Ex-gay?Follow

Responding to this Alma post

1) Because less is more.
2) I think people would have been more impressed for the non-derailing to happen in a thread that wasn't already derailed. You've already nuked the flowerpot, so gluing the dust back together in a flowerpot shape isn't really useful at this point. Timing and presentation is important.
3) I personally don't care about how you "debate" with people; I was giving you feedback about what you were doing and how you are presenting yourself to other people. I would think you could understand that standpoint, since you profess to do the same about topics and your arguing.

Edit: Grammar fail...

Edited, Jun 23rd 2011 6:55pm by Ravashack

Psst, gbaji, human beings have sex for pleasure first and foremost. Procreation is just a happy by-product of it. Why do you think human beings don't have mating seasons like other animals do?

1. I have not clicked on your links, so I'm not going to pretend to know what you're talking about.

2. That's nonsense.. If you're interested in a particular subject more than a "derail", you would go back to the original topic, as that happens very frequently here on this forum.

3. I was just responding that I don't need your feedback, because I already know the reasons that mentioned.

That's because there's a difference between natural and normal, they are not synonymous in this sense.

Yes they are.


Unless what you're trying to say is that because they don't conform to what you consider normal, it isn't.

Consider: Black people are a significant minority in contrast to Whites in America. Does this mean blacks are not "normal"?

Hint: It does, but it really shouldn't matter. At least that's what Reverend King said! You're a hypocrite Alma.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2011 7:27pm by Nilatai

WTF? That doesn't make any sense. They are not synonymous. You can believe what you want, but they aren't. In this reference, natural is "self-occurring".

People are naturally blind, but being blind isn't normal. Yet, it is perfectly normal to lose eyesight as you get older.

Also, in a biological sense normal does mean natural. You're using the wrong word for what you want to mean Alma, probably because it helps your argument. The word you are searching for is "typical." Homosexuality is not typical, meaning that there are significantly fewer occurrences of it than heterosexuality. It is natural/normal, but it is atypical.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2011 7:00pm by Allegory

Wat? No, young people die of natural causes all the time. It's pretty normal, too.

You're not defining normal very well. See my example above about black people. The majority for people in the USA are white. That means being white is normal, and being black is not normal. You're not normal Alma. You don't deserve the same rights.

See how that works?

What you are saying states there is no life expectancy, sickness, disability or handicap and that's stupid. There's a difference between something occurring naturally and something being normal.

Your example with black people doesn't make any sense because no matter if the U.S. is 85% homosexual, according to how our body operates, it isn't normal. Your example of black people being "abnormal (by your definition)" is only true in places where they are a minority. I'm in Memphis, where black people are the majority. Homosexuality is abnormal in any case as long as our bodies remain in our current state.

So, no you fail.

I'm not defining normal wrong. In any case, I stated already, I don't care what words you use as long as the definitions are the same. I'm differentiating self occurring vs common.

Not from a biological perspective. I just found it strange that out of all the groups Idiggory could have chosen to mention, he went with biologists. From a biological perspective, our genitalia serve the function of enabling sexual reproduction and thus survival of the species (with some potential competitive genetics thrown in for fun).



Er? We do. What the hell do you think a woman's period is? It's not as pronounced, is shorter, and more frequent, but it's that's also a function of our biology. Human children are much more helpless than other species too, right? So, what function do you think the fact that sex (even when the woman isn't fertile) is enjoyable to both partners serves?

Think about it. Because sexual activity feels good for both partners, they'll engage in it more frequently. This means that strong mating seasons aren't needed, but *also* increases the likelihood of the father sticking around during the pregnancy, and after child birth. Which is critically important for survival of the child into adulthood. Sexual enjoyment in humans absolutely serves a biological function.


And BTW, this is a really humorous aspect of this discussion given the recent debate about creationism vs evolution. If you believe in evolution then *everything* about the physical body has (or had, or will have) some biological function which in some way aids the species survival. Amusingly, only if you believe in a divine hand making us with some other criteria in mind can you argue that sex was "made to be pleasurable" for the purpose of enjoying sex and not for some biologically necessary function. Which leads us to the odd conclusion that if god made man in his image, then homosexual activity is "natural" and "normal", but if he didn't, then it isn't.


Ok. A stretch, but I'm kinda brain fried so whatever. :)

Honestly, I think you're all arguing over irrelevant semantic differences. A biologist would talk about whether something was "necessary to some biological function". What other uses might also exist outside of that are... well... outside the realm of biology. Biology doesn't specifically address those other uses. That is more within the realm of some form of behavioral studies.

Hence why I said this was more something which sociologists care about, but not so much biologists. And certainly in the context of discussing whether some use of sexual organs is more "important" (hard to find the right word here) than another, clearly procreation is a much more primary purpose/function/whatever for sexual organs than the clearly secondary aspect of homosexual activity deriving from the fact that sex is enjoyable.

That's not to say that it's "wrong", but one is clearly more important from a biological stand point than another.

Yeah yeah. Whatever.