Dewey wrote a book!
-
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.
Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.
Yes, of course that’s true. My point was that some have said that homosexuality is not a trait that is evolutionary advantageous, however if that was the case why does it show up even in societies where it heavily discriminated against?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.
Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.
Yes, of course that’s true. My point was that some have said that homosexuality is not a trait that is evolutionary advantageous, however if that was the case why does it show up even in societies where it heavily discriminated against?
Because that's not how evolution works?
-
I’m obviously not really an expert on how evolution works, but I still kind of think there must be a reason for homosexuality that is more than just some funny stuff turning up.
My original point was that diversity is a good survival strategy from an evolutionary perspective and that describing anything outside the norm as substandard ignores this
-
I’m obviously not really an expert on how evolution works, but I still kind of think there must be a reason for homosexuality that is more than just some funny stuff turning up.
My original point was that diversity is a good survival strategy from an evolutionary perspective and that describing anything outside the norm as substandard ignores this
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
there must be a reason for homosexuality that is more than just some funny stuff turning up.
Sounds like you have more faith in homosexuality than you do religion.
For what it's worth, I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. But I find all this selective hand-wringing to be bullshit. I'll be moved by calls for tolerance when they're applied to people who vote differently from the person doing the moralizing.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
there must be a reason for homosexuality that is more than just some funny stuff turning up.
Sounds like you have more faith in homosexuality than you do religion.
For what it's worth, I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. But I find all this selective hand-wringing to be bullshit. I'll be moved by calls for tolerance when they're applied to people who vote differently from the person doing the moralizing.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I'll be moved by calls for tolerance when they're applied to people who vote differently from the person doing the moralizing.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I'll be moved by calls for tolerance when they're applied to people who vote differently from the person doing the moralizing.
@Horace said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I'll be moved by calls for tolerance when they're applied to people who vote differently from the person doing the moralizing.
Amen. Which is pretty much the point I was making much further up. Tolerance has to be a two-way street. Today it is not.
-
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.
Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.
Yes, of course that’s true. My point was that some have said that homosexuality is not a trait that is evolutionary advantageous, however if that was the case why does it show up even in societies where it heavily discriminated against?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.
Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.
Yes, of course that’s true. My point was that some have said that homosexuality is not a trait that is evolutionary advantageous, however if that was the case why does it show up even in societies where it heavily discriminated against?
The advantageous part is that sexual urges can be overwhelmingly motivating, even in the face of cultural condemnation. Why those urges are so variable, well, I guess that's complicated. But same-sex attraction, as abnormal attractions go, are probably not top of list for wondering how or why they exist.
-
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.
Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.
Do pedophiles have character issues?
It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).
No, you have your boundary wrong.
The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.
Something is a disorder if something is not alright with it. If something causes pain, for instance. There's no victim in homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and it exists in basically all higher species. Just because it is not conducive to procreation does not mean anything. You could also call a woman on contraceptives s "disorder". 99% of all sex is not for procreation.
I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).
Let them have their fun. It's none of your business.
So you're good with a 40 year old man banging his 63 year old mom? That's within your normal boundary?
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lol
-
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lolThat it does. (And you're still wrong :P)
(Hello all).
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lolThat it does.
Quiet, you! Go back to 2007 where you belong!
(Also, HEY! How's it goin'?)
-
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lolThat it does. (And you're still wrong :P)
(Hello all).
@Moonbat Good to see you also!!!!
-
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).
In what sense is it an "impairment" or a "disease"?
All of this is only based on it being less frequent than heterosexual attraction?
Then you could just as well call red hair an impairment and a disease. Your whole argument is based on it occurring less often ("abnormal").
It's a little concerning that someone your age is still holding such views.
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).
In what sense is it an "impairment" or a "disease"?
All of this is only based on it being less frequent than heterosexual attraction?
Then you could just as well call red hair an impairment and a disease. Your whole argument is based on it occurring less often ("abnormal").
I guess we should start with a base. I'd assert that it is the fundamental wiring of human sexuality to be attracted to the opposite sex for the purpose of procreating. It's why we have a penis and women have a vagina. It's why our hormones increase earlier in life, to begin the procreation process, and why the urges decrease over time as the need to procreate diminishes. Forget the meaning of "normal" but in the pragmatic sense, it is the norm for humans to be attracted to the opposite sex.
If you disagree with this, then ok... probably aren't going to do anything but argue in circles.
But if you agree with this, then to answer your question it's an impairment or whatever as an attraction to the opposite sex is on the spectrum of sexual attraction deviation. By default does this make it wrong? No. Religiously, sure... Culturally, some say yes, some say no... depends where values are at the moment, something that is always changing. Laws are just codified morality, after all. So if there is a sexual impairment or disorder, it is similar to other mental (or physical) malformations... biological diversity, to @Doctor-Phibes 's point, which I can see.
It's a little concerning that someone your age is still holding such views.
I'm not sure why. The facts haven't changed from 30 years ago. Wouldn't it be more concerning that politicians have changed their minds based on the prevailing wind of what is popular? It's the same facts back then as is it is now, so why would my view change... peer pressure?
BTW you didn't answer my question about a dude banging his mom. You cool with that? Love it love, after all.
-
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lolThat it does. (And you're still wrong :P)
(Hello all).
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lolThat it does. (And you're still wrong :P)
(Hello all).
Hahaha sometimes I see the yin yang GIF online and I think of you btw.
-
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lolThat it does. (And you're still wrong :P)
(Hello all).
-
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).
In what sense is it an "impairment" or a "disease"?
All of this is only based on it being less frequent than heterosexual attraction?
Then you could just as well call red hair an impairment and a disease. Your whole argument is based on it occurring less often ("abnormal").
I guess we should start with a base. I'd assert that it is the fundamental wiring of human sexuality to be attracted to the opposite sex for the purpose of procreating. It's why we have a penis and women have a vagina. It's why our hormones increase earlier in life, to begin the procreation process, and why the urges decrease over time as the need to procreate diminishes. Forget the meaning of "normal" but in the pragmatic sense, it is the norm for humans to be attracted to the opposite sex.
If you disagree with this, then ok... probably aren't going to do anything but argue in circles.
But if you agree with this, then to answer your question it's an impairment or whatever as an attraction to the opposite sex is on the spectrum of sexual attraction deviation. By default does this make it wrong? No. Religiously, sure... Culturally, some say yes, some say no... depends where values are at the moment, something that is always changing. Laws are just codified morality, after all. So if there is a sexual impairment or disorder, it is similar to other mental (or physical) malformations... biological diversity, to @Doctor-Phibes 's point, which I can see.
It's a little concerning that someone your age is still holding such views.
I'm not sure why. The facts haven't changed from 30 years ago. Wouldn't it be more concerning that politicians have changed their minds based on the prevailing wind of what is popular? It's the same facts back then as is it is now, so why would my view change... peer pressure?
BTW you didn't answer my question about a dude banging his mom. You cool with that? Love it love, after all.
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
If you disagree with this, then ok... probably aren't going to do anything but argue in circles.
I do, unfortunately.
BTW you didn't answer my question about a dude banging his mom. You cool with that?
Yes, I'm cool with that when everyone involved is adult and consenting.
-
Am I the only one wondering why @George-K had such ready access to a nine year old link to pictures of naked dudes?
-
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/24914/the-slate-of-hate/9?_=1729512654662
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/28578/a-christmas-celebration/22?_=1729512656646
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/23577/spreading-joy-and-inclusion/2
And from 2006.
This is the kind of stuff that, once seen, is difficult to forget.
