Ex-gay?Follow

(My Little Porny.)

Dumbass.

A. Doctors aren't biologists. Doctors are looking to maximize one specific end--they are NOT considering that end in context of nature at large, nor do they particularly care if the "goodness" of that end is subjective or objective. Furthermore, "health" itself is a HIGHLY subjective term, as all bodies are different, and how healthy a body is depends entirely on the ends you are seeking. Very simple example? In the context of most environments, sickle cell anemia is considered a terrible genetic disorder. In the context of African areas where malaria is widespread, it's considered a genetic boon, as the safeguard against disease is vastly superior to the "defects."

B. My claim is true for the same reason that it is fallacious to claim that evolution creates "better" organisms. It largely creates organisms more symbiotic with their current ecosystems (in a sense that is highly subjective to what those organisms value for survival). That is all. Evolution might create, in ecosystem A, an immortal organism. But in context of ecosystem B, that organism might have a l day lifespan. And since ecosystem B can be a future situation of ecosystem A...

C. Most importantly, BIOLOGY doesn't have a standard of what's "normal" for humans--that is ENTIRELY a social construct. We consider high/low blood pressure abnormal because we consider a
healthy" blood pressure normal and merely define those other two in relation to it. Sure, we might use biology to give reasons why the normal zone is currently healthy for humans. But that's about all.

Making the claim that heterosexual intercourse is what is "natural" is claiming that biology has an intent for parts, and it doesn't. Humans use their parts according to their social systems, and biology doesn't give a damn what they do. Biology does not accept the idea of PURPOSES. There is no "purpose" for the ***** or ******. There are things they can and cannot do, yes. But biology honestly doesn't give a crap if you use them for heterosexual intercourse or decide to use them exclusively for performance art.

We, as a culture, could very easily decide to never use our genitals for intercourse. Sure, without the aid of science we would die off, but biology doesn't care. There is nothing "unnatural" in using our parts in whatever way we see fit. If it is biologically possible, than it is supported by biology.

D. Biology favors diversity with heed to survival of a species. There are studies that show families with gay aunts/uncles tend to produce more children. So there very well may be an evolutionary "reason" why homosexuality exists.

So, your point with this entire diatribe was to say that homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality? And?

I'm referencing to "biological standards" as "common". Not, "It's common to use an umbrella in the rain", but "it's common for a fertile woman to get pregnant after sex". One is in reference to our biological body operations and another is reference to social practices. Anything and everything can be "common" under social practices....

And? You keep outputting these incomplete thoughts. Nothing that you've said yet justifies your stance against homosexuality. I'm waiting for you to connect the ends, like everyone else is. Instead, you leave them disconnected, and just yell at everyone when they try to suss out what @#%^ing point you're trying to make.

1. People argued that there was no argument against SSM that wasn't out of hatred and/or fear. If you accept the fact that it isn't "biological normal" and if marriage were to be defined on "normal" relationships, specifically based on biological "intentions", then that would exclude SSM.

2. My main focus wasn't to demerit it, but to get people to accept the fact that it isn't "normal", so quit pretending that it is and it's somehow wrong for people not to accept it.

Here, I'll do that right now, fully prepared for that same reaction:

"Normal, based on how our bodies operate"? What? Why? And if so, who cares? Yes, a ***** can go in a ******. It can also go in other places just as easy. Those ways are also how our bodies operate. Now, if you put it in a ******, then there's a chance that it'll make a baby. So? That's just a consequence of the action. There are no inherent ethics to this; it isn't any more "right" than anywhere else. Why does this support your stance on homosexuality?

We aren't constrained by our biological makeup. And thank god for that. Why should we be?

Look, it's very simple, no one cares what you do with your organs within reason, but don't come here and pretend that "ear-sex" and "nose-sex" are normal sexual behaviors for humans. Also, just because things become more common in society, doesn't make it "normal" in the context of how our bodies operate. Just because people start doing different stuff with their bodies (i.e. planking), doesn't change any biological evidence of how our bodies operate.

You know, if I thought that any of your previous posts were satisfactory answers to any of my questions, then I wouldn't have asked them.

Sex is for procreation, that's why it always leads to babies.

That might be a Top-10 worst gbaji analogy right there.

Edited, Jun 24th 2011 6:18pm by Spoonless

Did you really just imply someone went off topic in your conversation about sex for pleasure vs sex as a function all while arguing this in a thread about a dude who claims to no longer be gay in a forum called Out Of Topic". I would say that this is the pot calling the kettle black but that is racist.