Homosexuality: What do you think?

Boston

Boston wrote:

A common assertion which fails to hold up in the light of day. Recessive genes would explain how homosexuality is present generation after generation despite the supposed inability of homosexuals to pass on their genes. Another explanation is that a large number of people have a genetic predisposition towards homosexual behaviour but other natural imperatives towards procreation prevent exclusive homosexuality. Some animals will only mate with a female of the species for the purposes of procreation, and default to same sex coupling the rest of the time. History has shown that when it was socially acceptable to engage in same sex relationship, many a "heterosexual" male did so.

I don’t understand how the above is even a reply to the passage you’re quoting: perhaps you’ve misunderstood me somewhere. Evolution’s basis, at least at the level of the individual, is the passing of genes from one generation to the next. I said that a homosexual couldn’t do this. I didn’t say that because of this homosexuality isn’t passed on from one generation to the next, as you seem to think I’ve said. You’re conflating two seperate issues.

Boston wrote:

Negative, evolution is all about the survival of the species, not the individual. Your genes are pretty much the same as your direct siblings, if you have a homosexual sibling, the chances of your off spring's survival increases due to the benefit of having an extra parents. This line of conversation is rather pointless since we no longer live in huts and fear predators. The natural way has long been replaced.

I’ve clearly said that I was talking about evolution at the level of the individual any time I’ve mentioned evolution. You can’t say that evolution’s basis, at the level of the individual, isn’t the passing on one generation’s genes to the next. Evolution and selection at the group level is entirely different, and nowhere have I mentioned it.

Also, you’re stating hypotheses as if they’re theories. Group selection, and all it entails, is a highly complicated area of evolution—and an area I’ve already admitted to having a limited knowledge in. I’ve not read about any hypotheses detailing the benefits of having homosexual siblings, although I can see how it would be beneficial. I’ve yet again to say that any time I’ve mentioned evolution, I was talking about it at the level of the individual.

Boston wrote:

It's a flawed argument. By your logic, yet again, no adopted parent could form a "natural parental" bound with an adopted child since they are not biologically related. Humans have the capacity to form parental bonds despite the geniality of the child. The assertion to the contrary is ridiculous.

You've raised a good point here. If I disagree with homosexual parents adopting a child, based on my reasons for saying a homosexual couple shouldn't adopt a child, I should disagree with normal adoption too. Based on my main reason for my objection of homosexual adoption, I've no reason to delineate the two types of adoption. I suppose that means I've another, underlying reason to disagree with homosexual adoption. I'm not entirely sure what that is, to be honest.

Boston wrote:

So now that we've establish that yes, a homosexual can have a parental bound with a child, we'll move one. You say that you couldn't possibly know what nature's design is, but somehow you definitely know there is one, and furthermore you make all sorts of assumptions about what it would be. To make assumptions about something which you a) don't full understand, and b) can demonstrates even exist, is a mistake.

You completely side stepped my point that traditionally families and communities raise children, not two people. There is nothing in nature stopping a homosexual from filling a parental role.

You’ve just stated something different from what I’m arguing: I’ve never said that a homosexual cannot have a parental bond with a child. I’m merely saying that having homosexual parents simply cannot be a natural parental construct.

My assumptions about a natural parental design are quite simple: a homosexual couple cannot naturally produce a child of their own, therefore, they cannot represent a natural parental construct. Also, I didn’t say I definitely knew there was a parental construct, it’s simply a premise to my argument. We’re all allowed to have premises.

Boston wrote:

Again a pointless line of conversation. If I accept your hypothesis that homosexually goes against natures design, so what? Why should we respect natures design. Is cancer not a part of nature, infact isn't cancer a natural part of evolution? Would you argue to a cancer patient that we should respect nature's plan for them? Fair enough if you you're a believer in the natural way, but i doubt it considering you're using a computer as a means to communicate with people potentially thousands of miles away.

This entire nature argument is nonsense. How many times could you say "Thats not right, because it's not natural" but choose not to because things are better that way. The entire adoption system is unnatural. If a child was unwanted it is simply left to die in nature.

That’s not my hypothesis, I’ve already clarified that. I’ve said that the end product of a natural process has to be natural itself. My argument is that a same-sex couple cannot represent a natural parental construct.

Also, I feel I need to point this out: in my first post I said that this was a tentative opinion of mine. I haven’t said that it was my final opinion, so of course I don’t fully agree that a homosexual couple shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. I’m continuing the argument because it’s interesting to argue, not because I fervently agree with the side I’m arguing for.

Boston wrote:

Sure I can. Whats natural about a single parent family? You need two people to procreate, you can't do it on your own, ergo, therefore, it follows, clearly, [Insert massive jump in logic], single parent families are unnatural. One could argue that homosexual parenting is more natural since there's two of them.

That’s rubbish, and you know that, Boston. Child A has parents B and C. Parent C dies, leaving child A with parent B. That child was conceived naturally, therefore a child having one parent is, in my opinion, a natural parental construct.

Boston wrote:

Pointing out that you've no deep understanding of any of the topics you've decided to throw around is hardly a personal reproach. Someone may mistakenly believe the opinions you've put forward about nature and evolution are based on more then a smattering of random articles you read more then likely in an attempt to impress.

Of course it is, it’s an ad hominem attack. And I see you continue the ad hominem attack in this passage. That’s quite pathetic, Boston.

Why should the knowledge or ability of an author matter? If there’s something wrong with what they’re saying, then attack that. Attacking the author achieves absolutely nothing. You know what they say, ad hominem is the least convincing type of argument, so I just hope none of the readers are fooled by your attempts at using it.

Boston wrote:

As you admit, you don't know how homosexuality came about, yet you still make definite statements about it's role in nature. Even your binary "genetic or psychological phenomenon" solution set demonstrates an incredibly narrow view point. How about hormonal or physiological? How about some combination of all the above, or none. How about spiritual causes? Can you truly say there's no such thing as a soul? Wise men are too full of self doubt to do more then guess but fools always talk in terms of absolutes.

I wasn’t describing all possible causes of homosexuality. Did I say I was? I just gave three possible sources, I didn’t provide an exhaustive list. Also, good work with the veiled insult.

Boston wrote:

Homosexuals are not aberrations. Completely the wrong word to use. In terms of genetics a homosexual human is no different to a heterosexual one, so the word is wrong in that context. In terms of evolution again homosexuality isn't rare, and occurs in each generation. Logic dictates it serves some purpose.

So you’re saying that a “gay gene” doesn’t exist? Who’s dealing in absolutes, now?

Also, logic doesn’t dictate homosexuality has a purpose. That logic only works if you assume that everything natural selection has ever selected, and all by products of that, was, and still is, of use of us.

Boston wrote:

Tell me one way in which children are raised in this modern world which is consistent with how they where raised 2 millennia ago? Everything from how children are conceived to how they are raised is completely unnatural. Did you know they give pregnant women drugs to help decrease the number of miscarriages and to bring the baby naturally to term?

That’s all very interesting, yet it’s completely irrelevant to my argument. Again, obfuscating the issue of my original argument in perceved similar issues isn’t a valid retort. My argument is that a homosexual couple cannot represent a natural parental construct, as a homosexual couple cannot produce a child naturally. It’s a simple, logical argument. The above have no relevance to it.

Boston wrote:

You've a very narrow, binary, black and white, mindset, if I say homosexual parenting is unnatural, you'll still hold that heterosexual parenting is the natural way rather then realising nothing is natural anymore. My argument, is that if you're not out in the jungle, you're not doing it the natural way, that the natural way isn't the better way. Mammy going off to work and daddy staying at home isn't the natural way either, but would you say its wrong? Something you haven't directly said, but implied through out your post is that unnatural is wrong, and shouldn't be allowed. It's the basic premise of your stance on adoption. But you've failed to demonstrate how unnatural is harmful.

Yet more insults. I haven’t said that what’s unnatural is bad and what’s natural is better. I’ve only remotely touched on that once, and I said: “my own instincts tell me that what isn't naturally intended generally isn't as good as what is naturally intended”. That’s completely and utterly different to saying “what’s unnatural is wrong”. Don’t place words in my mouth that I didn’t speak.

Boston wrote:

Remember the start of your argument, that homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt, and the unnatural aspect of homosexuality is the reason why. My points go directly to that argument. I've listed all these things which are unnatural and good thus destroying your rather simplistic "unnatural = bad" stance.

I haven’t said “unnatural = bad”. Not once. My original argument was that the fact homosexuals cannot produce children of their own is an argument against homosexual adoption. It was a simple argument, and I even admitted that I wasn’t sure if I subscribed to the argument.

Boston wrote:

With all the back tracking it's hard to pinpoint where you stand. You've said unnatural was a mistaken choice of words, but continued to use it, even saying it was the crux of your argument.

After I stated it was a mistaken choice of words, where did I continue to use it? I didn’t use it again. I said that the idea was the crux of my argument, not the word. Don’t attempt to destroy my argument on the level of semantics.

As for my own stance? I’ve said it already, but I’ll say it again: I’m not sure. My own opinions are tentative on the issue. I’m not entirely against homosexual adoption, but I’m not for it either. I’ve continued the argument because I like debating, not because I fervently agree with what I’m arguing for.

The most interesting result of the whole argument so far, for me, is:

In this argument, my main reason for objecting to homosexual adoption has been because a homosexual couple does not represent a natural parental construct. If I stick with this reason for objection, I must also object regular adoption. That's very interesting, and it shows that this whole argument, by itself, isn't reason enough to object to homosexual adoption, unless you reject regular adoption, too. That's interesting. Since this argument, by itself, isn't enough to object to homosexual adoption, I wonder what else a person could use to object to it? Homophobia? Something about how a child needs strong male and female influences? (not that I'm looking for a reason to object to it). I honestly don't know: it's something I'm really going to have to think about.

Boston

Quick reply.

Evolution doesn't exist at "the level of the individual". The idea that you can talk about evolutions of an individual in isolation of the species evolutions is wrong.

you're stating hypotheses as if they’re theories

Evolution is a theory. Perhaps that shakes your world. Infact it's a theory which is constantly being improved upon.

You've raised a good point here. If I disagree with homosexual parents adopting a child, based on my reasons for saying a homosexual couple shouldn't adopt a child, I should disagree with normal adoption too. Based on my main reason for my objection of homosexual adoption, I've no reason to delineate the two types of adoption. I suppose that means I've another, underlying reason to disagree with homosexual adoption. I'm not entirely sure what that is, to be honest.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You’ve just stated something different from what I’m arguing: I’ve never said that a homosexual cannot have a parental bond with a child. I’m merely saying that having homosexual parents simply cannot be a natural parental construct.

This is actually the first time you used the phrase "natural parental construct". Your problem is this, I understand the words you're playing with and realise you're fluffing. You talk about the natural parental X, but offer nothing in a way of explanation of it bar that homosexuals aren't a part of it. It's like a door man saying "Can't let you in tonight, you're breaking the dress code." without telling you what the dress code is.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

My assumptions about a natural parental design are quite simple: a homosexual couple cannot naturally produce a child of their own, therefore, they cannot represent a natural parental construct. Also, I didn’t say I definitely knew there was a parental construct, it’s simply a premise to my argument. We’re all allowed to have premises.

So let me get this right, you're saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed adopted based on a premise you're not certain hold true. It's like saying, if we accept all homosexuals are great people, then the choice is simple. You can't argue to restrict the real rights of real people based on fictitious reasons.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That’s rubbish, and you know that, Boston. Child A has parents B and C. Parent C dies, leaving child A with parent B. That child was conceived naturally, therefore a child having one parent is, in my opinion, a natural parental construct.

How is it rubbish. In nature the woman would have to quickly find a new partner or die along with the child. Infact it would be likely that the new partner would kill the existing off spring. Single parent families are unnatural by your definition. Also I thought a "natural parental construct" was an absolute, not subject to you opinions. It seem's "a natural parental construct" is a family structure you're comfortable and a unnatural parental construct is one you're not.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Why should the knowledge or ability of an author matter? If there’s something wrong with what they’re saying, then attack that. Attacking the author achieves absolutely nothing. You know what they say, ad hominem is the least convincing type of argument, so I just hope none of the readers are fooled by your attempts at using it

We've got into this argued before when your clueless friend started recommending heroine use as safer then alcohol consumption. He wasn't a doctor and you're not an expect on human evolution.

So you’re saying that a “gay gene” doesn’t exist? Who’s dealing in absolutes, now?

Also, logic doesn’t dictate homosexuality has a purpose. That logic only works if you assume that everything natural selection has ever selected, and all by products of that, was, and still is, of use of us.

Sigh. Someone with red hair is genetically the same as a human with black hair. I've no time to explain the distinction to you how about your read a book, mkay?

That’s all very interesting, yet it’s completely irrelevant to my argument. Again, obfuscating the issue of my original argument in perceved similar issues isn’t a valid retort. My argument is that a homosexual couple cannot represent a natural parental construct, as a homosexual couple cannot produce a child naturally. It’s a simple, logical argument. The above have no relevance to it.

Give me a definition of a natural parental construct. Go on? You won't and the reason you won't is because you know the idea is ridiculous in the extreme. You know I'll be able to find examples which highlight the flaws. The relevance of my comments are clear, there is no such thing as a natural parental construct.

Yet more insults. I haven’t said that what’s unnatural is bad and what’s natural is better. I’ve only remotely touched on that once, and I said: “my own instincts tell me that what isn't naturally intended generally isn't as good as what is naturally intended”. That’s completely and utterly different to saying “what’s unnatural is wrong”. Don’t place words in my mouth that I didn’t speak.

Then what is your point? If i accept that homosexuals cannot be parents in your supposed way natural intended, what then? What conclusions do you draw from that. You say your instincts tell you what is natural is good and unnatural bad. I look forward to you abandoning modern medicine. Did you have milk with your corn flakes this morning?

I haven’t said “unnatural = bad”. Not once. My original argument was that the fact homosexuals cannot produce children of their own is an argument against homosexual adoption. It was a simple argument, and I even admitted that I wasn’t sure if I subscribed to the argument.

Christ, a huge number of people adopt because they cannot produce their own children.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

In a relationship with a guy atm, but I definitely am attracted to both guys and girls (I dislike the word bi-sexual, I think it got hi-jacked a bit by the "Omg I'm so bi! I'm also pretty randomlol" brigade there a few years ago and is pretty much meaningless).

Suprised at the amount of bi-sexuals on this thread actually, my (lesbian) friend once said-when she mentioned her "community" and I innocently responded using the same word and thereby implying there was such a thing as a bi-sexual community "You DON'T have a community, you have a loose collective of randy people with short attention spans!"

I must show her this thread

Ginja Ninja

well,some sociologist in the 70's had a thorythat almost no one is completely straight or gay,but that there are varying degrees in between.So,I guess those of us closer to the centre are a bit of a grey area

Boston

Kinsey

Boston

I can't believe two things: 1) that you don't understand, even though I've said it a half dozen or more times, that this isn't even an argument I'm sure I subscribe to, and 2) that you haven't even responded to or even acknowledged the single most important passage from my previous post. Please try not to miss the most important section of this post, it's at the very bottom.

Boston wrote: »

Evolution doesn't exist at "the level of the individual". The idea that you can talk about evolutions of an individual in isolation of the species evolutions is wrong.

An individual can't evolve on its own, obviously. But, you can talk about evolution at many levels, talking about the implications of evolution at the level of the individual is just one, which is what I have been doing. You could also discuss it at the genetic, group and species-wide levels. I don't need a masterclass in the theory, thanks.

Evolution is a theory. Perhaps that shakes your world. Infact it's a theory which is constantly being improved upon.

Well d'uh. Perhaps you've misunderstood me, or maybe you're selectively misunderstanding me. What you've quoted was a reply to your passage on how homosexuals could be beneficial to a group. You were stating it almost as if it were fact, I said it was a hypothesis. It wasn't a reply to anything about the theory of evolution.

I read this last night. It's worth a read.

This is actually the first time you used the phrase "natural parental construct". Your problem is this, I understand the words you're playing with and realise you're fluffing. You talk about the natural parental X, but offer nothing in a way of explanation of it bar that homosexuals aren't a part of it. It's like a door man saying "Can't let you in tonight, you're breaking the dress code." without telling you what the dress code is.

You understand the phrase "natural parental construct"? That's interesting, I've never heard of it before. I've stated elsewhere that it was a premise of mine, I came up with the phrase myself. If that premise is false, then my argument is therefore false. It's something I'm assuming to exist so I can argue with it to arrive at a conclusion. But I'm sure you know what a premise is.

So let me get this right, you're saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed adopted based on a premise you're not certain hold true. It's like saying, if we accept all homosexuals are great people, then the choice is simple. You can't argue to restrict the real rights of real people based on fictitious reasons.

My god, Boston, have you read anything I've said? Did you even read the conclusion of my last post? I notice you didn't even respond to it, even though it was easily the most important part of my post.

My argument is as simple as this: a homosexual couple cannot naturally produce a child of their own, they therefore don't represent any natural parental construct. It's a simple idea. It's an idea that I don't hold to be truth, it's just an idea.

How is it rubbish. In nature the woman would have to quickly find a new partner or die along with the child. Infact it would be likely that the new partner would kill the existing off spring. Single parent families are unnatural by your definition. Also I thought a "natural parental construct" was an absolute, not subject to you opinions. It seem's "a natural parental construct" is a family structure you're comfortable and a unnatural parental construct is one you're not.

That's true, and it's a good argument against my premise. You see, I'm not too big as to not admit faults in my premise, and it's a premise I don't necessarily hold, as I've said numerous times.

I said in my previous post that if I reject homosexual adoption based solely on my argument, then I must reject all forms of adoption. I would also have to reject the concept of step-parents. It's by far the strongest argument against my own.

We've got into this argued before when your clueless friend started recommending heroine use as safer then alcohol consumption. He wasn't a doctor and you're not an expect on human evolution.

How has that any relevance here? That was a different argument, there's no need to bring it up again. Also, that's not what he recommended, just to clarify. You know it wasn't as simple an argument as that.

Also, even though you used ad hominem attacks then, too, it doesn't make them any more valid. If you spot something wrong with what somebody is saying, then attack that, don't attack the person in an attempt to lower their integrity. It's the most futile argument there is; it's on par with "ur so stoopid" style arguments.

Sigh. Someone with red hair is genetically the same as a human with black hair. I've no time to explain the distinction to you how about your read a book, mkay?

Is it necessary to be so condescending in your posts? I understand how traits such as eye colour and hair colour arise genetically. My reply about the gay gene was a tongue and cheek remark, that's why I included the "who's dealing in absolutes now", as a reference to the proverb you quoted.

Give me a definition of a natural parental construct. Go on? You won't and the reason you won't is because you know the idea is ridiculous in the extreme. You know I'll be able to find examples which highlight the flaws. The relevance of my comments are clear, there is no such thing as a natural parental construct.

I don't know if there's such a thing, as I've said elsewhere numerous times, it's just a premise I used to create an argument.

My definition of a natural parental construct (I'm getting sick of that phrase) is: a parental paradigm that can arise naturally.

Then what is your point? If i accept that homosexuals cannot be parents in your supposed way natural intended, what then? What conclusions do you draw from that. You say your instincts tell you what is natural is good and unnatural bad. I look forward to you abandoning modern medicine. Did you have milk with your corn flakes this morning?

If you accept it, then it's an argument against homosexual couples adopting children, I suppose.

I said my instincts told me "what's naturally intendedis generally better than what isn't naturally intended". That's a completely different sentence to what you're claiming I've said. You've left out the two most important words: intended and generally.

Christ, a huge number of people adopt because they cannot produce their own children.

And I responded to that in the single most important paragraph of my previous post, a paragraph which you conveniently have not even responded to. If you'd acknowledged that paragraph, you'd have seen that I arrived at a dilemma:

If I reject homosexual parents adopting a child based solely on my argument, then I must also reject regular adoption, too. I even said it's the strongest argument that I HAVE against my own argument. I can't believe you haven't even acknowledged this.

If I follow this through, I must do one of two things: 1) fervently believe in and defend my concept of a natural parental construct, and thus dismiss all forms of adoption, or 2) realise this is the fatal flaw in my premise, meaning that this argument isn't, on its own, an argument against homosexual couples adopting a child.

I can't accept 1), it's too bigoted of an opinion. I must therefore accept 2), and realise that if I want to continue rejecting homosexual adoption, I must have more arguments against it. If I don't have any other arguments against it, then I can't reject it, and must realise that I have no problems with homosexual couples adopting a child.

So, there you go, that's my conclusion.

Boston

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I can't believe two things: 1) that you don't understand, even though I've said it a half dozen or more times, that this isn't even an argument I'm sure I subscribe to, and 2) that you haven't even responded to or even acknowledged the single most important passage from my previous post. Please try not to miss the most important section of this post, it's at the very bottom.

Yes, I saw your back tracking. Was I meant to give you a medal?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

An individual can't evolve on its own, obviously. But, you can talk about evolution at many levels, talking about the implications of evolution at the level of the individual is just one, which is what I have been doing. You could also discuss it at the genetic, group and species-wide levels. I don't need a masterclass in the theory, thanks.

You don't need a masterclass, but a clue might help.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well d'uh. Perhaps you've misunderstood me, or maybe you're selectively misunderstanding me. What you've quoted was a reply to your passage on how homosexuals could be beneficial to a group. You were stating it almost as if it were fact, I said it was a hypothesis. It wasn't a reply to anything about the theory of evolution.

Yes, because say "some research suggests" is the same as saying "It's a fact".

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You understand the phrase "natural parental construct"? That's interesting, I've never heard of it before.

I understand what natural, parental and construct mean. Thus I understand the phrase. The phrase does not take on magical or mystical significances once you utter it.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've stated elsewhere that it was a premise of mine, I came up with the phrase myself. If that premise is false, then my argument is therefore false. It's something I'm assuming to exist so I can argue with it to arrive at a conclusion. But I'm sure you know what a premise is.

Nah JD, you've gone way beyond my level of understand, could you try and dumb it down a bit. kthxbye.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

My god, Boston, have you read anything I've said? Did you even read the conclusion of my last post? I notice you didn't even respond to it, even though it was easily the most important part of my post.

I tried to reach a balance between quoting as much of your post as possible while simultaneously reading as little suedo-intellectual nonsense as feasible.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

My argument is as simple as this: a homosexual couple cannot naturally produce a child of their own, they therefore don't represent any natural parental construct. It's a simple idea. It's an idea that I don't hold to be truth, it's just an idea.

Now it's gone from "a natural parental construct" to "any natural parental construct". My problem is that with each post of your you're retroactively revising what your say and passing it off as your original argument. You haven't even offered a definition of what you feel constitues a "natural parental construct". Once could consider the loving bound between a parent and a child "a natural parental construct" and an obvious example of something which doesn't require a biological link.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's true, and it's a good argument against my premise. You see, I'm not too big as to not admit faults in my premise, and it's a premise I don't necessarily hold, as I've said numerous times.

I said in my previous post that if I reject homosexual adoption based solely on my argument, then I must reject all forms of adoption. I would also have to reject the concept of step-parents. It's by far the strongest argument against my own.

You'll also have to reject single parent families and families where the parental role is filled by an aunt or uncle, as unnatural.

How has that any relevance here? That was a different argument, there's no need to bring it up again. Also, that's not what he recommended, just to clarify. You know it wasn't as simple an argument as that.

Also, even though you used ad hominem attacks then, too, it doesn't make them any more valid. If you spot something wrong with what somebody is saying, then attack that, don't attack the person in an attempt to lower their integrity. It's the most futile argument there is; it's on par with "ur so stoopid" style arguments.

It says a lot about you that you use the phrase ad hominem rather then personal attack. You give away far too much.

Is it necessary to be so condescending in your posts? I understand how traits such as eye colour and hair colour arise genetically. My reply about the gay gene was a tongue and cheek remark, that's why I included the "who's dealing in absolutes now", as a reference to the proverb you quoted.

Every family in this country will have some direct relative who has homosexual tendencies. This suggest that if there is a gene which causes homosexuality, its present in all of us.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

My definition of a natural parental construct (I'm getting sick of that phrase) is: a parental paradigm that can arise naturally.

Lovely; What about IVF treatment. Unnatural conception.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If you accept it, then it's an argument against homosexual couples adopting children, I suppose.

You're bowing me over here with how committal you are. Theres an argument to be made for lots of things, that doesn't mean its a valid argument. I've listed several examples of unnatural things being good.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I said my instincts told me "what's naturally intendedis generally better than what isn't naturally intended". That's a completely different sentence to what you're claiming I've said. You've left out the two most important words: intended and generally.

Generally implies majority. The majority of unnatural things you encounter in your daily life are no bad for you. Only a tiny minority of things could be argued as being worse. You're a victim of clever marketing which uses natural as a buzz word to sell you stuff you don't need. Also I though me established that you don't know what nature intended? Nature sure as fuk didn't intend us to farm the land on the scale we do.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

And I responded to that in the single most important paragraph of my previous post, a paragraph which you conveniently have not even responded to. If you'd acknowledged that paragraph, you'd have seen that I arrived at a dilemma:

It helps to point out how backwards a view point is.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If I reject homosexual parents adopting a child based solely on my argument, then I must also reject regular adoption, too. I even said it's the strongest argument that I HAVE against my own argument. I can't believe you haven't even acknowledged this.

I made the argument, I don't need to acknowledge it.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If I follow this through, I must do one of two things: 1) fervently believe in and defend my concept of a natural parental construct, and thus dismiss all forms of adoption, or 2) realise this is the fatal flaw in my premise, meaning that this argument isn't, on its own, an argument against homosexual couples adopting a child.

I like the caveat of "on it's own" as if in combination with some other backwards premise the blindingly obvious flaws will disappear.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I can't accept 1), it's too bigoted of an opinion. I must therefore accept 2), and realise that if I want to continue rejecting homosexual adoption, I must have more arguments against it. If I don't have any other arguments against it, then I can't reject it, and must realise that I have no problems with homosexual couples adopting a child.

So, there you go, that's my conclusion.

I kinda like 1). It's the believe that children are better off raised on community homes, potentially run by priest and nuns, rather then in unnatural environments. I logic which was strangely very prominent back in the day.

As for 2) you're still holding on tightly to your unnatural = bad stance as if somehow, down the line, it will prove key to justify and irrational rejection of gay parenting.

Heres some other premises you might want to try and fit around your unnatural parental construct.

1) Gay parents lead to Gay children. How can something natural come from an unnatural "parental construct".

2) Children will have a hard time due to unnatural parents. Not fair to punish children for unnatural parents.

3) A child needs female and male influences in their life. Unnatural parents cannot provide this.

The counter arguements:

1) Heterosexual parents = Heterosexual children ?
2) This is why we take traveller children away from their parents? It worked in Australia.
3) Yes, because the average person is so knowledgeable about the opposite gender and this is as a result of having a role model of both sexes.

A Neurotic

Boston, your style of argument is incredibly pathetic and condescending in comparison to JammyDodger's. It's getting embarrassing. I can't read any more of this thread because it's too frustrating watching you completely miss the point of each post.

"kthxbye"

Boston

That's pretty ad hominem A Neurotic. I'm not missing the points, I'm ripping them apart through a multi pronged attack, the idea being that next time JD will put some thought into his/her contributions.

Jonathan

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

My argument is that a homosexual couple cannot represent a natural parental construct, as a homosexual couple cannot produce a child naturally. It’s a simple, logical argument.

Wtf do you mean by this buzzword natural parental construct?

Is there a difference between an infertile heterosexual couple that opts for a sperm donation, and a homosexual male couple that opt for a surrogate pregnancy?
After 9 months, both couples have a child loved by both parents, and biologically related to one parent.

Insect Overlord

A Neurotic wrote: »

Boston, your style of argument is incredibly pathetic and condescending in comparison to JammyDodger's. It's getting embarrassing. I can't read any more of this thread because it's too frustrating watching you completely miss the point of each post.

"kthxbye"

I gave a warning earlier in this thread not make this argument personal. If you find something about a post to be objectionable, please use the 'report post' function.

Boston wrote: »

That's pretty ad hominem A Neurotic. I'm not missing the points, I'm ripping them apart through a multi pronged attack, the idea being that next time JD will put some thought into his/her contributions.

As I said to me_right_one earlier in the thread, grow up or get out. While you have made it blindingly obvious you disagree with -JammyDodger-'s point of view, you have done so (as A Neurotic correctly (though inadvisably) pointed out) in the most condescending manner. From reading both yours and his arguments, it's abundently clear that both of you have put great thought into your contributions. Disagreeing with him is absolutely no excuse to belittle him.

To all posters: keep this debate civil, or bans will be issued.

You know what, Boston? I'm done.

I had a full half an hours worth of a response typed out, but I've just deleted it. I've debated as far as I care to, and in doing so I've arrived at a conclusion that's at odds with my original argument. So, I'm not going to continue arguing in circles.

Also, I'm not going to continue to put time into posts for you to respond to them in the way you do. There's a lot to be said about your debating style, needless to say you get far too personal: with the other person, and with the argument itself.

Jonathan

Jonathan wrote: »

Wtf do you mean by this buzzword natural parental construct?

I've defined what I mean by it enough times at this stage.

Is there a difference between an infertile heterosexual couple that opts for a sperm donation, and a homosexual male couple that opt for a surrogate pregnancy?
After 9 months, both couples have a child loved by both parents, and biologically related to one parent.

Based solely on this argument, no, there's no difference. If you read my later posts you'll see that I acknowledge something similar to this as a fatal flaw in my argument. I say that if I object to homosexual parents adopting a child based solely on this argument, then I must reject all forms of adoption, and, as you've pointed out, sperm donations etc. It's also worth pointing out that in my very first post in this thread, where I created my argument, I say that it's not something I'm sure I subscribe to. I'm not arguing for it to defend my fervent opinion, I argued because, well, arguing is fun.

Boston

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You know what, Boston? I'm done.

I had a full half an hours worth of a response typed out, but I've just deleted it. I've debated as far as I care to, and in doing so I've arrived at a conclusion that's at odds with my original argument. So, I'm not going to continue arguing in circles.

Thats ok, I probably wouldn't have read it. I'm sure we'll cross paths again.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've defined what I mean by it enough times at this stage.

You defined it in a succinct mannor only once, but have given vague suggestions several times.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I argued because, well, arguing is fun.

This attitude is exactly why I treated you like a child. The issue may be only a bit of fun to you, but its the entire world to others. Your youth may allow you to think in ways which older generations are no longer capable of, but it also means you lack the experience to empathies with others. You say "don't take it personal" but I fail to see how the subject matter could be any more personal.

Boston

Boston wrote:

You defined it in a succinct mannor only once, but have given vague suggestions several times.

I suppose I could try to come up with a more full definition, but I think that would be a pointless exercise, because not only is it a pretty weak argument by itself, I doubt you'd be interested in it, as you said yourself, "[you] probably wouldn't have read it anyway".

This attitude is exactly why I treated you like a child. The issue may be only a bit of fun to you, but its the entire world to others. Your youth may allow you to think in ways which older generations are no longer capable of, but it also means you lack the experience to empathies with others. You say "don't take it personal" but I fail to see how the subject matter could be any more personal.

I didn't say that the issue itself was fun, I said that I enjoy arguing, that I think arguing is fun. They're too completely different things, so don't try and paint me out to be some callous person who gets joy out of the serious issues of others.

Jonathan

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I've defined what I mean by it enough times at this stage.

It sounds like a term you made up.

I had a google, but emm... this thread is the first result.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It's also worth pointing out that in my very first post in this thread, where I created my argument, I say that it's not something I'm sure I subscribe to. I'm not arguing for it to defend my fervent opinion, I argued because, well, arguing is fun.

Is that so?

Davidius

^That'd make sense considering:

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You understand the phrase "natural parental construct"? That's interesting, I've never heard of it before. I've stated elsewhere that it was a premise of mine, I came up with the phrase myself. If that premise is false, then my argument is therefore false. It's something I'm assuming to exist so I can argue with it to arrive at a conclusion. But I'm sure you know what a premise is.

Jonathan

Davidius wrote: »

^That'd make sense considering:

I missed that with all the quotes. I blame boston for making the fcukton of quotes. :pac:

Boston

Heterosexuals born on the first Monday of every second month should be forced to wear hats at all times to meet the optimal ad hominum paradigm. It's a catchall phrase I made up to justify my assertions. If the debate is to continue you must suspend disbelief and accept my fundamental premise just like you would an action film.

"But hold on, how the fuk is seeing around the curvature of the universe meant to allow you predict the future."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BOOQdiGVCo

Jonathan

Jonathan wrote: »

It sounds like a term you made up.

I had a google, but emm... this thread is the first result.

As Davidius has pointed out, it is something I've made up.

Is that so?

Yes, that's so. The posts in which I've said that are there if you care to read them.

Boston wrote: »

Heterosexuals born on the first Monday of every second month should be forced to wear hats at all times to meet the optimal ad hominum paradigm. It's a catchall phrase I made up to justify my assertions. If the debate is to continue you must suspend disbelief and accept my fundamental premise just like you would an action film.

"But hold on, how the fuk is seeing around the curvature of the universe meant to allow you predict the future."

"Interesting."

cHaTbOx

Boston wrote: »

I'm not missing the points, I'm ripping them apart through a multi pronged attack, the idea being that next time JD will put some thought into his/her contributions.

You have have had some great points but I think the fact that you are looking upon your posts as an attack really doesn't help you . Do you respond to people attacking what you believe/unsure about or do you respond to a discussion with enlightened opinions which gives people time to reflected and re-evaluate there stance?

Jackobyte wrote: »

I think its class how honest and mature everyone has been with this topic. When posting it I wasn't sure which way it'd go but I'm happy with the way its gone.

This post was back at #50 lets get back to this.

My opinion on homosexuality. I am fine with it , I am not homosexual but I am comfortable enough to know some guys look good .
I wish it still wasn't taboo in some families . My cousin is gay which he told me ages upon ages ago . The way my family reacted which was an odd way , almost like they are ashamed of him . I don't get on too well with him but any time there is a meet up go and chat to him .
Wish there wasn't such a pettiness , but the old term of "stuck in there ways" gets thrown about .It's not right though.

We are all human , we all have rights ,but it seems being gay affects these . Lesbians, gays and bisexuals do not claim any 'special' or 'additional rights' but the observance of the same rights as those of heterosexual persons.
I think people should be allowed to have a family if they are fit . There are plenty of heterosexual couples I would deem unfit . they are not denied the right though. It makes no sense.

Life's not perfect as there is no perfect life . People attack things they don't understand , if you don't understand there will always be a part of you that refuses to accept .

phlegms

I used to like this thread

Boston

cHaTbOx wrote: »

You have have had some great points but I think the fact that you are looking upon your posts as an attack really doesn't help you . Do you respond to people attacking what you believe/unsure about or do you respond to a discussion with enlightened opinions which gives people time to reflected and re-evaluate there stance?

I think it's unfair to expect someone to be detached from a subject which directly affects them. We're no talking hypothetical scenarios here.

Just and FYI, You're "arguing for fun" wouldn't be allowed on the LGB forum.

phlegms wrote: »

I used to like this thread

Welcome to the thread of hate.

Extrasupervery

LGB? What about T?

Davidius

Extrasupervery wrote: »

LGB? What about T?

Sure nobody caters for the asexuals, no they don't.

Boston

Extrasupervery wrote: »

LGB? What about T?

What about it?

plein de force

i'm gay
the worst part about it is that nobody ever believes me because i don't walk around limp-wristed and a voice like i've been castrated, always have to tell people that the effeminate gay guys are actually the minority
and i don't judge others of other sexualities because of their sexuality so i don't expect them to judge me, only fair eh?

Insect Overlord

Boston wrote: »

I think it's unfair to expect someone to be detached from a subject which directly affects them. We're no talking hypothetical scenarios here.

Just and FYI, You're "arguing for fun" wouldn't be allowed on the LGB forum.



Welcome to the thread of hate.

This is not the LGB Forum. This is C&H. This is a social forum in the Rec. category. You've been on this site a hell of a lot longer than I have, you should know that the most serious debates are usually dealt with in far more appropriate fora (usually in the Soc. Cat.)

I've spent so much time trying to keep the peace in this thread that after 180 posts, I still haven't had a chance to make my own contribution as a poster. I want to contribute to this thread in a way that I can enjoy, not as part of a tense personal dialogue.

Thread of hate? Ironic how you continue to post emotively despite masquerading behind a veil of logic and objectivity.

This is (for the most part) a light-hearted and enjoyable forum, remember that for future posting. Serious debate/argument is very welcome, but not in such confrontational terms as have been seen in the last 60-odd posts.

Boston

Insect Overlord wrote: »

This is not the LGB Forum. This is C&H. This is a social forum in the Rec. category. You've been on this site a hell of a lot longer than I have, you should know that the most serious debates are usually dealt with in far more appropriate fora (usually in the Soc. Cat.)

It isn't the expand your horizons forum either, where you can put forward an open ended premises and expect people to cut you some slack for thinking "outside the box" and not having a fully developed Idea. My comment was a warning to JD not to try arguing for fun on the LGB forum. Believe it or not I can be far more cutting then the previous replies imply.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Thread of hate? Ironic how you continue to post emotively despite masquerading behind a veil of logic and objectivity.

I think you'll find my exacting application of logic resulted in the complete collapse of JD's arguement. However my inability to be objective resulted in my hypercritical stances of him as person of merit; I never claimed to be objective.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

This is (for the most part) a light-hearted and enjoyable forum, remember that for future posting. Serious debate/argument is very welcome, but not in such confrontational terms as have been seen in the last 60-odd posts.

If you look at JDs orginal post you'll see a number of thanks and several people saying "yea thats the way i feel". This, despite the massive flaws in his arguement. A vorbose rebuttal was needed.

Richard Cranium

According to Morrissey, there is no hetero, homo or bi or any of that- everyone is just sexual. I think there is a grain of truth in that- but not an awful lot more. It's an interesting thought in any case.

Also this may have come up already (I saw this thread too late to read all the way throught it), but has anyone made a distinction between doing something gay (like having sex with someone of the same gender) and actually being gay (ie being capable of falling in love with someone of the same gender and considering a long term monogamous relationship with them). I'm not sure if the former would fall into the category of "bisexual"; and as for "bicurious", I'm of the opinion that that is more of a stage of life than a fully fledged orientation.