, stop ****ting up the thread

And I'm the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.

and stop trolling badly

[Rainbow Dash]

can we close this thread already