Congrats Ireland

[JohnStOnge]

I'll take this occasion to again say how much this homosexuality thing in modern Western Civilization reminds me of the "Emperor's New Clothes" fable. You put out the line that if you're "enlightened" you're going to believe something and no matter how obviously ridiculous that something is people are going to believe it or at least SAY they believe it so they won't be labeled as "backwards" or "ignorant."

Well, you know, there comes a time when you have to have the guts to say the Emperor has no clothes and this is a case where the Emperor has not clothes. Like saying being homosexual vs. being heterosexual is like having blue eyes vs. having brown eyes. Good GRIEF.

If people will buy this "homosexuality is not a disorder" crap they will buy anything. Unfortunately, I think we have now established that at least a substantial majority of people in this culture will buy anything.

[kalm]

I'll take this occasion to again say how much this homosexuality thing in modern Western Civilization reminds me of the "Emperor's New Clothes" fable. You put out the line that if you're "enlightened" you're going to believe something and no matter how obviously ridiculous that something is people are going to believe it or at least SAY they believe it so they won't be labeled as "backwards" or "ignorant."

Well, you know, there comes a time when you have to have the guts to say the Emperor has no clothes and this is a case where the Emperor has not clothes. Like saying being homosexual vs. being heterosexual is like having blue eyes vs. having brown eyes. Good GRIEF.

If people will buy this "homosexuality is not a disorder" crap they will buy anything. Unfortunately, I think we have now established that at least a substantial majority of people in this culture will buy anything.

Dr. JSO,

No one is arguing that pleasure is tied to procreation and the blue eyes red herring is also your creation.

But why is it that only about half of all women are able to orgasm through intercourse? Why is there a sex drive in post menopausal women?

[Grizalltheway]

I'll just leave this here. Passage from a book I recently read called Sapiens.

How can we distinguish what is biologically determined from what people merely try to justify through biological myths? A good rule of thumb is "Biology enables, Culture forbids". Biology is willing to tolerate a very wide spectrum of possibilities. It's culture that obliges people to realize some possibilities while forbidding others.

Culture tends to argue that it forbids only that which is unnatural. But from a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is by definition also natural. A truly unnatural behavior, one that goes against the laws of nature, simply cannot exist, so it would need no prohibition. No culture has ever bothered to forbid men to photosynthesize, women to run faster than the speed of light, or negatively charged electrons to be attracted to each other.

In truth, our concepts of "natural" and "unnatural" are taken not from biology, but from Christian theology. Thru theological meaning of "natural" is "in accordance with the intentions of the God who created nature". Christian theologians argued that God created the human body, intending each limb and organ to serve a particular purpose...But evolution has no purpose. Organs have not evolved with a purpose, and the way they are used is in constant flux. There is not a single organ in the human body that only does the job its prototype did when it first appeared hundreds of millions of years ago.....

....the same sort of multitasking applies to our sexual organs and behavior. Sex first evolved for procreation and courtship rituals as a way of sizing up the fitness of a potential mate. But many animals now put both to use for a multitude of social purposes that have little to do with creating little copies of themselves. Chimpanzees, for example, use sex to cement political alliances, establish intimacy and defuse tensions. Is that unnatural?

[andy7171]

Jfc. To think I've successfully avoided a jso conversation like this over the years is amazing! So creepy and uncomfortable they are. Nice diagram!

[grizband]

I'll just leave this here. Passage from a book I recently read called Sapiens.

How can we distinguish what is biologically determined from what people merely try to justify through biological myths? A good rule of thumb is "Biology enables, Culture forbids". Biology is willing to tolerate a very wide spectrum of possibilities. It's culture that obliges people to realize some possibilities while forbidding others.

Culture tends to argue that it forbids only that which is unnatural. But from a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is by definition also natural. A truly unnatural behavior, one that goes against the laws of nature, simply cannot exist, so it would need no prohibition. No culture has ever bothered to forbid men to photosynthesize, women to run faster than the speed of light, or negatively charged electrons to be attracted to each other.

In truth, our concepts of "natural" and "unnatural" are taken not from biology, but from Christian theology. Thru theological meaning of "natural" is "in accordance with the intentions of the God who created nature". Christian theologians argued that God created the human body, intending each limb and organ to serve a particular purpose...But evolution has no purpose. Organs have not evolved with a purpose, and the way they are used is in constant flux. There is not a single organ in the human body that only does the job its prototype did when it first appeared hundreds of millions of years ago.....

....the same sort of multitasking applies to our sexual organs and behavior. Sex first evolved for procreation and courtship rituals as a way of sizing up the fitness of a potential mate. But many animals now put both to use for a multitude of social purposes that have little to do with creating little copies of themselves. Chimpanzees, for example, use sex to cement political alliances, establish intimacy and defuse tensions. Is that unnatural?

Knew I liked you, GATW

[kalm]

I'll just leave this here. Passage from a book I recently read called Sapiens.

How can we distinguish what is biologically determined from what people merely try to justify through biological myths? A good rule of thumb is "Biology enables, Culture forbids". Biology is willing to tolerate a very wide spectrum of possibilities. It's culture that obliges people to realize some possibilities while forbidding others.

Culture tends to argue that it forbids only that which is unnatural. But from a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is by definition also natural. A truly unnatural behavior, one that goes against the laws of nature, simply cannot exist, so it would need no prohibition. No culture has ever bothered to forbid men to photosynthesize, women to run faster than the speed of light, or negatively charged electrons to be attracted to each other.

In truth, our concepts of "natural" and "unnatural" are taken not from biology, but from Christian theology. Thru theological meaning of "natural" is "in accordance with the intentions of the God who created nature". Christian theologians argued that God created the human body, intending each limb and organ to serve a particular purpose...But evolution has no purpose. Organs have not evolved with a purpose, and the way they are used is in constant flux. There is not a single organ in the human body that only does the job its prototype did when it first appeared hundreds of millions of years ago.....

....the same sort of multitasking applies to our sexual organs and behavior. Sex first evolved for procreation and courtship rituals as a way of sizing up the fitness of a potential mate. But many animals now put both to use for a multitude of social purposes that have little to do with creating little copies of themselves. Chimpanzees, for example, use sex to cement political alliances, establish intimacy and defuse tensions. Is that unnatural?

KaaaaaaBOOOOOOOOM!!!

/of JSO's argument.

Nicely done.

[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3R3LBjDek[/youtube]

[Chizzang]

everybody on this forum understood already
that JSO's anti-homosexual rants were fundamentalist christian
disguised as a logical defense of the natural vs. the unnatural

But that book excerpt does a nice job of creating a new perspective from which to debate Johns Religion

[Baldy]

Jfc. To think I've successfully avoided a jso conversation like this over the years is amazing! So creepy and uncomfortable they are. Nice diagram!

[andy7171]

Jfc. To think I've successfully avoided a jso conversation like this over the years is amazing! So creepy and uncomfortable they are. Nice diagram!

Can't see the image. And for that I am grateful!

[YoUDeeMan]

I'll just leave this here. Passage from a book I recently read called Sapiens.

How can we distinguish what is biologically determined from what people merely try to justify through biological myths? A good rule of thumb is "Biology enables, Culture forbids". Biology is willing to tolerate a very wide spectrum of possibilities. It's culture that obliges people to realize some possibilities while forbidding others.

Culture tends to argue that it forbids only that which is unnatural. But from a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is by definition also natural. A truly unnatural behavior, one that goes against the laws of nature, simply cannot exist, so it would need no prohibition. No culture has ever bothered to forbid men to photosynthesize, women to run faster than the speed of light, or negatively charged electrons to be attracted to each other.

In truth, our concepts of "natural" and "unnatural" are taken not from biology, but from Christian theology. Thru theological meaning of "natural" is "in accordance with the intentions of the God who created nature". Christian theologians argued that God created the human body, intending each limb and organ to serve a particular purpose...But evolution has no purpose. Organs have not evolved with a purpose, and the way they are used is in constant flux. There is not a single organ in the human body that only does the job its prototype did when it first appeared hundreds of millions of years ago.....

....the same sort of multitasking applies to our sexual organs and behavior. Sex first evolved for procreation and courtship rituals as a way of sizing up the fitness of a potential mate. But many animals now put both to use for a multitude of social purposes that have little to do with creating little copies of themselves. Chimpanzees, for example, use sex to cement political alliances, establish intimacy and defuse tensions. Is that unnatural?

Ahhhh...excellent. GrizHalfWit comes out and declares that sex with 2 year old is, of course, natural.

And, by natural, we mean that it is to be discussed and accepted as OK behavior...since sex between human beings is "natural."

[andy7171]

I'll just leave this here. Passage from a book I recently read called Sapiens.

Ahhhh...excellent. GrizHalfWit comes out and declares that sex with 2 year old is, of course, natural.

And, by natural, we mean that it is to be discussed and accepted as OK behavior...since sex between human beings is "natural."

I'm sure WTAG will insult you after getting his marching orders from kalm and dback on this.

[Grizalltheway]

I'll just leave this here. Passage from a book I recently read called Sapiens.

Ahhhh...excellent. GrizHalfWit comes out and declares that sex with 2 year old is, of course, natural.

And, by natural, we mean that it is to be discussed and accepted as OK behavior...since sex between human beings is "natural."

Cuck U thinking about sex with 2 year olds...why am I not surprised?


Anyway, something like that is obviously an instance where "culture forbidding" is a good thing. Since, you know, two-year-olds don't have the mental capacity to consent to something like that...like two adult homosexuals do.

You many now return to your regularly scheduled dumbassery.

[89Hen]

Anyway, something like that is obviously an instance where "culture forbidding" is a good thing.

So you are OK with some things being decided by others, but only ones you think should be. I don't give a rats ass about gay marriage, but it cracks me up that people can't see the double standard.

[Grizalltheway]

Anyway, something like that is obviously an instance where "culture forbidding" is a good thing.

So you are OK with some things being decided by others, but only ones you think should be. I don't give a rats ass about gay marriage, but it cracks me up that people can't see the double standard.

Again, equating those two things is a complete non-starter. It cracks me up that people can't see that.

[andy7171]

Ahhhh...excellent. GrizHalfWit comes out and declares that sex with 2 year old is, of course, natural.

And, by natural, we mean that it is to be discussed and accepted as OK behavior...since sex between human beings is "natural."

Cuck U thinking about sex with 2 year olds...why am I not surprised?


Anyway, something like that is obviously an instance where "culture forbidding" is a good thing. Since, you know, two-year-olds don't have the mental capacity to consent to something like that...like two adult homosexuals do.

You many now return to your regularly scheduled dumbassery.

But its natural as defined in your article. Why do we have to listen to "culture forbidding" those guys who created that thinking were assholes!

[89Hen]

So you are OK with some things being decided by others, but only ones you think should be. I don't give a rats ass about gay marriage, but it cracks me up that people can't see the double standard.

Again, equating those two things is a complete non-starter. It cracks me up that people can't see that.

The age of consent is determined by the government as is related adults getting married. You don't seem to have any problem with that.

[YoUDeeMan]

Cuck U thinking about sex with 2 year olds...why am I not surprised?


Anyway, something like that is obviously an instance where "culture forbidding" is a good thing. Since, you know, two-year-olds don't have the mental capacity to consent to something like that...like two adult homosexuals do.

You many now return to your regularly scheduled dumbassery.

Ahhh...so you aren't really defending natural acts as good things now, are you? Good...that was a dumbassery argument for you to use.

And, you've moved on to an argument about mental capacity to consent. So, at what age, exactly, does a person have the mental capacity to consent to natural acts?

[Grizalltheway]

Since you and 89 have equated an interaction between two consenting adults with pedophilia, it's now on you to explain why these two things should or should not be considered equal in the eyes of the law. Good luck.

[89Hen]

Since you and 89 have equated an interaction between two consenting adults with pedophilia, it's now on you to explain why these two things should or should not be considered equal in the eyes of the law. Good luck.

Please tell me you're not this dense.

[89Hen]

Since you and 89 have equated an interaction between two consenting adults with pedophilia, it's now on you to explain why these two things should or should not be considered equal in the eyes of the law. Good luck.

BTW, I guess you missed the other part of my post... "as is related adults getting married.". Those are two, consenting adults.

[andy7171]

[quote]
Culture tends to argue that it forbids only that which is unnatural. But from a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is by definition also natural.[\quote]

[kalm]

Even ordinary looking peacocks with very little flare are getting laid these days, and Cluck, Andy, and 89 are befuddled by this!

[Grizalltheway]

Culture tends to argue that it forbids only that which is unnatural. But from a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is by definition also natural.[\quote]

Neither myself nor the author of the book claimed that culture shouldn't forbid anything that's natural. Cultures forbid pedophilia because it has an adverse impact on a vulnerable and unwilling individual. Some cultures forbid homosexuality because God said it's naughty.

[kalm]

Neither myself nor the author of the book claimed that culture shouldn't forbid anything that's natural. Cultures forbid pedophilia because it has an adverse impact on a vulnerable and unwilling individual. Some cultures forbid homosexuality because God said it's naughty.

[YoUDeeMan]

Since you and 89 have equated an interaction between two consenting adults with pedophilia, it's now on you to explain why these two things should or should not be considered equal in the eyes of the law. Good luck.

Please tell me you're not this dense.

Oh, he's that dense...but he won't tell you.

They say that the human mind doesn't completely mature until 25 years of age...and GrizHalfWit has demonstrated that he is a very slow developer.