TMA_1 Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 I see what ya mean wolfwiz. :)by the way, I just realized I sounded like darth vader."give into your feelings, give into your hatred!" bwah ha ha ha.lol
Dante Posted June 27, 2004 Posted June 27, 2004 You know I find it hard to disagree with anything you say Nema...just because something is biologically natural, doesnt mean that it is biologically correct.As I have pointed out before, there is no 'correct.' Once people abandon that annoying notion that somewhere there is an objective 'right' perhaps we might get somewhere. There is only 'different.'
Acriku Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 Biologically correctness is a strange term. Reminds me of the times of Hitler...
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 dustscout you said growing up that you had heterosexuality thrown at you... but did you ever sneak off and look at gay porn? ... or did you just admire guys in the locker room?I mean when did you first realized the gay feelings?
Dante Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 I don't think that's any of your business. Especially since the previous details of my life that I have decided to share have been twisted and mauled to fit into your crude reasoning of how my mind (and by default every other gay mind) functions. Call me paranoid but this time I think I'll just keep to myself.
Wolf Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 I suppose Acriku is right, its hard for humans to define biological correctness. I still think that we can observe paths of evolution, and see where things are probably going. However, this means that we should not, by any means, interfere with the natural course of evolution. No matter where we think nature wants to go... well, I can't help but think that nature has plans of her own.
Dunenewt Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 Gunwouds after reading this I can't believe you. Maybe you get some strange sexual fantasy from hearing about people's experiences. Sounds that way to me.
Dante Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 You should see the three predecessors to this thread...
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 newt you are just some idiot who has nothing to add to the discussionyou are flaming me because you are mad at me.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 I suppose Acriku is right, its hard for humans to define biological correctness. I still think that we can observe paths of evolution, and see where things are probably going. However, this means that we should not, by any means, interfere with the natural course of evolution. No matter where we think nature wants to go... well, I can't help but think that nature has plans of her own.Evolution has no plans....
Dante Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 I gave my reasons for not pandering to your twisted wishes and still you manage to concoct some vile fantasy about my past. Your sheer idiocy (not to mention audacity) amazes me Gunwounds, it really does. I'm going to ignore the first half of your first post for that reason and move onto the rest...I mean think about every environmental factor that has effected you in your life... think about how many stimuli have hit your eye, nose, ear, tongue, skin receptors....think about the billions of interactions with everything.... to sit there and deny the potency of our environment on our very being is absolutely ABSURD.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 But not everything. You're the one who claims to have qualifications in biology, you should knows that genetics has its part to play. Still, I'm not arguing for genetics I'm arguing for physiology; which again should have entered your life at some point. blaming it all on genetics is the biggest copout....your genes could make you predisposed to muscle atrophy but you could decide to become a bodybuilder and fight it and become stronger than those peope who are not pre-disposed to atrophy.your genes could make you predisposed to low testorone levels.... but you could do vigorous exercise which has been scientifically proven to raise your testorone levels.genes only determine what you start out with... the rest is up to your choices and your environment.This is no longer a homosexuality thread..... this is basically a Nature vs Nurture thread now.and even tho i am a biologist i must say that Nurture plays a bigger role.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 That's because they don't. Duh. People have absolutely no choice about what sexuality they are. Whether they act on this is another matter entirely, that is where a supposed 'choice' may lie. But choosing who you are attracted to? No choice there. thats stupid... there is a reason why you are attracted to men besides "I just am"you either like their broad jaws or their broad shoulders.. or you like their body structure or you like their personality or you like what they do to you, or what they smell like or any number of factors... and all of these factors are learned.Hey lets not be anthropocentric ! Lets talk about animals again shall we? Did you know that juvenile monkeys do not know how to mate by themselves? They learn to mate by observing their parents and by mimicking their humping activity.Your attraction to men is most likely a learned behaviour since it obviously isnt a normal reproductive habit.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 Biologically correctness is a strange term. Reminds me of the times of Hitler...Well, there is correct behaviour and correct reproduction processes.Inserting a penis into a male rectum is not going to produce any babies and only having sex with men for the rest of your life is not going to cause reproduction either....therefore i think it is safe to call it incorrect reproduction without someone calling me hitler.However i agree that these people should not be persecuted if that was the point you were trying to make.It is possible to label something as incorrect or defect without persecuting it.
nemafakei Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 Dunenewt said "Maybe you get some strange sexual fantasy from hearing about people's experiences.", to which Gunwounds replied: "you are flaming me".On the other hand, Gunwounds is at perfect liberty to make vast and insulting assumptions about the private feelings of people he doesn't even know - and of course, that's not flaming at all!I suggest that from now on, the personal attacks, if not the generalisations, can be reduced if all parties refrain from using specific real-life examples (as opposed to statistics or plain logic) to support their respective cases. Now, let's have a bit of logic. The questions before us (and feel free to add any answers) are:A: What do we mean by homosexuality?Answers may include: 1. Physical acts2. Physical attraction3. Emotional tiesWhen answering this, bear in mind the question "do I mean the same thing by heterosexuality?". We may also find it better to answer other questions dependant on these options, e.g. "In the case of A3, genes must be the cause, but in the case of A1 alone, the act must be voluntary".B: What are the possible origins of homosexuality?Answers may include:1. Genetic2. Psychological3. Educational4. VoluntaryClearly, we may also believe there to be more than one cause, or more than one possible combination of causes, we may also believe some to be impossible, e.g. "I think it can be caused by genetics - but only if someone is willing; it can also occur in extreme cases without the genetics where someone decides to - but I don't believe that psychological/traumatic events contribute at all"C: Is homosexuality right/acceptable?Answers may include:1. Under no circumstances2. Under any circumstances.3. Depends on the circumstancesFor C3, give the relevant circumstances in terms of the other questions, and/or any other circumstances you consider to be relevant.
Acriku Posted June 28, 2004 Posted June 28, 2004 I think I can understand where Dust Scout is coming from. I am attracted to women, I don't really have a choice about that. I just am. I see a guy walk up and wonder what he's doing, but when a girl walks up I begin to "check her out" as they say. I could just as well imagine myself doing it reversely, checking out the guy just because I would feel attracted to him.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 I think I can understand where Dust Scout is coming from. I am attracted to women, I don't really have a choice about that. I just am. I see a guy walk up and wonder what he's doing, but when a girl walks up I begin to "check her out" as they say. I could just as well imagine myself doing it reversely, checking out the guy just because I would feel attracted to him. but have you never checked out a man ?
Wolf Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Gunwounds, I was not trying to mystify homosexuality or say how it is evolution's intended course. Actually, I thought that everyone would see how such a statement actually supports the exact opposite. Since evolution, by necessity, requires heterosexual intercourse, homosexuality is therefore marginalized. Thus, we can theorize that, in evolutionary terms, homosexuality is not good for continuation of the species. Obviously.But, its not nice to say that, so we can't.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Gunwounds, I was not trying to mystify homosexuality or say how it is evolution's intended course. Actually, I thought that everyone would see how such a statement actually supports the exact opposite. Since evolution, by necessity, requires heterosexual intercourse, homosexuality is therefore marginalized. Thus, we can theorize that, in evolutionary terms, homosexuality is not good for continuation of the species. Obviously.But, its not nice to say that, so we can't.well your statement didnt come across the way you wanted it to because you said you agreed with acriku that there is no biological correctness.... and thus i thought you were trying to insinuate that evolution would move towards homosexuality.Since i now understand where you are coming from, i see what you are trying to say... however with
Wolf Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Well, I agreed with Acriku in that we should not try to somehow legislate evolutionary correctness. That's eugenics, buddy.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Well, I agreed with Acriku in that we should not try to somehow legislate evolutionary correctness. of course... but nobody here is talking about legislating anything.. thats irrelevant... we are discussing whether we can say with confidence that something is
danielsh Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 All I can do is laugh at that assertion, because I've been saying the same thing to straight guys for a while now. It really makes 'em nervous (and Wolfwiz can attest to this) when I postulate that heterosexual men are just gay guys with a nasty---but easily-cured---woman fetish.
Recommended Posts