Political correctness & other nonsensical rubbish

[Disco08]

You were howled down because there is no link whatsoever between consensual sex between adults and beastiality.

I'm not arguing that nature intended males and females to mate. I'm arguing that all consensual sex is natural and has purpose.

 

[Liverpool]

I'm not arguing that nature intended males and females to mate. I'm arguing that all consensual sex is natural and has purpose.

If nature INTENDED males and females to mate.....how can ALL other consensual sex be also natural?

That is contradictory.

 

[Disco08]

Because the sole purpose of sex isn't reproduction.

Falling in love is a natural human mechanism. How can nature let members of the same sex fall in love if it's so unnatural?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Your error Livers is that you consider that 'Nature' has intent.

Some people are born that are naturally attracted to the same sex. Hence homosexuality is 'natural'. It is not induced by 'unnatural' means...it is natural.

All of your argument about sex being intended for reproduction is incorrect. It is handy that males and females do have sex and reproduce, it explains our persistence on this planet. However, in nature reproduction is but one outcome and reason individuals have sex. All of the reasons are 'natural' though.

Why do you place reproduction above the other natural reasons that people have sex?

 

[Liverpool]

Because the sole purpose of sex isn't reproduction.
Falling in love is a natural human mechanism. How can nature let members of the same sex fall in love if it's so unnatural?

We're not talking about "falling in love"...we're talking about SEX.
You don't need to fall in love to have sex.
You have sex because you have the urge to mate.....and whether a baby is produced at the end of it comes down to the responsibilities and wants/need and CHOICES that the couple make.

Your error Livers is that you consider that 'Nature' has intent.
Some people are born that are naturally attracted to the same sex. Hence homosexuality is 'natural'. It is not induced by 'unnatural' means...it is natural.
All of your argument about sex being intended for reproduction is incorrect. It is handy that males and females do have sex and reproduce, it explains our persistence on this planet. However, in nature reproduction is but one outcome and reason individuals have sex. All of the reasons are 'natural' though.
Why do you place reproduction above the other natural reasons that people have sex?

Reproduction is the MAIN reason.
How many times do I have to say it?
All these 'other reasons' are bonuses or sideshows to the main deal.
We have an urge to have sex because our bodies are ready to mate.....it isn't because we fell in love, it isn't to feel good...it is because nature is telling us to reproduce.
Why do you think people have one-night stands? It is an animalistic instinct.
Whether that reproduction leads to a life is then determined by outside influences, such as contraception, responsibility of the couple mating, and whether they want a child or not.

Put simply....a male ejaculates sperm, no matter whether they are attracted to a male or a female.
Funny that if reproduction isn't the main reason nature intended us to have sex...why is sperm a constant in all males, even homosexuals, where sperm is about as useful as a lead balloon?

Again....you're letting a moralistic view for a minority group cloud a perfectly simple and logical process that nature intended.

 

[Disco08]

We're not talking about "falling in love"...we're talking about SEX.
You don't need to fall in love to have sex.
You have sex because you have the urge to mate.....and whether a baby is produced at the end of it comes down to the responsibilities and wants/need and CHOICES that the couple make.

Once two people fall in love, almost invariably there is an attraction which leads to sex. How could nature possibly let this happen between members of the same sex if it is unnatural?

And I can tell you, people rarely have sex because of the urge to mate (what a ridiculous comment). They have sex for enjoyment and because they are attracted to the person(s).

 

[jb03]

With a couple of junior jb's running around I now think reproduction is the least appealing aspect of sex.

 

[Freezer]

Why do you place reproduction above the other natural reasons that people have sex?

From a learned scientist such as yourself Pantha, I'm surprised at this question.

Surely the absolute basic requirement of every living thing is to reproduce itself for the betterment of its species, so that the species continues successfully? Those species that can't deal with the changing environment eventually die out.

We as humans have physical, emotional, ethical and moral boundaries that cloud this basic requirement as a species.

Never-the-less, as a bottom line, the reason for sex is to procreate. The other benefits of it are by-products.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

From a learned scientist such as yourself Pantha, I'm surprised at this question.

Surely the absolute basic requirement of every living thing is to reproduce itself for the betterment of its species, so that the species continues successfully? Those species that can't deal with the changing environment eventually die out.

We as humans have physical, emotional, ethical and moral boundaries that cloud this basic requirement as a species.

Never-the-less, as a bottom line, the reason for sex is to procreate. The other benefits of it are by-products.

Of course sexual intercourse evolved in sexually reproducing organisms such as ourselves and our enjoyment of the act are all selectively advantageous to the perpetuation of the species. I don't dispute this.

What I do dispute is the idea that homosexual sex is somehow 'unnatural'. Individuals are born that naturally favour the same sex. Please explain to me how that can be unnatural?

Your view is purely an evolutionary perspective...ie. sex is to reproduce and nothing else matters. From an evolutionary perspective why are some individuals born homosexual? Or do you dispute that? Why does homosexuality persist in human populations?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Reproduction is the MAIN reason.
How many times do I have to say it?
All these 'other reasons' are bonuses or sideshows to the main deal.
We have an urge to have sex because our bodies are ready to mate.....it isn't because we fell in love, it isn't to feel good...it is because nature is telling us to reproduce.

The MAIN reason? Perhaps from an evolutionary perspective, perhaps not. Why do a proportion of the population naturally favor sex with individuals of the same sex? You are citing the evolutionary imperative to reproduce, why has homosexuality persisted in human populations (naturally)?

The relative importance of the purposes of sex are, exactly that, relative. You say that we have the urge to have sex because it nature's way of telling us to reproduce (???). Why then do some individuals naturally have urges to have sex with individuals of the same sex? How do you explain that? What is 'nature saying' to these individuals?

Why do you think people have one-night stands? It is an animalistic instinct.
Whether that reproduction leads to a life is then determined by outside influences, such as contraception, responsibility of the couple mating, and whether they want a child or not.

It is an animalistic instinct because we are animals. The main driver is very rarely to conceive a child and more to do with the pleasure involved. Where is the problem with this?

Put simply....a male ejaculates sperm, no matter whether they are attracted to a male or a female.
Funny that if reproduction isn't the main reason nature intended us to have sex...why is sperm a constant in all males, even homosexuals, where sperm is about as useful as a lead balloon?

Again....you're letting a moralistic view for a minority group cloud a perfectly simple and logical process that nature intended.

It is a good thing that males ejaculate sperm, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. What about males that don't ejaculate sperm, or not enough sperm to conceive. Are they unnatural? Should we consider their relationships somehow less than those of fertile males? Why not? If your yardstick for relationships is the ability reproduce then we should be equally discriminatory against any couple that can't reproduce naturally.

BTW nature doesn't have intent.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

With a couple of junior jb's running around I now think reproduction is the least appealing aspect of sex.

:hihi

 

[Freezer]

Your view is purely an evolutionary perspective...ie. sex is to reproduce and nothing else matters. From an evolutionary perspective why are some individuals born homosexual? Or do you dispute that? Why does homosexuality persist in human populations?

I have no idea - it's too complex for me.

My opinion though? I do have doubts that homosexuality is genetic. My basic level of genetics knowledge makes me think if that's the case, eventually the gene would disappear because it wouldn't be passed on. I tend to think it's a learned behavioural choice.

The relative importance of the purposes of sex are, exactly that, relative. You say that we have the urge to have sex because it nature's way of telling us to reproduce (???). Why then do some individuals naturally have urges to have sex with individuals of the same sex? How do you explain that? What is 'nature saying' to these individuals?

Perhaps it's saying for whatever reason, "you'd better not reproduce so you can be homosexual". (I'm taking the *smile*!)

It is an animalistic instinct because we are animals. The main driver is very rarely to conceive a child and more to do with the pleasure involved. Where is the problem with this?

I would have thought the pleasure was 'added' so that the species wanted to mate and so continue the successful progression of the species. Humans have intervened and created birth control because we decided we know better than nature.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I have no idea - it's too complex for me.

My opinion though? I do have doubts that homosexuality is genetic. My basic level of genetics knowledge makes me think if that's the case, eventually the gene would disappear because it wouldn't be passed on. I tend to think it's a learned behavioural choice.

A learned behavioural choice? Learned from where? Do you think you could learn to be homosexual (assuming you are not). Many homosexuals will report that they always felt the way they do. How do you explain that? It is clearly not a simple genetic trait, nor solely genetic. There are a number of hypotheses surrounding homosexuality including hormonal, developmental and genetic. It may naturally occur by different mechanisms in different individuals. The bottom line is that these are all natural explanations and discriminating against someone, who is harming no one, for this reason is indefensible.

I would have thought the pleasure was 'added' so that the species wanted to mate and so continue the successful progression of the species. Humans have intervened and created birth control because we decided we know better than nature.

Of course sexual pleasure is advantageous from an evolutionary perspective. That still doesn't explain the evolutionary advantage to the pleasure that homosexuals receive from sex.

This notion of ascribing human characteristics to nature....ie. 'nature knows best,' bugs me a bit. Nature does what works. If birth control was done because we decided we know better than nature, then you would have to say the same for all of medicine, agriculture, engineering...etc etc. I personally am glad that 'we know better than nature' when it comes to a, natural, potentially lethal staph infection!

 

[Freezer]

A learned behavioural choice? Learned from where? Do you think you could learn to be homosexual (assuming you are not). Many homosexuals will report that they always felt the way they do. How do you explain that? It is clearly not a simple genetic trait, nor solely genetic. There are a number of hypotheses surrounding homosexuality including hormonal, developmental and genetic. It may naturally occur by different mechanisms in different individuals. The bottom line is that these are all natural explanations and discriminating against someone, who is harming no one, for this reason is indefensible.

As I said, way too complex for me. But I certainly haven't been discriminatory.

Of course sexual pleasure is advantageous from an evolutionary perspective. That still doesn't explain the evolutionary advantage to the pleasure that homosexuals receive from sex.

Nor masturbation!

This notion of ascribing human characteristics to nature....ie. 'nature knows best,' bugs me a bit. Nature does what works. If birth control was done because we decided we know better than nature, then you would have to say the same for all of medicine, agriculture, engineering...etc etc. I personally am glad that 'we know better than nature' when it comes to a, natural, potentially lethal staph infection!

Absolutely agree. Insulin is a wonderful thing!

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

As I said, way too complex for me. But I certainly haven't been discriminatory.

And if I implied that you were, I apologise. I meant it in a general way - as we can clearly see from this thread alone that there is discrimination against homosexuals.

Nor masturbation!

Indeed...is it unnatural to maturbate?!?

Absolutely agree. Insulin is a wonderful thing!

Yes it is. To get bound up in the 'it is only natural if it is evolutionary advantageous' is to begin on the slippery slope towards a eugenics view of the world. I think the human race has the rational capacity to be better than that....well perhaps not all of us. :-\

 

[Liverpool]

And I can tell you, people rarely have sex because of the urge to mate (what a ridiculous comment). They have sex for enjoyment and because they are attracted to the person(s).

And why did nature make it enjoyable? Because 'she' felt sorry for us? :hihi
And if we didn't take man-made precautions (such as contraceptives) then what would the end result be of this 'enjoyable' sex?
Funny coincidence that...

From a learned scientist such as yourself Pantha, I'm surprised at this question.
Surely the absolute basic requirement of every living thing is to reproduce itself for the betterment of its species, so that the species continues successfully? Those species that can't deal with the changing environment eventually die out.
We as humans have physical, emotional, ethical and moral boundaries that cloud this basic requirement as a species.
Never-the-less, as a bottom line, the reason for sex is to procreate. The other benefits of it are by-products.

At last some sense! :clap

 

[Liverpool]

Of course sexual intercourse evolved in sexually reproducing organisms such as ourselves and our enjoyment of the act are all selectively advantageous to the perpetuation of the species. I don't dispute this.

You can't dispute it. That is the whole basis of why sex even exists in the first place.

What I do dispute is the idea that homosexual sex is somehow 'unnatural'. Individuals are born that naturally favour the same sex. Please explain to me how that can be unnatural?

Earlier in this thread I agreed with you that homosexuals are, what you called, a 'minority trait'.
That there are some people who are born with an attraction for other men (I also agree with Freezer, I think some homosexuals become homosexuals and aren't born that way).

However, my argument isn't about this....my argument for the this whole topic is that the sexual act between men is unnatural.

I don't care about who makes the better parents...who fell in love with who...I'm looking at this purely as sex between two people.....as a logical and scientific process.

Nature has developed our bodies with each part having an intent.....we have hair on our heads to keep warm....women have breasts to feed newborns....we have ears to hear with...eyes to see with....women have ovaries....and men have the sperm....with the act of getting these two to join being what is called 'sex'.

If sex wasn't enjoyable then nobody would do it and the race would slowly die off. That is why nature made sex enjoyable. It wasn't so homosexuals would get something out of it because otherwise, sex between males would be a pointless exercise, wouldn't it?

And nature doesn't have 'pointless exercises'...there is a reason for everything....and an intent....why do we sneeze? why do we yawn? why do we have fingernails? why do we urinate? why do we have a skull?
All these are developed through evolution as nature intended.

It is a good thing that males ejaculate sperm, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

A good thing (if you believe the Bible) that God made a male and a female....otherwise the Bible would be the shortest book ever:

"On the Sixth Day God created man...and man.
They fell in love and had sex.
The End".

:hihi

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

You can't dispute it. That is the whole basis of why sex even exists in the first place.

Sex doesn't exist for the perpetuation of the species....there are plenty of examples of plants and microorganisms that reproduce just fine without sex.

Sexual reproduction evolved for other reasons.

Earlier in this thread I agreed with you that homosexuals are, what you called, a 'minority trait'.
That there are some people who are born with an attraction for other men (I also agree with Freezer, I think some homosexuals become homosexuals and aren't born that way).

OK....however, these homosexuals that aren't born that way....can you imagine falling for someone of the same sex...even with extreme peer pressure?

However, my argument isn't about this....my argument for the this whole topic is that the sexual act between men is unnatural.

I don't care about who makes the better parents...who fell in love with who...I'm looking at this purely as sex between two people.....as a logical and scientific process.

Nature has developed our bodies with each part having an intent.....we have hair on our heads to keep warm....women have breasts to feed newborns....we have ears to hear with...eyes to see with....women have ovaries....and men have the sperm....with the act of getting these two to join being what is called 'sex'.

Actually, that is called fertilisation .

In evolutionary biology what you are describing is an explanation that relies on selection (and thus purpose) for all of our traits. This is not the case...although many traits have been selected for some are the result of random 'drift'. What is the purpose of nipples on men? Why do our faces have the shape that they have? Why is the blood supply for the vertebrate retina on top of it, blocking the image we receive?

This is the danger in humanising 'Nature' - it does what works, all of the results of these processes are natural (by definition) - including homosexual sex - your assertions aside.

If sex wasn't enjoyable then nobody would do it and the race would slowly die off. That is why nature made sex enjoyable. It wasn't so homosexuals would get something out of it because otherwise, sex between males would be a pointless exercise, wouldn't it?

Then why do homosexuals exist?

And nature doesn't have 'pointless exercises'...there is a reason for everything....and an intent....why do we sneeze? why do we yawn? why do we have fingernails? why do we urinate? why do we have a skull?
All these are developed through evolution as nature intended.

Wrong. Look up genetic drift. It is a random process that has determined some of the traits of species (including humans).

A good thing (if you believe the Bible) that God made a male and a female....otherwise the Bible would be the shortest book ever:

"On the Sixth Day God created man...and man.
They fell in love and had sex.
The End".

:hihi

:hihi That would have made for a better read....and avoided a bunch of problems! :hihi

 

[glantone]

If when men have sex, they ejaculate sperm....which in turn is used to impregnate the ovaries of a female.....why do homosexual men ejaculate sperm for then? What is the logic behind this if homosexual sex is 'natural'?

For the same reason any male (straight or gay) ejaculates sperm when masturbating –another natural act yet the nearest female egg could be down the road, turn left at where old Jack got bit by that snake 2 winters ago and you’ll see her sitting on a rocking chair near the old burnt gum - because unlike cable tv our genitals don’t come with an on/off button.

 

[Six Pack]

What's unnatural, in my opinion, is hatred and discrimination towards people who have a different sexual preference. What's also unnatural is that for centuries people who have been attracted to the same sex have been locked up, murdered, bashed and also been subjected to religious and pseudo -medical reconditioning.

thats what's unnatural.

What's natural is the love and affection that two people feel for each other.

And to return to our original point, it staggers me that a religious group who should be preaching love and tolerance are subjecting several young people to discrimination and persecution.

Finally, Livers: You've devoted this thread to whinging and moaning about your so-called 'political correctness.' So much in fact that you persist with your small minded and quite needless and insulting debate over their sexuality.

I'd argue that it doesnt affect you at all.