|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/13/2006 : 07:55:38 [Permalink]
|
from:kil
Bill.
Since homosexuality occurs at a pretty steady rate and is always the product of male and female conception, how can you say that it's unnatural? If homosexuality negatively impacted the survival of the species it would have been selected out. And if God doesn't want there to be gays, why did God design the equipment to keep producing gays at a steady rate? The evidence is good, based on physical differences in the brain, that homosexuality is not a matter of choice. And while some people would like to keep things simple and say that you are either male or female, physical differences suggest that what we are seeing are really more than two genders.
My brother and I came from the same parents. Lived in the same house. We went to the same schools and had many of the same teachers and friends. And yet he is gay and I'm not. My brother was born gay. And just as I was drawn to female sex partners he was drawn to males. And not once did he ask me when I made the decision be straight. He understood that it isn't a choice even when he was a kid. Being gay to him is as natural to him as being straight is to me.
Being a gay male does not make for an easy life in this culture. As a kid being gay subjects you to taunts by other kids for being a sissy or in these says, a fag. Or maybe a kid is not gay but somewhat effeminate, or a nerd or a geek and subjected to the same taunts suggesting that being gay is the worst thing a kid can be. (Some gays go undercover at that point to protect themselves. A few may eventually choose to become captain of the football team, even. What better way to fit in?) Later, they must deal with not getting the full benefits of equal protection under the law, because the asshole majority (or more and more so, an asshole minority that certain politicians must brownnose for votes while dictating a theocratic mindset) still think homosexuality is a choice, regardless of the evidence, which should include how difficult it is to be gay in this culture, that it is definitely not a choice.
And even the bible that the fundamentalists cite as proof of what God intended, God allows David, chosen by Him to do His bidding, to receive a pass.
quote:
1 Samuel 19:2
Jonathan ... delighted much in David.
quote:
2 Samuel 1:26
Very pleasant has thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of woman.
Oh well… Must protect us from all the other sodomites I guess.
Interestingly, there is only one verse in the bible that possibly pertains to female homosexuality. It seems that it's bad for woman to put on a man's clothing, Deuteronomy 22:5. Since even Christian fundamentalist women wear men's pants these days, I guess that particular abomination is not considered all that bad anymore. And since males seem to be doing most of the interpreting of what the bible is saying, and since male homosexuality is much more threatening to males than female homosexuality is, is it any wonder that even a strong fundamentalist Christian would give short shrift to the mortal dangers of being a lesbian? I'm not saying they don't consider it, but if you actually analyze the rhetoric, it would appear that their concentrating on male homosexuality is indeed homophobia and without much regard to what is in the bible, biblical citations not withstanding. Since the bible says so many things, almost any interpretation of it is bound to lead one into some sort of quagmire.
Bill, all your protestations about what is natural are ridiculous. If it occurs in the natural world it is natural.
Humans have the unusual capacity to enjoy sex all the times, no matter where the female is in her estrus cycle. On most days during that cycle conception cannot occur. So obviously procreation is not the only reason we fuck. And while procreation may be our prime directive as a species, there may well be other directives that are also beneficial but subtle. An ant colony divides up t |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 07:59:21 [Permalink]
|
<marfknox> <privatesend.asp?method=Topic&mname=marfknox>
Bill wrote: I give Filthy credit here. When he thinks he is right he does not back down, but when he sees a red flag he does not just toss it aside and tow the party line. So while Filthy's intellect told him to read more “studies,” his gut told him that something did not seem right here? (unnatural) Go with your gut Filthy. Yeah, Filthy. Go with your gut. Not your brain or nothin'. Bill, I've been in favor of gay rights ever since I was 12 and first heard about what homosexuality was. My response at that age was to shrug and say “Oh, people do that too? OK.” Given Filthy's age and gender, it is hardly surprising that his gut makes him uncomfortable with homosexuality. My dad isn't totally comfortable with it either. But my 25-year-old brother has had a gay male roommate, currently works at a gay bar as a waiter, and has other gay friends. My brother isn't the least bit uncomfortable with gay men. (And my brother is totally straight.) That's because my brother grew up in a different environment. Filthy's feelings say nothing about the natural condition of homosexuality, only about his social environment. How telling it is that so many men are “uncomfortable” with male homosexuality, but they are just fine with lesbianism.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bill wrote: I give Filthy credit here. When he thinks he is right he does not back down, but when he sees a red flag he does not just toss it aside and tow the party line. So while Filthy's intellect told him to read more “studies,” his gut told him that something did not seem right here? (unnatural) Go with your gut Filthy.
Yeah, Filthy. Go with your gut. Not your brain or nothin'.
Bill, I've been in favor of gay rights ever since I was 12 and first heard about what homosexuality was. My response at that age was to shrug and say “Oh, people do that too? OK.” Given Filthy's age and gender, it is hardly surprising that his gut makes him uncomfortable with homosexuality.
(bill) Umm... Filthy did not tell me that he was "uncomfortable" with two men raising a baby. He said it did not seem "natural" to him. Since you will next rant about the definition of natural for the next 8 posts let me paraphrase filithy, if you will:
"Two grown men raising a baby does not seem like the design intent of the deity, or to be the results of NS, either way you look at it."
Filthy can look at a nice firearm and clearly see design intent, for say, the hammer, as it comes down and ignites the gun powder. Filthy did not have to know the gun designer personally, or even to have meet him, to recognize the obvious design intent of the gun designer for the hammer. Filthy was honest enough to admit that when he applied this same logic to the topic of two men raising a baby on their own, that it was very clear to him that this did not seem to align with the original intent of the deity, or the results of NS, take your pick.
My dad isn't totally comfortable with it either.
(bill) I am sure he sees the same thing filthy sees, "this ain't natural."
But my 25-year-old brother has had a gay male roommate, currently works at a gay bar as a waiter, and has other gay friends. My brother isn't the least bit uncomfortable with gay men. (And my brother is totally straight.) That's because my brother grew up in a different environment. Filthy's feelings say nothing about the natural condition of homosexuality, only about his social environment.
(bill) Same could be said about you and your brother's feelings toward homosexuality, could they not? Beside, feelings don't dictate truth, reality does. And the reality of the results of NS say that man and women is the basis for all of civilization. Now, if NS changes the foundation anytime soon, and gives same sex humans the ability to procreate, then you might have a leg to stand on.
How telling it is that so many men are “uncomfor |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 08:53:39 [Permalink]
|
(kil)Since homosexuality occurs at a pretty steady rate and is always the product of male and female conception, how can you say that it's unnatural?
(bill) The same could be said for the action of murder or child molestation.
Child molestation is a naturally occurring phenomenon. So are genetic disorders and viral diseases and cancers that we fight against with medical technology. Nobody ever said that just because something was “natural” that we had to go along with it.
You have yet to give us a reason why society should fight against homosexuality.
(kil)If homosexuality negatively impacted the survival of the species it would have been selected out.
(bill) The act of murder negatively impacts the survival of species, yet it is as much of civilization today as ever.
Actually, the act of murder does not negatively impact the survival of the species. Again, I will say you seem to no little to nothing about biological evolution. It is far more complicated than: “everything that maximizes the population is good.” Overpopulation is just as dangerous to the survival of a species as disease. There was this type of beetle in Africa that evolved, and it was so highly adapted to its environment, so much better at obtaining resources than anything else, that its population soared and it ate up everything in the local area that it could eat, and then it suddenly went extinct because there was nothing left to eat.
But regardless of the natural question, human concepts of morality are rarely guided by what is considered “natural”. The natural argument usually comes into play when people don't like what some other people are doing but they don't have a better argument against it, so they just say “That's not natural.” Only hardline pacifists oppose all forms of killing. Others justify killing as self defense, in war, capital punishment, even duels were socially acceptable at one point.
Bill you keep dancin' around in this argument. You go from arguing gay rights as politics, to whether it is natural, to whether it is part of some absolute moral code (which you have yet to provide one single bit of evidence for.)
One look at the anatomy diagrams of both sexes, kil, and I think you will see that it is you who is trying to convince me that the square peg goes in the round hole.
If you can fit the square peg in the round hole and you do that for some other purpose (like to express physical love or to engage in mutually pleasurable sex) then why shouldn't you do so? I use my staple gun to pound nails into my studio wall all the time because I don't feel like buying a hammer. Trees are naturally supposed to grow old and die. But we cut them down and make tables and chairs and paper and stuff out of them. If you can make it work for your specific needs, do it. That IS human nature!
Since you will next rant about the definition of natural for the next 8 posts let me paraphrase filithy, if you will:
"Two grown men raising a baby does not seem like the design intent of the deity, or to be the results of NS, either way you look at it."
Wow, you just quoted yourself using a quote that I already responded to. The results of Natural Selection include homosexuality. That's because EVERYTHING is the result of natural selection and homosexuality is here. You keeps saying bullsh#t like you know God or nature intended racks on certain animals because those things are here. Homosexuality is here so it must be God or nature intend! That is YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, but with Valiant or I make this point, you ignore us and just repeat your old arguments that we've already countered!
My (marf)dad isn't totally comfortable with it either.
(bill) I am sure he sees the same thing filthy sees, "this ain't natural."
That's right, claim that the “uncomfortable feelings” support your argument and just ignore the people like me and my brother whose guts tell us gays are just |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 10:10:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
(kil)Since homosexuality occurs at a pretty steady rate and is always the product of male and female conception, how can you say that it's unnatural?
(bill) The same could be said for the action of murder or child molestation.
Child molestation is a naturally occurring phenomenon. So are genetic disorders and viral diseases and cancers that we fight against with medical technology. Nobody ever said that just because something was “natural” that we had to go along with it.
You have yet to give us a reason why society should fight against homosexuality.
(kil)If homosexuality negatively impacted the survival of the species it would have been selected out.
(bill) The act of murder negatively impacts the survival of species, yet it is as much of civilization today as ever.
Actually, the act of murder does not negatively impact the survival of the species. Again, I will say you seem to no little to nothing about biological evolution. It is far more complicated than: “everything that maximizes the population is good.” Overpopulation is just as dangerous to the survival of a species as disease. There was this type of beetle in Africa that evolved, and it was so highly adapted to its environment, so much better at obtaining resources than anything else, that its population soared and it ate up everything in the local area that it could eat, and then it suddenly went extinct because there was nothing left to eat.
But regardless of the natural question, human concepts of morality are rarely guided by what is considered “natural”. The natural argument usually comes into play when people don't like what some other people are doing but they don't have a better argument against it, so they just say “That's not natural.” Only hardline pacifists oppose all forms of killing. Others justify killing as self defense, in war, capital punishment, even duels were socially acceptable at one point.
Bill you keep dancin' around in this argument. You go from arguing gay rights as politics, to whether it is natural, to whether it is part of some absolute moral code (which you have yet to provide one single bit of evidence for.)
One look at the anatomy diagrams of both sexes, kil, and I think you will see that it is you who is trying to convince me that the square peg goes in the round hole.
If you can fit the square peg in the round hole and you do that for some other purpose (like to express physical love or to engage in mutually pleasurable sex) then why shouldn't you do so? I use my staple gun to pound nails into my studio wall all the time because I don't feel like buying a hammer. Trees are naturally supposed to grow old and die. But we cut them down and make tables and chairs and paper and stuff out of them. If you can make it work for your specific needs, do it. That IS human nature!
Since you will next rant about the definition of natural for the next 8 posts let me paraphrase filithy, if you will:
"Two grown men raising a baby does not seem like the design intent of the deity, or to be the results of NS, either way you look at it."
Wow, you just quoted yourself using a quote that I already responded to. The results of Natural Selection include homosexuality. That's because EVERYTHING is the result of natural selection and homosexuality is here. You keeps saying bullsh#t like you know God or nature intended racks on certain animals because those things are here. Homosexuality is here so it must be God or nature intend! That is YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, but with Valiant or I make this point, you ignore us and just repeat your old arguments that we've already countered!
My (marf)dad isn't totally comfortable with it either.
(bill) I am sure he sees the same thing filthy sees, "this ain't natural." |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 10:33:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Skeptic: I know God's intent was for homosexuals because there are homosexuals.
I don't think we are trying to determine if it is God's intent here Bill, just weither it is a natural or unnatural act.
quote:
Bill: But homosexual relations take a sovereign act of the will by the participants.
So does Heterosexual relations, your point?
quote:
Skeptic: Oh yeah.
Bill: God intended for beavers to have flat tails.
Skeptic: How do you know?
Bill: Beavers have flat tails.
Skeptic: Maybe the beaver choose to have a flat tail.
Bill: Nope, the flat tail is a physical trait given to the beaver by the design agent, or the results of NS. Either way it not up to the beaver.
Which is what serveral people have been trying to tell you, that it does have genetic origins. It does happen in other species as well as our own.
|
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 11:44:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paulos23
quote:
Skeptic: I know God's intent was for homosexuals because there are homosexuals.
I don't think we are trying to determine if it is God's intent here Bill, just weither it is a natural or unnatural act.
quote:
Bill: But homosexual relations take a sovereign act of the will by the participants.
So does Heterosexual relations, your point?
quote:
Skeptic: Oh yeah.
Bill: God intended for beavers to have flat tails.
Skeptic: How do you know?
Bill: Beavers have flat tails.
Skeptic: Maybe the beaver choose to have a flat tail.
Bill: Nope, the flat tail is a physical trait given to the beaver by the design agent, or the results of NS. Either way it not up to the beaver.
Which is what serveral people have been trying to tell you, that it does have genetic origins. It does happen in other species as well as our own.
I don't think we are trying to determine if it is God's intent here Bill, just weither it is a natural or unnatural act.
(bill) Homosexuale couples raising babies as there own that is. Funny, it flies right in the face of the results of NS. Filthy, in his honesty, acknowledged this fact. Children can see the fact that square pegs don't do round holes, or atleast they are not indeended to...
So does Heterosexual relations, your point?
(bill) That humans are not born having sexual intercoarse with other humans. That is takes a act of the will for hetero/homo, take your pick, to engage in sexual practice and the beaver was born with a flat tail. It did not take an act of the beavers will for his tail to be flat. Flat tails are traits, and having sex with someone is an action and requires the act of the will to engage.
Heterosexual couples decide to have sexual intercoarse as NS results dictate, while homosexual couples decide to have sexual intercoarse, in spite of the this blanetly flying in the face of the results of NS.
Skeptic: Oh yeah.
Bill: God intended for beavers to have flat tails.
Skeptic: How do you know?
Bill: Beavers have flat tails.
Skeptic: Maybe the beaver choose to have a flat tail.
Bill: Nope, the flat tail is a physical trait given to the beaver by the design agent, or the results of NS. Either way it not up to the beaver.
Skeptic: Oh yeah.
Which is what serveral people have been trying to tell you, that it does have genetic origins.
(bill) This flys in the face of NS. NS results dictate that man and women procreate, period. It the results of NS had not come to this conclusion then it would not be so. Sex is an act, which requires the act of the will, if concenting. 4-5% just happen to decide to go with their "feelings" in spite of the results of NS.
It does happen in other species as well as our own.
(bill) Oh yes, the two male lions who take a cub, leave the pride, and go set up a nice dwelling where they can raise the cub as their own.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 12:06:55 [Permalink]
|
Evolution has generously endowd the beaver with a flat tail that it uses primarly as a signeling device. When alarmed, it will slap the water with it, sending the message that all is not as well around the pond as it should be. Other beavers within earshot will instantly submerge, as will any muskrat in the vicinity. The sound is very loud.
I really don't see anyone "choosing" to be homosexual. Logic tells me that the social stigma, a very vicious stigma, alone would tend to discourage it. More and more, studies are showing that it is hardwired in to some few individuals.
I am reminded of Little Richard, the black, Rythem & Blues singer. He tried to 'kick the habit,' as it were, several times over the decades with no success whatsoever.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 13:08:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't think we are trying to determine if it is God's intent here Bill, just weither it is a natural or unnatural act.
(bill) Homosexuale couples raising babies as there own that is. Funny, it flies right in the face of the results of NS. Filthy, in his honesty, acknowledged this fact. Children can see the fact that square pegs don't do round holes, or atleast they are not indeended to...
While rasing kids is part of NS, NS doesn't care who rases the kid. And as it is very much asured that gay people come from a hetrosexual couple, I think it is safe to say that a kids parents sexual oritation doesn't have that much affect on the kids sexual oritation. So even if the kids adopted homosexuale parents don't teach the kid about pegs and holes, I think they would find out on their own if they where inclinded to.
quote:
So does Heterosexual relations, your point?
(bill) That humans are not born having sexual intercoarse with other humans. That is takes a act of the will for hetero/homo, take your pick, to engage in sexual practice and the beaver was born with a flat tail. It did not take an act of the beavers will for his tail to be flat. Flat tails are traits, and having sex with someone is an action and requires the act of the will to engage.
Heterosexual couples decide to have sexual intercoarse as NS results dictate, while homosexual couples decide to have sexual intercoarse, in spite of the this blanetly flying in the face of the results of NS.
I will refer this to filthly's post above.
quote:
Skeptic: Oh yeah.
Bill: God intended for beavers to have flat tails.
Skeptic: How do you know?
Bill: Beavers have flat tails.
Skeptic: Maybe the beaver choose to have a flat tail.
Bill: Nope, the flat tail is a physical trait given to the beaver by the design agent, or the results of NS. Either way it not up to the beaver.
Skeptic: Oh yeah.
Which is what serveral people have been trying to tell you, that it does have genetic origins.
(bill) This flys in the face of NS. NS results dictate that man and women procreate, period. It the results of NS had not come to this conclusion then it would not be so. Sex is an act, which requires the act of the will, if concenting. 4-5% just happen to decide to go with their "feelings" in spite of the results of NS.
NS requires a man and a woman to procreate to continue the species, but NS does not requires for every man and women to do so. Only enough to continue the species. NS doesn't care if 2%, 5%, or 50% of the species doesn't do so.
quote:
It does happen in other species as well as our own.
(bill) Oh yes, the two male lions who take a cub, leave the pride, and go set up a nice dwelling where they can raise the cub as their own.
Now your just being silly, and showing your own personal fear to boot. That is not what I am talking about. What I was talking about was an individual orginisum's sexual preference, not mating or family structures of species. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 13:18:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) This flys in the face of NS. NS results dictate that man and women procreate, period. It the results of NS had not come to this conclusion then it would not be so. Sex is an act, which requires the act of the will, if concenting. 4-5% just happen to decide to go with their "feelings" in spite of the results of NS.
See what I mean? He just repeats the same lines over and over again, as if that will somehow make his nonsense have merit.
The astounding ignorance he repeatedly puts on public display is totally immune to reason and rational thinking. Bill is not merely ignorant, he is entirely incapable of comprehending how wrong he is.
There is little (read: no) point in even responding to his stupidity. He clearly has no understanding (not even a remedial one) of natural selection/evolution, and he thinks he knows the intent of his god.
Seriously, Bill is delusional. He refuses to even recognize his errors when confronted with evidence that directly contradicts his erronious conclusions.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 14:00:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It does happen in other species as well as our own.
(bill) Oh yes, the two male lions who take a cub, leave the pride, and go set up a nice dwelling where they can raise the cub as their own.
I was going to leave this alone, but I can't. It is a blatent straw man that has no grounding in reality whatsoever.
Any male, African lion will kill any nursing or younger cub not his own. And younger males are driven out of the pride upon reaching breeding age by the alpha male. The reason that this doesn't happen with most other cats is that lions are unique in that they are social. Even so, other cats, let's say, a cougar female, having hidden her cubs carefully, will quickly relocate them if she even suspects the presence of a male in her territory.
Very poor anology. If we must use wildlife for this sort of thing, let us try to keep it at least close to accurate. Otherwise, we merely indulge in poor, stand-up comedy.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 14:06:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Continued from this thread due to length.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5607
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
That's right, Bill. Deny the pairbonding issue and instead bring up the same tired "procreation" argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(bill)Pair bonding issue? What pair bonding issue?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The one I have repeatedly been making concerning the role of sex. Sex in humans deepens emotional ties with people considered to be mates.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procreation is only part of the equasion.
(bill) Procreation is the equation, without it civilization dies!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize that you need this to be true for your own position to be the least bit valid. Problem is, reality does not follow this model.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That you strictly adhere to it in the case of homosexuals but abandon it freely in the case of sterile people shows much about your argument.
(bill) Straw man. Has nothing to do with weather or not the deity, or NS, designed the male and female to be reproducing agents of the race. Why would the designing agent create procreation through heterosexual if his, or it's, intention all along was for man/man to raise the children? Or women/women?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Bill. It isn't a strawman. It goes to the heart of intent. Sex is not only for procreation. It is also for strenghting emotional ties for pairbonding.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know the "natural intent" of the deity. That means knowing the mind of God, Bill. No matter how you want to deny yourself out of this theological corner you've backed yourself into, you can't. I won't give a shit. God nailed to stick says in the Bible that he takes a dim view of false prophets.
(bill) Another straw man. Knowing God's intent, and knowing God's mind are indeed two very different things.
Bill: I know God's intent.
Skeptic: Prove it.
Bill: God's intent for whitetail bucks is that they have racks.
Skeptic: Prove it.
Bill: See that whitetail buck over there by the woods?
Skeptic: Yes.
Bill: Well, it has a rack, there for I know it was God's intent for the buck to have a rack.
In that sense, I say that God's, or NS's, intent was to procreate through the man and women because, that is how procreation happens. And honestly, would the creating agent design procreation through man and women only if that is not who the intent was to raise them? Man and women have been the structure for all of civilization, from the dawn of the age….
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mighty interesting shift on "intent", Bill. You take a outwardly obvious physical trait which has social and physical function and ascribe the intent of the Creator that it have such a trait. Can you say affirming the consequent, Bill? How about the usage of the rack for defense and vying for mates?
Laughably, you claim to know the specific intent of a Creator in the way of |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 15:06:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
VD: The one I have repeatedly been making concerning the role of sex. Sex in humans deepens emotional ties with people considered to be mates.
(bill) So NS, a completely immaterial mechanize agent for evolution is concurred, and involved in the emotions of people? NS, is concerned in the "pairbonding" of same sex partners, even though they play little if any role in the survival of the species. Look, if this is true then I can see why NS wants to pairbound heterosexual couples as they are the key to the future. Since same sex relations do not proliferate the species I could not see why NS would want the pairbonding? As if NS is concerned with the feelings of individuals, as well as survival of the species...
NS is concerned with the feelings of the species as it relates to longevity of the pairbonding in order to assist in child rearing. As pairbonding is adventageous to the species as a whole, it exists. NS does not act differently in a same sex situation. That it occurs in same sex situations (arguably a sexual identity formed in part by genetics) is not odd, nor against any supposed intent of a Creator.
quote:
Procreation is only part of the equasion.
(bill) Procreation is the equation, without it civilization dies!
I realize that you need this to be true for your own position to be the least bit valid. Problem is, reality does not follow this model.
(bill) So NS is concerned with the feelings of individuals? Why else would pairbounding exists between males like you say? In this case the pairbounding would not be to strengthen the bond between mates so the species can move forward, but rather to build the pairbond between same sex because, well, because NS is just nice like that, right?
It is an effect which is consistant across the entire species, Bill. It doesn't differentiate between heterosexual or homosexual. The emotional pairbonding occurs in those couples which have selected mates (different sex or same sex). That there is no procreation to support in the case of same sex pairings is immaterial.
quote:
No, Bill. It isn't a strawman. It goes to the heart of intent. Sex is not only for procreation. It is also for strengthening emotional ties for pairbonding.
(bill) So is NS concerned with the emotions and feelings of individuals? Why else would NS be concerned for the emotions and pairbonding of the same sex partners if getting them to mate and mate more for the proliferation of the species if procreation is not even an option for them? Is NS just being nice since it denied same sex the ability to procreate?
So here it is. You've now decided that since you've been blasted away from your strawman, you've selected another of NS being concerned for the emotions of the subjects. Again, Bill, NS doesn't differentiate between heterosexuals or homosexuals. The drive for pairbonding is a species wide phenomenon which has certian benefits to child rearing.
quote:
Mighty interesting shift on "intent", Bill. You take a outwardly obvious physical trait which has social and physical function and ascribe the intent of the Creator that it have such a trait.
(bill)Umm.... I never said I knew for a fact what God intended the tail for... only that the tail was flat. However, through observations, I can make a calculated decision and speculate with reason the intent of the flat tail. Let me explain:
Bill: It appears the intent of God, or the results of NS, wanted the beaver to swim using his flat tail.
Skeptic: Why do say this?
Bill: Watch a beaver swim.
Skeptic: I see your point.
or
Skeptic: NS intended for some men to be involved in gay sex and raise children.
Bill: What makes you say that?
Skeptic: Some men have gay sex and adopted children.
Bill: What about the fact that only heterosexuals can reproduce? What about the fact that when you look at the anatomy of human male body that this does not fit there? If the intent of NS was for some men to have gay sex and raise families then why can't gay men procreate?
Skeptic: Look, NS did not leave a manual behind with intent. So despite all the evidence and logic and anatomy charts pointing us toward the fact that same sex couples cannot reproduce I can ignore that fact and tell you that " gay sex was intended for the sole purpose of pairbonding" and you cannot deny that it is plausible since NS did not leave a manual behind to clear the air.
Bill: Ok???
Skeptic: Can you prove that no pink Pokka dotted elephants exist in the universe.
Bill: Well no....
Skeptic: My point exactly.
Bill: Oh good grief.....
Wonderful little story. Too bad it has nothing to do with my position. You have clearly stated here that the only reason for sex is for procreation. I have said that it is not and shown you an additional species wide reason which does not differentiate between heterosexual or homosexual. You have somehow magically devined intent based on the mechanics of sexual reproduction and devined that not only is it against intent of a Creator, but that ones sexuality is a conscious choice.
NS provides the basics to assist in the raising of children. Sexuality is immaterial to the raising of children.
quote:
No, Bill. They cannot. People for decades have used screws and nuts for artistic expressions. Likewise, simple machines such as screws have been used for a myriad of functions which were never concieved by their original creator.
(bill) Then people look at the art made of screws and nuts and ask what in the xxxx is that?
Just as we look at the male anatomy and wonder, your going to put that there when dealing with same sex. I would advise against that
Some people do, some people say, "that's interesting." What you advise for or against is immaterial to the conversation. The intent of the creator cannot be devined from examining the parts.
quote:
And what is the reason that beavers have flat tails? That one isn't as clear as the beaver uses it in a multitude of ways. Sort of denies your single intent argument for sex.
(bill) I certainly tell you what the beavers tails were not intended to do.
Based on what, Bill? Based on how the beaver uses it? If so, your misuse argument fails for homosexuals and heterosexuals who engage in anal sex. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/14/2006 12:09:37 |
|
|
|
nescafe
New Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 18:02:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The one I have repeatedly been making concerning the role of sex. Sex in humans deepens emotional ties with people considered to be mates.
(bill) So NS, a completely immaterial mechanize agent for evolution is concurred, and involved in the emotions of people? NS, is concerned in the "pairbonding" of same sex partners, even though they play little if any role in the survival of the species. Look, if this is true then I can see why NS wants to pairbound heterosexual couples as they are the key to the future. Since same sex relations do not proliferate the species I could not see why NS would want the pairbonding? As if NS is concerned with the feelings of individuals, as well as survival of the species...
Natural selection does not care about anything at all -- thinking of it using the intentional stance (or as stand-in for some sort of Intelligent Selector), while useful at times, is ultimatly misleading.
From a moral standpoint, why should we care about what is "natural" or not? Rape, murder, and genocide are all perfectly natural things that I nevertheless find morally reprehensible. What consenting people get up to in the privacy of their homes is not worth my time on that scale.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Procreation is only part of the equasion.
Procreation is the equation, without it civilization dies!
While this is true in an absolute sense (if heterosexual sex disappeared, and no technological alternative appeared, then our species would probably disappear), that does not seem likely to happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Just as we look at the male anatomy and wonder, your going to put that there when dealing with same sex.
Oh, there are all sorts of places to put an erect penis. A quick Google search should enlighten you as to many of the places that an erect penis can go, especially with a bit of practice and lube.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I certainly tell you what the beavers tails were not intended to do.
That is very nice. Can you tell me what the female orgasm is intended to do? What selection pressures led to its existence (or, if you wish, why did God design it)?
|
Insert witty saying here. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 18:07:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by nescafe
That is very nice. Can you tell me what the female orgasm is intended to do? What selection pressures led to its existence (or, if you wish, why did God design it)?
Or nipples on men.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 19:36:47 [Permalink]
|
| Bill is blowing out Irony Meters™ all over the place with his pronouncements on what natural selection does or does not "intend," since he has steadfastly maintained his ignorance of what natural selection is, as can be seen in his writings on evolution. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
