Dewey wrote a book!
-
@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.
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
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.
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspective the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that in everyday speech we should classify humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force, it's crucial for understanding how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that is very clearly opposed to the evolutionary forces that shaped you - should we call it a behavioural disorder?
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indoctrination, do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
-
I don’t really understand the connection between being gay and having sex with your mother. Could somebody explain?
Also, sheep. I don’t actually fancy them. Well, not the male ones. There’s nothing funny going on here.
I was only joking
-
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
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.
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspective the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that in everyday speech we should classify humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force, it's crucial for understanding how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that is very clearly opposed to the evolutionary forces that shaped you - should we call it a behavioural disorder?
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indoctrination, do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
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.
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspecttive the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that we should classify about humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force it's crucial for understand how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that very clearly opposed to evolutionary drives.
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indocrination do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships. Since they tend to have more sexual encounters, they tend to have less commitment.
And since they are more promiscuous, using body parts for things nature did not intend for such use, they are more prone for some diseases, such as HIV.
Therefore, there are both psychological and biological reasons while homosexuality is neither a preferred form of human or even a evolutionary equal one.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
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.
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspective the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that in everyday speech we should classify humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force, it's crucial for understanding how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that is very clearly opposed to the evolutionary forces that shaped you - should we call it a behavioural disorder?
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indoctrination, do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
Moonbat, your wife's friends must be right out of the 4th International Trotskyists to think you are a Nazi. Good you're back.
-
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
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.
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspecttive the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that we should classify about humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force it's crucial for understand how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that very clearly opposed to evolutionary drives.
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indocrination do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships. Since they tend to have more sexual encounters, they tend to have less commitment.
And since they are more promiscuous, using body parts for things nature did not intend for such use, they are more prone for some diseases, such as HIV.
Therefore, there are both psychological and biological reasons while homosexuality is neither a preferred form of human or even a evolutionary equal one.
-
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
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.
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspecttive the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that we should classify about humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force it's crucial for understand how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that very clearly opposed to evolutionary drives.
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indocrination do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships. Since they tend to have more sexual encounters, they tend to have less commitment.
And since they are more promiscuous, using body parts for things nature did not intend for such use, they are more prone for some diseases, such as HIV.
Therefore, there are both psychological and biological reasons while homosexuality is neither a preferred form of human or even a evolutionary equal one.
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
using body parts for things nature did not intend for such use
No BJ for you!
-
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
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.
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspecttive the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that we should classify about humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force it's crucial for understand how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that very clearly opposed to evolutionary drives.
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indocrination do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships. Since they tend to have more sexual encounters, they tend to have less commitment.
And since they are more promiscuous, using body parts for things nature did not intend for such use, they are more prone for some diseases, such as HIV.
Therefore, there are both psychological and biological reasons while homosexuality is neither a preferred form of human or even a evolutionary equal one.
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
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.
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspecttive the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that we should classify about humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force it's crucial for understand how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that very clearly opposed to evolutionary drives.
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indocrination do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships. Since they tend to have more sexual encounters, they tend to have less commitment.
And since they are more promiscuous, using body parts for things nature did not intend for such use, they are more prone for some diseases, such as HIV.
Therefore, there are both psychological and biological reasons while homosexuality is neither a preferred form of human or even a evolutionary equal one.
I mean they are fine in the sense that they don't intrinsically view themselves as defective. I mean the fact on average they may have a different risk profile is neither here nor there. Does the fact that the Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to suffer from Tay–Sachs disease mean we should consider them defective as a people?
-
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
Moonbat, your wife's friends must be right out of the 4th International Trotskyists to think you are a Nazi. Good you're back.
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
Moonbat, your wife's friends must be right out of the 4th International Trotskyists to think you are a Nazi. Good you're back.
It's a funny thing, but I think it's because the battle lines in the culture war have moved on. If I come here, I can have the kinds of discussion that i'm having in this thread, but i would just never have them anywhere else. If you go back 20 years, to me atleast these kinds of discussion felt broadly culturally relevant in a way that they no longer do.
By contrast the current political zeitgeist that i get exposed to revolves around trans-rights, racial/minority equality stuff, gender/patriachy stuff, capitalism's intrinsic evils and the rising tide of inequality, freedom of speech vs. deplatforming negative ideas, Israel-Palestine. And on most issues whilst I don't really have views that align with the tradditional conservatives, i absolutely do not at all align with the liberal zetigeist.
I should say that all my wife's friends are very intelligent knowledgeable wonderfull people (and none of them think i'm a Nazi) but they are the European left wing types with a background in the humanities and social sciences and i have very interesting discussions with them but where they are the one arguing for what i think you would call the popular 'progressive' view and i am arguing against. Hence her fears.
I do wonder whether i've become more conservative, they say that's what happens when you get older. But then again I don't think my views have changed much. Instead i think that popular progressive movements have gone nuts. Then again maybe that's what you guys thought 20 years ago.
-
@Copper said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Are they fine?
They spread disease.
-
I don’t really understand the connection between being gay and having sex with your mother. Could somebody explain?
Also, sheep. I don’t actually fancy them. Well, not the male ones. There’s nothing funny going on here.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I don’t really understand the connection between being gay and having sex with your mother. Could somebody explain?
I don’t either. Sorry.
I’m also a little baffled about one poster’s suggestion above that FGM is, in any way, consensual.
-
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
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.
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspecttive the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that we should classify about humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force it's crucial for understand how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that very clearly opposed to evolutionary drives.
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indocrination do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships. Since they tend to have more sexual encounters, they tend to have less commitment.
And since they are more promiscuous, using body parts for things nature did not intend for such use, they are more prone for some diseases, such as HIV.
Therefore, there are both psychological and biological reasons while homosexuality is neither a preferred form of human or even a evolutionary equal one.
I mean they are fine in the sense that they don't intrinsically view themselves as defective. I mean the fact on average they may have a different risk profile is neither here nor there. Does the fact that the Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to suffer from Tay–Sachs disease mean we should consider them defective as a people?
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
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.
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspecttive the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that we should classify about humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force it's crucial for understand how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that very clearly opposed to evolutionary drives.
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indocrination do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships. Since they tend to have more sexual encounters, they tend to have less commitment.
And since they are more promiscuous, using body parts for things nature did not intend for such use, they are more prone for some diseases, such as HIV.
Therefore, there are both psychological and biological reasons while homosexuality is neither a preferred form of human or even a evolutionary equal one.
I mean they are fine in the sense that they don't intrinsically view themselves as defective. I mean the fact on average they may have a different risk profile is neither here nor there. Does the fact that the Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to suffer from Tay–Sachs disease mean we should consider them defective as a people?
My nephew has a three-legged blue heeler that can retrieve ducks, an odd talent for a heeler. While he can do the job, he's not quite as proficient as a good lab.
I can assure you Indy does not view himself as defective, because he only has three legs, but he is.
-
Are Americans defective because they weigh more and die younger than their more virile, thrusting European competition?
-
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
Moonbat, your wife's friends must be right out of the 4th International Trotskyists to think you are a Nazi. Good you're back.
It's a funny thing, but I think it's because the battle lines in the culture war have moved on. If I come here, I can have the kinds of discussion that i'm having in this thread, but i would just never have them anywhere else. If you go back 20 years, to me atleast these kinds of discussion felt broadly culturally relevant in a way that they no longer do.
By contrast the current political zeitgeist that i get exposed to revolves around trans-rights, racial/minority equality stuff, gender/patriachy stuff, capitalism's intrinsic evils and the rising tide of inequality, freedom of speech vs. deplatforming negative ideas, Israel-Palestine. And on most issues whilst I don't really have views that align with the tradditional conservatives, i absolutely do not at all align with the liberal zetigeist.
I should say that all my wife's friends are very intelligent knowledgeable wonderfull people (and none of them think i'm a Nazi) but they are the European left wing types with a background in the humanities and social sciences and i have very interesting discussions with them but where they are the one arguing for what i think you would call the popular 'progressive' view and i am arguing against. Hence her fears.
I do wonder whether i've become more conservative, they say that's what happens when you get older. But then again I don't think my views have changed much. Instead i think that popular progressive movements have gone nuts. Then again maybe that's what you guys thought 20 years ago.
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
Moonbat, your wife's friends must be right out of the 4th International Trotskyists to think you are a Nazi. Good you're back.
It's a funny thing, but I think it's because the battle lines in the culture war have moved on. If I come here, ....
That is a very interesting point you make. Here in America the culture war really hasn't moved on...or at least very much. As a matter of fact where I live in Florida, things have become must less progressive than they were 10 years ago. for an example they used to have PRIDE banners hanging off of the light poles in town during PRIDE month. They abolished that. Little things, but they add up. Something like Jolly's point on view on gays, while not quite perfect in the more trendy establishments in New York or Los Angeles resonates quite well in the American heartland. I take it things are different in Europe. Most of the supporters of the gay(ish) agenda here are European, Klaus, and you seem sanguine with that whole worldview and Phibes seems to be vigorous projecting the view that you can't be a proper British toff if you haven't been a Lancer in the Punjab. All good, but our continents seem to be sailing away from each other.
-
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
Moonbat, your wife's friends must be right out of the 4th International Trotskyists to think you are a Nazi. Good you're back.
It's a funny thing, but I think it's because the battle lines in the culture war have moved on. If I come here, I can have the kinds of discussion that i'm having in this thread, but i would just never have them anywhere else. If you go back 20 years, to me atleast these kinds of discussion felt broadly culturally relevant in a way that they no longer do.
By contrast the current political zeitgeist that i get exposed to revolves around trans-rights, racial/minority equality stuff, gender/patriachy stuff, capitalism's intrinsic evils and the rising tide of inequality, freedom of speech vs. deplatforming negative ideas, Israel-Palestine. And on most issues whilst I don't really have views that align with the tradditional conservatives, i absolutely do not at all align with the liberal zetigeist.
I should say that all my wife's friends are very intelligent knowledgeable wonderfull people (and none of them think i'm a Nazi) but they are the European left wing types with a background in the humanities and social sciences and i have very interesting discussions with them but where they are the one arguing for what i think you would call the popular 'progressive' view and i am arguing against. Hence her fears.
I do wonder whether i've become more conservative, they say that's what happens when you get older. But then again I don't think my views have changed much. Instead i think that popular progressive movements have gone nuts. Then again maybe that's what you guys thought 20 years ago.
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Instead i think that popular progressive movements have gone nuts. Then again maybe that's what you guys thought 20 years ago.
No, that's a more recent development. Not terribly surprising after decades or centuries of repression. I see some small signs that we're returning to some sort of sensibility.
-
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
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.
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspecttive the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that we should classify about humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force it's crucial for understand how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that very clearly opposed to evolutionary drives.
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indocrination do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships. Since they tend to have more sexual encounters, they tend to have less commitment.
And since they are more promiscuous, using body parts for things nature did not intend for such use, they are more prone for some diseases, such as HIV.
Therefore, there are both psychological and biological reasons while homosexuality is neither a preferred form of human or even a evolutionary equal one.
-
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships.
Protestants have higher rate of divorce. Are they fine?
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships.
Protestants have higher rate of divorce. Are they fine?
Depends on what you define as Protestant, I guess.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships.
Protestants have higher rate of divorce. Are they fine?
Depends on what you define as Protestant, I guess.
