| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Gay Agenda; Freedom for all? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 30 2006, 11:39 AM (3,848 Views) | |
| tcmod | Jun 1 2006, 07:19 AM Post #76 |
|
Senior Carp
|
One should never quote LeVay's study. It was completely flawed and LeVay himself stated that it didn't prove anything. |
| Dead girls don't say no, but you still have to buy them flowers | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 1 2006, 07:21 AM Post #77 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
An example is not a definition, a definition means you can say exactly which examples fit and which don't and then you can say why, you can't do that because you don't have a definition, and you don't have a definition because your thinking is not rigorous.
Homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. 'Defective' seems to imply forknowedge of purpose. If it's all based on you knowing the purpose because you know what God thinks, fine ok, but allow yourself to see that.
Natural/normal/default appears to be a round about way of saying "contrary to God's plan". What does "from an "animal" perspective" mean? Heterosexual intercourse can result in reproduction. That's a coherent statement. But what is it's significance?
So then are people who simply do not wish to have children "reproductively defective" too? -Not physically but psychologically. What nonsense. If you're a woman and you choose to persue a career and not have children know that you are defective individual - didn't you know women had vaginas? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 1 2006, 07:21 AM Post #78 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Don't know about the bitch. The point in my argument about the gal-boys is that this is primarily learned behavior...most of these guys didn't come in the joint as homosexuals, but they leave as absolutely flaming stereotypes. Now, if you are either born gay, or not, how can this be? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 1 2006, 07:29 AM Post #79 |
|
MB:
Less likely? Please let me know when you find a case of two women or two men producing a child. And why keep bringing God in this argument? I'm not.
No, they have the drivers license and the car, but choose not to drive. Homosexuals have the car, but not the drivers license. Man, I'm good with these analogies. :lol:
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 1 2006, 07:40 AM Post #80 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Moonbat: Since you seem to be dense to the common parlance meanings of 89th terms, he is right (and even especially generous) in giving you examples. It seem to be you who is avoiding rigorous thinking, and you appear to be hiding behind semantics in order to avoid drawing any conclusion about the matter that might unravel your position. Defective in no way implies foreknowledge. It simply means it does not work for it ostensible purpose. If you were born without fingers, your hand would be defective. It does not matter whether "God" or "evolution" or "emergence" intended the hand to be able to grasp things: human hands are "meant" to grasp (and I put that in quotations since even the atheist realizes that the hand is "meant" to grasp even if not "designed" to grasp). You seem to be quibbling here also. Normal, or perhaps better "normative" is a perfectly acceptable term in understanding the optimal operation of a thing. If human beings did not normally reproduce they would cease to exist. The homosexual or the couple that chooses to not or is incapable of reproduction is not "normal". And I count myself among the abnormal. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 1 2006, 07:45 AM Post #81 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
It was not a huge sample but i was under the impression it was still statistically significant. I don't have access to the "journal of homosexuality" and i have no idea what it's reputation is so i haven't been able to check up on specific replies to LeVays work. It certainly doesn't prove anything but then i hate that word anyway, i read Le Vay saying that he thought the results suggest something as the pattern of the physical structure of the brain seems to be set early on. From what i've read in sci-american/new-scientist and the material on the webpages of university psychology departments there seems to be a convergence in the idea of an atleast partial biological basis. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 1 2006, 07:47 AM Post #82 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Homosexuals are less likely to produce a child because homosexuals are less likely to have sexual intercourse with a partner of the opposite sex.
Because it underlies all your concepts.
What? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 1 2006, 07:56 AM Post #83 |
|
Car = Sexual organs, fertile Drivers license = Sexual orientation Edit: Good post Ivory. Although you are giving my thesaurus a work out!
|
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jun 1 2006, 08:14 AM Post #84 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
According to the vet, it is learned behavior too whether a dog cocks its leg or squats to pee. Makes sense, since most of the dogs in our neighbourhood are male. Monkey see, monkey do. As to the guys in slammer- could be learned behavior, but it could also be bone idle laziness. |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 1 2006, 08:55 AM Post #85 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Are you now arguing, Jolly, that gay men are basically effeminate? How then do you explain the vast majority of gay men who act masculinely? And tell me, why are you using the term "gal-boys"? I personally find it highly pejorative and highly offensive and believe an apology is in order to the gay men on this Board. (BTW, I would appreciate a response to my earlier questions about gender and whether you were implying that gay men are not psychologically male.) |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 1 2006, 09:02 AM Post #86 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
The fact that it's common parlance doesn't stop it being incoherent. Unravel my position? You must be joking.
Ok so defective requires knowledge of purpose. If you're a theist that means knowing of God, if you're not and you understand what evolution is, it means nothing. Is a mutation that makes bacteria reproduce slower a defect? Oh wait but now they're resistent to antibiotics. If defect is merely about reproductive capacity relative to some statistical norm then the kind of personality that makes you less likely to have children is thus a defect. Plus why is genetic fitness relevent at all, why would we choose to define ourselves with a stigma inducing description like "defective" by using the language of evolutionary biology, a process reviled as hideous from an ethical stance by those who champion it as an intellectual masterpiece?
Intended!? Evolution doesn't "intend" anything, what on Earth do you think evolution is? Emergence doesn't intend anything either, emergence simply is. You can have God "intending" something because God is an intelligent agent, what exactly do you think intention means outside the context of an intelligent agent? What are the boundaries of this concept of defective: if you are born with an average IQ are you intellectually defective relative to someone with a higher IQ? If you lack any special talent when it comes to drawing does that make you artistically defective? Is the autistic savant defective? Is being born shy a defect? Is being born annoying defect? - what if they guy who is annoying likes the way he is. Who decides who is arbiter? If we all essentially agree that something is bad news, then ok there seems no problem in calling it something that spells that out. The term "defective" spells it out. So sure if i was born without fingers i'd think it was bad news, you'd think it was bad news, we'd all think it was bad news. In that scenario i suspect i'd rather have liked fingers and so would view myself as lacking that which others had. It's still an emotional laden term hence not simply an objective statement however if we all agree it doesn't seem particualarly problematic (though it can blind us to objective understanding - see end), but it's clearly inapplicable in the context of a debate regarding whether homosexuality _is_ bad, do homosexuals really think of themselves as defective? If it weren't were for sociological impositions of persecution or ideological drivers would homosexuals pine away wishing they were heterosexual in the way i would minus a hand? Should we ask Kenny whether he feels defective?
Who gets to define what's optimal? Again is the dyslex genius optimal? Is the plain genius optimal? Is this optimal with respect to genetic fitness function? Personal quality of life? Overall social quality of life? Some ideological consideration? In the scientific literature there was recently a case in the social science literature noticing an example where the objectivity that is supposed to accompany scientific investigation failing. The report regarding autism. Research done on autism was generally medical research done with the subconscious aim of leading towards a cure (which in itself seems fair enough). However because the researchers viewed autism in terms of a defect/disease/abnormality their thinking was locked into those terms. Progress was made when a separate group split away and decided to ignore all those irrelevent and ultimately incoherent labels and simply look at all possible causative factors. Terms that also include emotional slants should be walled off from terms that describe objectively. First describe objectively then add a separate layer of your emotional view over the top and remember the difference between the two. If you do not you will spiral into 89th esq incoherence. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 1 2006, 09:11 AM Post #87 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Wow you take the prize for "amazingly bad analogy". How exactly is a driver's license in anyway comparable to sexual orientation. Do you actually know how analogies are supposed to be used? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 1 2006, 09:46 AM Post #88 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Does the term gal-boys offend you? TS, my friend. It is the vernacular used by the uniformed gentlemen who guard them...don't like the terminology, take it up with them. As for homosexuals who don't act that way...well, that's not quite the argument is it? We're looking at a subset of individuals, many of whom had no homosexual tendencies before landing on The Farm, who have turned into raging transvestite/homosexuals. Many of who stay that way after their incarceration is ended. Now, I've been told ad nauseum, ad infinitum that homosexuals are born, not made. They just can't help the way they are. Yet.... Here is an example of where they are not born, they are made. And many stay made. Which absolutely blows the "genetically decided at conception" argument out of the water. Methinks that is a much more interesting turn of conversation, than the simple problem of your being offended by what is the truth. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 1 2006, 09:49 AM Post #89 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Rick wrote
I'm not implying, I'm actually saying something much stronger...in some cases (not all, I will admit) homosexuality should be treated as a pyschological disorder. There are people who have proclaimed themselves as gay, that are intrinisically not. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 1 2006, 10:03 AM Post #90 |
|
MB:
*SIGH* The drivers license is their ABILITY to drive, what LETS them drive. Sexual orientation is their ABILITY to reproduce, what LETS them reproduce. The car is the TOOL with which they drive. Their sexual organs are the TOOL with which they reproduce. This was all in response to your statement: "So then are people who simply do not wish to have children "reproductively defective" too? -Not physically but psychologically." |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jun 1 2006, 10:03 AM Post #91 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
On that I would agree... everyone has a choice as to what type of hinge to put on the door. I ain't no fan of swinging doors at the best of times. |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 1 2006, 10:27 AM Post #92 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
No, that is NOT what you were saying. You did not raise the issue of psychological illness that needs counseling. You raised the issue of whether homosexuals are male. No need to continue this. I think your thought processes are clear enough. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jun 1 2006, 10:34 AM Post #93 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
THEY did not use this term on this forum. You did. If they referred to blacks as niggers or women as bitches or hispanics as spics, it would not give you the right to use that term here and think it acceptable because the uniformed gentlemen (gentlemen?) who guard people in prison use the term. And I am really not surpised that you don't give a damn whether you have offended people by using such terms. You have shown this same level of insensitivity before. Again, no need to continue. You have expressed your true thoughts well enough. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 1 2006, 10:46 AM Post #94 |
|
Not really, sport. He said he was born male, when you asked if he chose to be hetero. He was implying that he had as much control of heterosexuality as he did about his gender. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 1 2006, 10:52 AM Post #95 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
You didn't feel the need to continue, so you decided you'd write another post? As for the terminology, I used the exact phrase as used on The Farm. Is it derogatory, or descriptive? As I said, talk to the guys that guard them. Since they won't urinate standing up, or do not care to "make water" in front of the other inmates, a guard generally has to delegate a bush or high grass for them to squat behind. One hand must stay in sight, or the screen must be shaken every few seconds. If not, the guard runs you down with his horse, or shoots the inmate if necessary. (They don't call them "cons" anymore, since it is a derogatory term. ) |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 1 2006, 10:57 AM Post #96 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
The driver's liscense is not the ability to drive, you can drive without a license you'll just get fined or locked up if caught. The ability drive is the ability drive, the knowledge/skill that means a person can operate a car. Sexual orientation is not the ability to reproduce, homosexuals _can_ reproduce they simply lack a sexual desire to have heterosexual intercourse, what's more some homosexuals _do_ reproduce either through surrogates or the normal way. If simply lacking the desire to have heterosexual intercourse constitutes a defect on grounds of diminished reproductivite capacity then having a desire to not have children constitutes just as much if not more of a defect. Your analogy doesn't work and doesn't seem to say anything anyway. If we want to make a vaguely coherent metaphor then i guess we could say that driving is heterosexual intercourse both heterosexuals and homosexuals know how to drive, liking driving represents heterosexual orientation, and reproducing is the place driving gets you. (Now it's still not great - who would have thought automobiles wouldn't be a great metaphorical tool for sexuality - as we seem only to be able to drive to one place, and what is contraception? driving round in circles maybe?) In anycase in our metaphorical world homosexuals don't really like driving, and people who don't want children like driving but don't want to end up where driving will take them. Of course it's still pretty useless as metaphors go it certainly doesn't seem to add anything, though it provides a neat vehicle (aha) to attempt hopeless confusion. In any case what happened to our selective concepts of defective? Oh right that vanished in a puff of incoherence. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 1 2006, 11:03 AM Post #97 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
If a homsexual reproduces the old-fashioned way, doesn't that automatically disqualify them from being homosexual, and make them bisexual? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 1 2006, 11:04 AM Post #98 |
|
Moonbat, you're being pedantic, literal, and personally insulting. I'm done trying to explain this simple and common-sense concept (that humans are made so the male has sex with the female to reproduce) to you. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jun 1 2006, 11:05 AM Post #99 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
No way. If you told me i could solve all humanities problems if i had sex with some guy and i thought ok, endured, never felt any attraction to men, and hence never engaged in another homosexual expiernce. Would you brand me bisexual? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jun 1 2006, 11:12 AM Post #100 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Not necessarily. They may have applied for and received a temporary waiver for the proposes of procreation. |
![]() |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








:lol:

5:00 PM Jul 10