On a societal level homosexuality is a suicidal impulse. Some cultures recognize this fact and militate against it. There are revelational morality issues, don't get me wrong, but all viable cultures protect their core (sometimes it's the family, sometimes its the state). One of the ways homosexuality attacks a culture's existence is on a numerical level.
Dear Askolodotna:
All cultures have had gay people in them. For thousands of years. I know a little bit about history and anthropology and I don't recall reading about a culture that died out because it was too gay.
You see, homosexuality isn't any kind of threat to any culture. It is, however, threatening to people who aren't comfortable with their own predispositions, the ignorant and the very religious. Who daily do things which are far, far more perverse in a human sense.
And saying that the family is a society's way of 'militating against homosexuality' is (how can I put this?) GAY. Families get founded like this: a man and a woman meet and fall in love and then one gets pregnant, traditionally the woman.
Have you've been working without your resperator again? I thought I stopped being your boogieman and was under Brussels bed. At any rate, I'm losing count.....
On the homo thing, you can slice and dice that anyway you want, but as a viable lifesyle, it doesn't hold up---and empically speaking, if it's gravy for the goose it should be able to be gravy for the gander.
ena, or whatever other city in alaska you want to call yourself,
why do you presume that homosexulatity is its own culture? i would say that regardless of its being on the short end of the stick in terms of acceptibility it is a part (perhaps integral) of all cultures. you must remember that in most higher primates sex is sex, whether its with a female or with a male. granted the male-female sex would be more sucessful reproductively than the 'homo' sex but both occur without risk to the species.
Your principle objection to homosexuality was that it was a threat to society, which it clearly isn't, so God alone knows what you mean by "viable." All the gay people I know seem to be conscientious enough workers, artists and parents.
I don't think your argument is "viable." I don't bigotry is "viable." Intolerence sucks. Deciding what's best for society according to religion isn't "viable" in my book.
ena, or whatever other city in alaska you want to call yourself,
why do you presume that homosexulatity is its own culture? i would say that regardless of its being on the short end of the stick in terms of acceptibility it is a part (perhaps integral) of all cultures. you must remember that in most higher primates sex is sex, whether its with a female or with a male. granted the male-female sex would be more sucessful reproductively than the 'homo' sex but both occur without risk to the species.
The city thing is something al Dajjal has come up with---I thought he had worn that line out---he might just be obsessed.
In the 60s sex wasn't about love, it was "free love" now it's all about love and not at all about sex--weird.
At any rate, the effect is the same, any social deviation from the bounds of traditional marriage parameters is a cheapening of that institution. Now in a Christian or Jewish (maybe Islam too---al Dajjal is more keen on that than me, he might know) society the family is the basic unit of society, authority begins there and emanates out into the culture. I know a lot of this has been abstracted and misunderstood in our postmodern world---so this might sound like gibberish to you.
The shift that took place is that in the US we went from a Christianish (don't for get the Unitarian influence) culture to a statist culture---there has been a complete inversion of values and political theory across the board. We don't deal with "justice"--now it's more "law and order" (as opposed to law and justice.) When the matters of sex and family went out the window into the realm of private choices that was almost more of a symptom than a cause. But once you push the family to the margins, you are left with the state as the locus of authority. Christianish doctrine went bye-bye and statist, doctrine came in it's place.
If you think those "backward" Islamic cultures don't realize this you are kidding yourself.
Remember, if we were all homos, the human race would cease to exist.
Two things.
If everybody lived like you (or me) humanity would cease to exist MUCH MUCH faster.
I work for a human inseminator (yeah just start laughing now. I am doing statistics for her, nothing else). She have made more than 700 women (most of them lesbian) pregnant over the last two years. Homosexuality doesn´t prevent people from giving birth to babies
Let me make it simple for you. I was questioning Bunge's statement. Which followed the follwoing logic: Scott said Arab countries are backward. Bunge then said that scott had thusly proven that Jews are racist against Arabs.
I was trying to follow the logical jump necessary to say that Scott believing Arabs are backwards, must somehow then imply that Jews are racist. So, my question, and not statement, was, is Scott Jewish.
Sorry it was so hard for you to understand.
Settle down there sparkey.
My above post = subtle humor + a small amount of subliminal mind fvcking.
If everybody lived like you (or me) humanity would cease to exist MUCH MUCH faster.
I work for a human inseminator (yeah just start laughing now. I am doing statistics for her, nothing else). She have made more than 700 women (most of them lesbian) pregnant over the last two years. Homosexuality doesn´t prevent people from giving birth to babies
But they gotta get that sperm from somewhere, hmmm. The act of reproduction still requires a male and a female; they just aren't having any "fun" in the process.
There is a fundamental link between this thread and the one regarding AIDS: it's called "sport fuvking." And it reduces mankind to little more than an animal: I should be able screw who I want when I want without regard for commitment (fidelilty), disease, or procreation.
I work for a human inseminator (yeah just start laughing now. I am doing statistics for her, nothing else). She have made more than 700 women (most of them lesbian) pregnant over the last two years.
But they gotta get that sperm from somewhere, hmmm. The act of reproduction still requires a male and a female; they just aren't having any "fun" in the process.
Did you know that most men can deliver the sperm for that? Even homosexual men. And actually the man can have fun in the process as the woman can when she receive it? And a lesbian woman and a gay man can have and raise a child just like a straight couple?
Welcome to the world of the liberated individuals.
Welcome to the world of the liberated individuals.
That's the theory, but I believe it will suffer the same fate as communism.
The state's control in place of the family authority is analogical to the state's ownership of property in opposition to private property.
At this point in the west, I believe the pluralists are living off the corpse of the Judeo-Christian structure much in the same way the wealth of the elite was redistributed after the Bolshevik revolution. Happy times indeed.
We are already seeing signs that the west in incapable of sustaining itself numerically. I believe this freedom from "prudish" or "conservative" morals will be a freedom from the demands of a viable culture.
That's the theory, but I believe it will suffer the same fate as communism.
The state's control in place of the family authority is analogical to the state's ownership of property in opposition to private property.
Huh? Allowing individuals to control their own bodies are excatly the opposite of state control. WHo is playing the communist control freak now?
Thats a huge problem in a lot of countries, that a woman who live in a homosexual relationship aren´t allowed to get a insemination (or more precise it isn´t allowed for doctors or others to perform the insemination).
We are already seeing signs that the west in incapable of sustaining itself numerically. I believe this freedom from "prudish" or "conservative" morals will be a freedom from the demands of a viable culture.
Funny. A lot of people actually consider the population of the west (combined with its use of natural ressources) a the most immenent threath to humanity. But as I said: Homosexuality is not the threath to reproduction because we now have methods to reproduce that doesn´t require direct physical contact between the sexes.
The society deciding what I use my money for is equiliant to the society deciding what I use my body for. Only difference is that I consider the body much more personally than my money and thus something much more importent for me to control.
Comments
Originally posted by ena
On a societal level homosexuality is a suicidal impulse. Some cultures recognize this fact and militate against it. There are revelational morality issues, don't get me wrong, but all viable cultures protect their core (sometimes it's the family, sometimes its the state). One of the ways homosexuality attacks a culture's existence is on a numerical level.
Dear Askolodotna:
All cultures have had gay people in them. For thousands of years. I know a little bit about history and anthropology and I don't recall reading about a culture that died out because it was too gay.
You see, homosexuality isn't any kind of threat to any culture. It is, however, threatening to people who aren't comfortable with their own predispositions, the ignorant and the very religious. Who daily do things which are far, far more perverse in a human sense.
And saying that the family is a society's way of 'militating against homosexuality' is (how can I put this?) GAY. Families get founded like this: a man and a woman meet and fall in love and then one gets pregnant, traditionally the woman.
Originally posted by al Dajjal
Dear Askolodotna:
Have you've been working without your resperator again? I thought I stopped being your boogieman and was under Brussels bed. At any rate, I'm losing count.....
On the homo thing, you can slice and dice that anyway you want, but as a viable lifesyle, it doesn't hold up---and empically speaking, if it's gravy for the goose it should be able to be gravy for the gander.
why do you presume that homosexulatity is its own culture? i would say that regardless of its being on the short end of the stick in terms of acceptibility it is a part (perhaps integral) of all cultures. you must remember that in most higher primates sex is sex, whether its with a female or with a male. granted the male-female sex would be more sucessful reproductively than the 'homo' sex but both occur without risk to the species.
I don't think your argument is "viable." I don't bigotry is "viable." Intolerence sucks. Deciding what's best for society according to religion isn't "viable" in my book.
Originally posted by billybobsky
ena, or whatever other city in alaska you want to call yourself,
why do you presume that homosexulatity is its own culture? i would say that regardless of its being on the short end of the stick in terms of acceptibility it is a part (perhaps integral) of all cultures. you must remember that in most higher primates sex is sex, whether its with a female or with a male. granted the male-female sex would be more sucessful reproductively than the 'homo' sex but both occur without risk to the species.
The city thing is something al Dajjal has come up with---I thought he had worn that line out---he might just be obsessed.
In the 60s sex wasn't about love, it was "free love" now it's all about love and not at all about sex--weird.
At any rate, the effect is the same, any social deviation from the bounds of traditional marriage parameters is a cheapening of that institution. Now in a Christian or Jewish (maybe Islam too---al Dajjal is more keen on that than me, he might know) society the family is the basic unit of society, authority begins there and emanates out into the culture. I know a lot of this has been abstracted and misunderstood in our postmodern world---so this might sound like gibberish to you.
The shift that took place is that in the US we went from a Christianish (don't for get the Unitarian influence) culture to a statist culture---there has been a complete inversion of values and political theory across the board. We don't deal with "justice"--now it's more "law and order" (as opposed to law and justice.) When the matters of sex and family went out the window into the realm of private choices that was almost more of a symptom than a cause. But once you push the family to the margins, you are left with the state as the locus of authority. Christianish doctrine went bye-bye and statist, doctrine came in it's place.
If you think those "backward" Islamic cultures don't realize this you are kidding yourself.
Originally posted by ena
Remember, if we were all homos, the human race would cease to exist.
Two things.
If everybody lived like you (or me) humanity would cease to exist MUCH MUCH faster.
I work for a human inseminator (yeah just start laughing now. I am doing statistics for her, nothing else). She have made more than 700 women (most of them lesbian) pregnant over the last two years. Homosexuality doesn´t prevent people from giving birth to babies
Originally posted by Tulkas
Let me make it simple for you. I was questioning Bunge's statement. Which followed the follwoing logic: Scott said Arab countries are backward. Bunge then said that scott had thusly proven that Jews are racist against Arabs.
I was trying to follow the logical jump necessary to say that Scott believing Arabs are backwards, must somehow then imply that Jews are racist. So, my question, and not statement, was, is Scott Jewish.
Sorry it was so hard for you to understand.
Settle down there sparkey.
My above post = subtle humor + a small amount of subliminal mind fvcking.
All based on observation.
Don?t hurt yourself mulling over it.
Originally posted by Anders
Two things.
If everybody lived like you (or me) humanity would cease to exist MUCH MUCH faster.
I work for a human inseminator (yeah just start laughing now. I am doing statistics for her, nothing else). She have made more than 700 women (most of them lesbian) pregnant over the last two years. Homosexuality doesn´t prevent people from giving birth to babies
But they gotta get that sperm from somewhere, hmmm. The act of reproduction still requires a male and a female; they just aren't having any "fun" in the process.
There is a fundamental link between this thread and the one regarding AIDS: it's called "sport fuvking." And it reduces mankind to little more than an animal: I should be able screw who I want when I want without regard for commitment (fidelilty), disease, or procreation.
So what's left? Talk about a screw job.
Originally posted by Anders
I work for a human inseminator (yeah just start laughing now. I am doing statistics for her, nothing else). She have made more than 700 women (most of them lesbian) pregnant over the last two years.
Wow, 700 little Anders running around, huh?
Originally posted by BRussell
Wow, 700 little Anders running around, huh?
Before becoming deaf, Anders should change of work
Originally posted by Fangorn
But they gotta get that sperm from somewhere, hmmm. The act of reproduction still requires a male and a female; they just aren't having any "fun" in the process.
Did you know that most men can deliver the sperm for that? Even homosexual men. And actually the man can have fun in the process as the woman can when she receive it? And a lesbian woman and a gay man can have and raise a child just like a straight couple?
Welcome to the world of the liberated individuals.
Originally posted by BRussell
Wow, 700 little Anders running around, huh?
That would be great. Easier to take over the world with an army of little me´s
But as I said, the only thing I am doing for her is statistics and occational installations on her Windows network.
THis is not going to develop into something like Hassans notbeing/being gay things is it?
Originally posted by Anders
Welcome to the world of the liberated individuals.
Please, no. It might spark a dark period of regression.
Originally posted by Anders
Welcome to the world of the liberated individuals.
That's the theory, but I believe it will suffer the same fate as communism.
The state's control in place of the family authority is analogical to the state's ownership of property in opposition to private property.
At this point in the west, I believe the pluralists are living off the corpse of the Judeo-Christian structure much in the same way the wealth of the elite was redistributed after the Bolshevik revolution. Happy times indeed.
We are already seeing signs that the west in incapable of sustaining itself numerically. I believe this freedom from "prudish" or "conservative" morals will be a freedom from the demands of a viable culture.
It should be interesting.
Originally posted by ena
That's the theory, but I believe it will suffer the same fate as communism.
The state's control in place of the family authority is analogical to the state's ownership of property in opposition to private property.
Huh? Allowing individuals to control their own bodies are excatly the opposite of state control. WHo is playing the communist control freak now?
Thats a huge problem in a lot of countries, that a woman who live in a homosexual relationship aren´t allowed to get a insemination (or more precise it isn´t allowed for doctors or others to perform the insemination).
Originally posted by ena
We are already seeing signs that the west in incapable of sustaining itself numerically. I believe this freedom from "prudish" or "conservative" morals will be a freedom from the demands of a viable culture.
Funny. A lot of people actually consider the population of the west (combined with its use of natural ressources) a the most immenent threath to humanity. But as I said: Homosexuality is not the threath to reproduction because we now have methods to reproduce that doesn´t require direct physical contact between the sexes.
Originally posted by Anders
THis is not going to develop into something like Hassans notbeing/being gay things is it?
I am not being, that's certainly true.
Originally posted by Anders
Huh? Allowing individuals to control their own bodies are excatly the opposite of state control. WHo is playing the communist control freak now?
You are removing the same sorts of rules when you share your bodies freely as you do when you attempt to share wealth freely.
Originally posted by ena
You are removing the same sorts of rules when you share your bodies freely as you do when you attempt to share wealth freely.
Share your body freely? Please elaborate. Does that mean if I shared MY OWN MONEY freely it would be morally wrong?
Your thinking is screwed up severely.