people having sex in bathroom...oh the HUMANITY!!

[MJ12]

I think they win something if they win.

 

[lefty]

They win bathroom sex with Willie.

 

[kineaesth]

Read Wittgenstein, preferably the Philosophical Investigations rather than the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Understand that and you understand the position.

I think :dozey: is the perfect emote for this post.

'Here is a really smart book, you should read it, but you won't understand it because you are not smart, also I am smart.'

 

[Jintor]

They win bathroom sex with Willie.

I'm in

 

[Kadayi]

A hell of a lot more convenient than summarising your position.

For you, anyway.

I think :dozey: is the perfect emote for this post.

'Here is a really smart book, you should read it, but you won't understand it because you are not smart, also I am smart.'

Jez you guys, what's with the book hate? They're only words they wont bite

The state of being of something is rarely if ever definitive, therefore it is logically erroneous to assign definitives to it, although we do it all the time.

There is a clear and tangible differential between the sexes therefore to talk about men and women as separate entities, is logically acceptable.

However behaviours/actions aren't necessarily definitive, they can be subject to change so the application of defining terminology is generally erroneous. The only exception really being when viewing things in retrospect.

 

[Stigmata]

Jez you guys, what's with the book hate? They're only words they wont bite

The state of being of something is rarely if ever definitive, therefore it is logically erroneous to assign definitives to it, although we do it all the time.

There is a clear and tangible differential between the sexes therefore to talk about men and women as separate entities, is logically acceptable.

However behaviours/actions aren't necessarily definitive, they can be subject to change so the application of defining terminology is generally erroneous. The only exception really being when viewing things in retrospect.

Do you have any idea what you just said? I'm not trying to insult your intelligence; it just reads like you pulled book excerpts that you've memorised so as to appear smart and make it difficult for others to respond.

Part of debating is making yourself understood. Make yourself understood!

 

[VirusType2]

He is saying that labeling someone as straight or otherwise isn't a good thing to do because people change, and become gay or something else later; their sexual orientation shouldn't matter; it's irrelevant.

However, labeling someone as male or female is ok, because the two sexes are clearly different. By the same token, being a gay man or a straight man - functionally, they are the same, they are men.

I guess all of this could be used in arguments about gays in the military, etc.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Hey Virus is back. Hey I knew that but am now commenting on it.

 

[Stigmata]

He is saying that labeling someone as straight or otherwise isn't a good thing to do because people change, and become gay or something else later; their sexual orientation shouldn't matter; it's irrelevant.

However, labeling someone as male or female is ok, because the two sexes are clearly different. By the same token, being a gay man or a straight man - functionally, they are the same, they are men.

I guess all of this could be used in arguments about gays in the military, etc.

I don't understand how that fits at all with his other comments, but I agree specifically with this.

 

[Kadayi]

Do you have any idea what you just said? I'm not trying to insult your intelligence; it just reads like you pulled book excerpts that you've memorised so as to appear smart and make it difficult for others to respond.

Part of debating is making yourself understood. Make yourself understood!

So basically you don't understand it, so therefore I'm the thickie? That's rational.

This is a cornerstone of modern philosophical thinking firmly based in logic, it's honestly not the difficult to understand if you apply a little gray matter to it.

He is saying that labeling someone as straight or otherwise isn't a good thing to do because people change, and become gay or something else later; their sexual orientation shouldn't matter; it's irrelevant.

However, labeling someone as male or female is ok, because the two sexes are clearly different. By the same token, being a gay man or a straight man - functionally, they are the same, they are men.

I guess all of this could be used in arguments about gays in the military, etc.

Spot on Virus, these things are entirely irrelevant. There is an assumption that personal action or intention qualify as definition, but it doesn't actually hold up under logical scrutiny.

There are physical behaviours that we would categorise as homosexual acts (same sex fellatio/sodomy being the front runners), but if you aren't actively engaged in the acts is it logical to categorise you as homosexual as a state of being, or is fairer to say you are presently engaged in homosexual activity? What if you only imagine performing the acts but never act upon them? Can you truly be classed as homosexual based solely on intent? We all have murderous thoughts at times, are we therefore all murderers? I like computer games, but is it fair to label me as a gamer when a great deal of my time I'm not gaming, or more accurate to label me presently as a gaming enthusiast?

 

[kineaesth]

There are physical behaviours that we would categorise as homosexual acts (same sex fellatio/sodomy being the front runners), but if you aren't actively engaged in the acts is it logical to categorise you as homosexual as a state of being, or is fairer to say you are presently engaged in homosexual activity?

Ignoring your other words, I shall agree with this. The school of thinking that sexual acts are just acts, with no specific inherent sexuality, makes a lot of sense. However, the majority of people wouldn't accept this. It's a good idea, but doomed in society at present.

 

[Eejit]

Homosexuality isn't just about ****ing other people of the same sex, it can also be about wanting to form a loving, lasting relationship analogous to that of 'man and wife', and sometimes also raising a family together, that's why it deserves more recognition from law whereas someone who gets turned on by his car.

 

[Kadayi]

Homosexuality isn't just about ****ing other people of the same sex, it can also be about wanting to form a loving, lasting relationship analogous to that of 'man and wife', and sometimes also raising a family together, that's why it deserves more recognition from law whereas someone who gets turned on by his car.

Can you have a loving, lasting relationship without the ****ing that equally deserves recognition?

 

[Eejit]

Can you have a loving, lasting relationship without the ****ing that equally deserves recognition?

With a person, or a car?

 

[Kadayi]

With a person, or a car?

Either

 

[Eejit]

Well no, you can't have a relationship with an inanimate object. That's my point. You say that there's no difference between homosexuality and being attracted to a car. There is. The potential for an actual relationship.

 

[CyberPitz]

Why the **** is this thread about ****ing cars and gays?

 

[CptStern]

Indulge me

but the scenario is idiotic and I've already stateed that you somehow believe technology will advance in 2300 years but not the way society looks at issues. humanity will stay exactyly where it is today, on an ethical standpoint, just like 200 years ago when our ancestors pondered what the effect on our morals stem cell research would have. seriously how am I supposed to do this? pin a few scenarios to a wall and throw darts? anyways your point holds zero validity because machine =/= man. throwing in conditionals does nothing to support it as a valid analogy

A lot of legal cases revolve around people feeling they are forced to leave, rather than being passed over. Esp if the environment is hostile, so mockery is a valid issue.

ok so that's up to a judge to decide whether it was discrimination or not. I fail to see how this supports anything you're saying. whether they're fat, gay, black, purple, love wearing lingerine under their police unifoorm etc ..the law sees no distinction IF the discrimination is based on race, creed, clour or religion ..it doesnt cover furry suits

There are plenty of cases of formerly married men, some of whom have had children who've then changed teams in later life (one of my bosses had 3 kids before he decided to 'come out' ). Were they just confused or did their appetites change?

look for a seemingly intelligent person you keep bringing up the idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice rather than the way they are ...which kinda calls into question the intelligent part. you bring up speculative scenario after scenario to prove your point but in reality it doesnt because most people dont wake up one morning and say "hey I think from now on I'm only sucking cocks" as you suggest time and time again. they were always gay. this is supported time and time again by real people's experiences

take this guy for example:

James Melville White (born 1940) is an American clergyman and author. White was a behind-the-scenes member of the Evangelical Protestant movement through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, writing speeches and ghostwriting books for televangelists such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Billy Graham.

In 1962, .. he married his wife Lyla. They had two children, one of whom is the actor/comedian and screenwriter Mike White.

After years of writing for the Christian right, he came out as gay in 1994

After their marriage, Mel White admitted to his wife that he had always been attracted to men. He embarked on a long process of attempted cures for his homosexuality, including psychotherapy, prayer, electroconvulsive therapy, and exorcism. None of these techniques changed his homosexuality, and after he attempted suicide, he and his wife agreed to an amicable divorce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_White

if he sounds familiar it's because he and his son were contestants in the current season of the Amazing Race

I keep seeing you suggest that it's a lifestyle choice and I have to question why you would keep pushing that idea ..the only thing I can come up with is that it's thinly disguised homophobia. it's a logical conclusion so dont shoot me

Then why delineate at all beyond physical differences? Does a penchant for same sex sodomy really constitute a need for 'special' treatment in the eyes of the law and society at the end of the day? It's utterly absurd when you think about it. Such a trivial thing.

you are defining them by the act, the law does not, because their is no law to define homosexuality. for example sodomy laws were enacted to target gays but as written in the law books it doesnt specifically say gays. it was just a way to prosecute gay bathhouses at the time

 

[The Monkey]

There is a clear and tangible differential between the sexes therefore to talk about men and women as separate entities, is logically acceptable.

The different set of characteristics that men supposedly have and women not, and vice versa, are only existent due to expectations on members of both sexes by society. Girls and boys are being fed gender roles at a very early stage and told that they should embody certain traits of the feminine or masculine archetype. Every and all differences, beyond the physical, attributed to either gender are products of the environment, nothing more.

Read some Simone de Beauvoir when you're finished with Wittgenstein, please.

 

[VirusType2]

The different set of characteristics that men supposedly have and women not, and vice versa, are only existent due to expectations on members of both sexes by society. Girls and boys are being fed gender roles at a very early stage and told that they should embody certain traits of the feminine or masculine archetype. Every and all differences, beyond the physical, attributed to either gender are products of the environment, nothing more.

Read some Simone de Beauvoir when you're finished with Wittgenstein, please.

Men only like reading books about women that have pictures... if you know what I mean.

Maybe that's why Men don't ****ing understand them.

 

[Kadayi]

The different set of characteristics that men supposedly have and women not, and vice versa, are only existent due to expectations on members of both sexes by society. Girls and boys are being fed gender roles at a very early stage and told that they should embody certain traits of the feminine or masculine archetype. Every and all differences, beyond the physical, attributed to either gender are products of the environment, nothing more.

Read some Simone de Beauvoir when you're finished with Wittgenstein, please.

Learn biology :dozey:

Well no, you can't have a relationship with an inanimate object. That's my point. You say that there's no difference between homosexuality and being attracted to a car. There is. The potential for an actual relationship.

Ignore the car, and instead answer the original question.

look for a seemingly intelligent person you keep bringing up the idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice rather than the way they are ...which kinda calls into question the intelligent part. you bring up speculative scenario after scenario to prove your point but in reality it doesnt because most people dont wake up one morning and say "hey I think from now on I'm only sucking cocks" as you suggest time and time again. they were always gay. this is supported time and time again by real people's experiences

Oh we aren't going down the route of the ad hominens again are we? It also is pretty amusing that you claim to be a global mind reader as well (Dr X I think not..). Unless any of you have an actual counter argument that fully refutes the logical position I'm not seeing much point in you continuing to post here. Throw all the accusations at me you want, they don't break the logic. I'd argue the same point of irrelevance when it comes to nationalism. What is 'being American' or 'Un American' same

you are defining them by the act, the law does not, because their is no law to define homosexuality. for example sodomy laws were enacted to target gays but as written in the law books it doesnt specifically say gays. it was just a way to prosecute gay bathhouses at the time

I don't give a shit about legal definitions. I'm on about philosophical positions. How else exactly do you categorise some one save through their actions and activities? Am I a novelist if I never write a book? Am I a painter if I never paint a picture? Of course not. But is it also realistic to say if I painted a picture when I was 5 and never picked up a paint brush again for the rest of my life am I still a painter? Certainly it can be said 'he painted this age 5' or I could say 'I have painted' but to say 'I'm a painter' wouldn't really be correct would it?

 

[The Monkey]

Learn biology :dozey:

No, you teach me.

 

[Kadayi]

No, you teach me.

That's your counter? No you? Seriously you just tried to argue that the main difference between men and women is upbringing, completely skipping over the whole biological/genital delineation. I can't say that there are (m)any scientists out there who would remotely support that stance. I'd say the genitals/genetic code have it when it comes to defining what makes a man and what makes a woman.... :dozey:

 

[CptStern]

Oh we aren't going down the route of the ad hominens again are we? It also is pretty amusing that you claim to be a global mind reader as well (Dr X I think not..). Unless any of you have an actual counter argument that fully refutes the logical position I'm not seeing much point in you continuing to post here. Throw all the accusations at me you want, they don't break the logic. I'd argue the same point of irrelevance when it comes to nationalism. What is 'being American' or 'Un American' same

lol yet another example of your irrational outbursts. you take things waaaaaay too personally; like I said that's how it comes across. you doth protest too much that gays are a personal choice rather than being made. I'm just calling it as I see it. you could easily have set me straight by further explaining your position but instead you turn to on me instead. ...kinda like what you're accusing me of (inaccurately so). Also in this thread YOU are the only person being belligerent and condescending.

I don't give a shit about legal definitions. I'm on about philosophical positions.

whio the **** cares what the hell will happen in 200 years. it doesnt relate to this AT ALL. you either like the sound of your own voice or you're trying to change the subject to something you want it to be. you definately said that furries and autophiles are not protected by the same laws as race creed clour etc ..well how can you have a discussion on a law without discussing the law? really you just bait and switch issues when you cant answer them

How else exactly do you categorise some one save through their actions and activities?

you boiled it down to sodomy. there's more to being gay than simply sticking your dick in someone's pooper just like there's more to heterosexuality than vaginal sex

Am I a novelist if I never write a book? Am I a painter if I never paint a picture? Of course not.

you're comparing a profession with sexual identity ...inaccurately I might add ...so are virgins not heterosexual, homosexual, trisexual, omni-sexual or whatever because they havent had sex? you seem to think you cant be gay unless you've traveled the hershy highway. that's a ridiculous point to make

But is it also realistic to say if I painted a picture when I was 5 and never picked up a paint brush again for the rest of my life am I still a painter? Certainly it can be said 'he painted this age 5' or I could say 'I have painted' but to say 'I'm a painter' wouldn't really be correct would it?

you're clutching at straws by inventing scenarios that doesnt pan out in the slightest. Every freakin 5 year old on this planet is a painter by your strict interpretation ...although that doesnt make them a painter. the person would have to make a career out of his painting to be considered a painter ..even if he never sells a painting he's still a painter because that's his chosen career path

again virgins are not defined by an act ..so how can you possibly co-relate that to homosexuality or any sexual orientation if the act does NOT define it?

 

[PvtRyan]

The sexual act in its fullness is an act that ultimately leads to procreation. Anything else is just group masturbation when you boil it down to its essence. How people float their boat is entirely up to them, but contrary to popular belief, the notion that homosexuality is anything more than a personal sexual predilection is a mistaken one (the 'gay' gene theory was a myth). There is nothing natural about it. You might as well argue that Furries or autophiles should be allowed equal rights.

Really? This list of animals displaying homosexual behavior disagrees with you:

Birds:

* Acorn Woodpecker[18]
* Adelie Penguin[19]
* American Flamingo[20]
* American Herring Gull[21]
* Anna's Hummingbird[22]
* Australian Shelduck[23]
* Aztec Parakeet[24]
* Bengalese Finch (Domestic)[25]
* Bank Swallow[26]
* Barn Owl[27]
* Bicolored Antbird[28]
* Black-billed Magpie[29]
* Black-crowned Night Heron[30]
* Black-headed Gull[31]
* Black-rumped Flameback[18]
* Black Stilt[32]
* Black Swan[16][33]
* Black-winged Stilt[32]
* Blue-backed Manakin[34]
* Blue-bellied Roller[35]
* Blue Tit[36]
* Blue-winged Teal[37]
* Brown-headed Cowbird[38]
* Budgerigar (Domestic)[39]
* Buff-breasted Sandpiper[40]
* Calfbird[41]
* California Gull[42]
* Canada Goose[43]
* Canary-winged Parakeet[24]
* Caspian Tern[44]
* Cattle Egret[45]
* Chaffinch[46]
* Chicken (Domestic)[47]
* Chilean Flamingo[20]
* Chiloe Wigeon[37]
* Chinstrap penguin[1]
* Cliff Swallow[26]
* Common Gull[42]
* Common Murre[48]
* Common Shelduck[23]
* Crane spp.[49]
* Dusky Moorhen[49]
* Eastern Bluebird[36]
* Egyptian Goose[23]
* Elegant Parrot[24]
* Emu[50]
* Eurasian Oystercatcher[51]
* European Jay[29]
* European Shag[52]
* Galah[24]
* Gentoo Penguin[19]
* Golden Bishop Bird[53]
* Golden Plover[51]
* Gray-breasted Jay[29]
* Gray-capped Social Weaver[54]
* Gray Heron[45]
* Great Cormorant[52]
* Greater Bird of Paradise[55]
* Greater Flamingo[20]
* Greater Rhea[50]
* Green Sandpiper[56]
* Greenshank[57]
* Greylag Goose[58]
* Griffon Vulture[27]
* Guianan Cock-of-the-Rock[14][59]
* Guillemot[48]
* Hammerhead (also known as Hammerkop)[60]
* Herring Gull[21]
* Hoary-headed Grebe[61]
* Hooded Warbler[62]
* House Sparrow[38]
* Humboldt Penguin[19]
* Ivory Gull[63]
* Jackdaw[29]
* Kestrel[27]
* King Penguin[19]
* Kittiwake[64]
* Laughing Gull[65]
* Laysan Albatross[48]
* Lesser Flamingo[20]
* Lesser Scaup Duck[23]
* Little Blue Heron[45]
* Little Egret[45]
* Long-tailed Hermit Hummingbird[22]
* Lory spp.[24]
* Mallard[37]
* Masked Lovebird[24]
* Mealy Amazon Parrot[24]
* Mew Gull[42]
* Mexican Jay[66]
* Musk Duck[23]
* Mute Swan[67]
* Ocellated Antbird[28]
* Ocher-bellied Flycatcher[68]
* Orange Bishop Bird[69]
* Orange-fronted Parakeet[24]
* Ornate Lorikeet[24]
* Ostrich[50]
* Peach-faced Lovebird[24]
* Pied Flycatcher[70]
* Pied Kingfisher[35]
* Pigeon (Domestic)[71]
* Powerful Owl[72]
* Purple Swamphen[49]
* Raggiana's Bird of Paradise[73]
* Raven[29]
* Razorbill[48]
* Red-backed Shrike[36]
* Red Bishop Bird[74]
* Red-faced Lovebird[24]
* Redshank[75]
* Red-shouldered Widowbird[76]
* Regent Bowerbird[77]
* Ring-billed Gull[42]
* Ring Dove[78]
* Rock Dove[79]
* Roseate Tern[44]
* Rose-ringed Parakeet[24]
* Ruff[40]
* Ruffed Grouse[80]
* Sage Grouse[81]
* San Blas Jay[29]
* Sand Martin[26]
* Satin Bowerbird[82]
* Scarlet Ibis[20]
* Scottish Crossbill[46]
* Senegal Parrot[24]
* Sharp-tailed Sparrow[83]
* Silver Gull[21]
* Silvery Grebe[61]
* Snow Goose[43]
* Steller's Sea Eagle[84]
* Superb Lyrebird[85]
* Swallow-tailed Manakin[34]
* Tasmanian Native Hen[49]
* Tree Swallow[86]
* Trumpeter Swan[87]
* Turkey (Domestic)[88]
* Victoria's Riflebird[89]
* Wattled Starling[38]
* Western Gull[90]
* White-fronted Amazon Parrot[24]
* White Stork[91]
* Wood Duck[37]
* Yellow-backed Lorikeet[24]
* Yellow-rumped Cacique[92]
* Zebra Finch (Domestic)[93]

Mammals:

* African Buffalo[21]
* African Elephant[22]
* Agile Wallaby[23]
* Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)[19]
* American Bison[21][24]
* Antelope[25]
* Asian Elephant[22]
* Asiatic Lion[26]
* Asiatic Mouflon[27]
* Atlantic Spotted Dolphin[19]
* Australian Sea Lion[28]
* Barasingha[29]
* Barbary Sheep[30]
* Beluga[31]
* Bharal[32]
* Bighorn Sheep[30]
* Black Bear[33]
* Blackbuck[34]
* Black-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
* Black-tailed Deer[29]
* Bonnet Macaque[14]
* Bonobo[35][36][37]
* Bottlenose Dolphin[19][38]
* Bowhead Whale[19]
* Brazilian Guinea Pig[39]
* Bridled Dolphin[19]
* Brown Bear[33]
* Brown Capuchin[40]
* Brown Long-eared Bat[41]
* Brown Rat[42]
* Buffalo[30]
* Caribou[43]
* Cat (domestic)[44]
* Cattle (domestic)[45]
* Cheetah[26]
* Collared Peccary[46]
* Commerson's Dolphin[19]
* Common Brushtail Possum[47]
* Common Chimpanzee[48]
* Common Dolphin[31]
* Common Marmoset[49]
* Common Pipistrelle[50]
* Common Raccoon[51]
* Common Tree Shrew[52]
* Cotton-top Tamarin[53]
* Crab-eating Macaque[14]
* Crested Black Macaque[14]
* Cui[54]
* Dall's Sheep[30]
* Daubenton's Bat[41]
* Dog (domestic)[55]
* Doria's Tree Kangaroo[23]
* Dugong[56]
* Dwarf Cavy[39]
* Dwarf Mongoose[57]
* Eastern Cottontail Rabbit[58]
* Eastern Grey Kangaroo[23]
* Elk[29]
* Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)[23]
* European Bison[21]
* Fallow Deer[29]
* False Killer Whale[19]
* Fat-tailed Dunnart[59]
* Fin Whale[19]
* Fox[60]
* Gazelle[25]
* Gelada Baboon[61]
* Giraffe[25][4][62]
* Goat (Domestic)[30]
* Golden Monkey[63]
* Gorilla[64]
* Grant's Gazelle[25]
* Grey-headed Flying Fox[41]
* Grey Seal[28]
* Grey squirrel[65]
* Grey Whale[19][66]
* Grey Wolf[67]
* Grizzly Bear[33]
* Guinea Pig (Domestic)[39]
* Hamadryas Baboon[68]
* Hamster (Domestic)[39]
* Hanuman Langur[69]
* Harbor Porpoise[70]
* Harbor Seal[28]
* Himalayan Tahr[71]
* Hoary Marmot[72]
* Horse (domestic)[73]
* Human (see Human sexual behavior)
* Indian Fruit Bat[41]
* Indian Muntjac[74]
* Indian Rhinoceros[75]
* Japanese Macaque[14]
* Javelina[76]
* Kangaroo Rat[42]
* Killer Whale[19]
* Koala[77]
* Kob[78][79]
* Larga Seal[28]
* Least Chipmunk[80]
* Lechwe[81]
* Lesser Bushbaby[82]
* Lion[26][83][84][85][86][87]
* Lion-tailed Macaque[14]
* Lion Tamarin[88]
* Little Brown Bat[41]
* Livingstone's Fruit Bat[41]
* Long-eared Hedgehog[89]
* Long-footed Tree Shrew[90]
* Macaque[91]
* Markhor[92]
* Marten[93]
* Matschie's Tree Kangaroo[23]
* Moco[94]
* Mohol Galago[82]
* Moor Macaque[14]
* Moose[95]
* Mountain Goat[30]
* Mountain Tree Shrew[96]
* Mountain Zebra[97]
* Mouse (domestic)[98]
* Moustached Tamarin[99]
* Mule Deer[29]
* Musk-ox[100]
* Natterer's Bat[41]
* New Zealand Sea Lion[28]
* Nilgiri Langur[101]
* Noctule[102]
* North American Porcupine[103]
* Northern Elephant Seal[28]
* Northern Fur Seal[28]
* Northern Quoll[104]
* Olympic Marmot[105]
* Orangutan[106]
* Orca[31]
* Pacific Striped Dolphin[19]
* Patas Monkey[107]
* Pere David's Deer[29]
* Pig (Domestic)[108]
* Pig-tailed Macaque[14]
* Plains Zebra[109]
* Polar Bear[33]
* Pretty-faced Wallaby[23]
* Proboscis Monkey[110]
* Pronghorn[111]
* Przewalski's Horse[112]
* Puku[113]
* Quokka[114]
* Rabbit[115]
* Raccoon Dog[116]
* Red Deer[29]
* Red Fox[117]
* Red Kangaroo[23]
* Red-necked Wallaby[23]
* Red Squirrel[118]
* Reeves's Muntjac[119]
* Reindeer[43]
* Rhesus Macaque[14]
* Right Whale[19]
* Rock Cavy[39]
* Rodrigues Fruit Bat[41]
* Roe Deer[29]
* Rufous Bettong[120]
* Rufous-naped Tamarin[53]
* Rufous Rat Kangaroo[23]
* Saddle-back Tamarin[53]
* Savanna Baboon[121]
* Sea Otter[122]
* Serotine Bat[41]
* Sheep (Domestic)[30][123]
* Siamang[124]
* Sika Deer[29]
* Slender Tree Shrew[125]
* Sooty Mangabey[126]
* Sperm Whale[19]
* Spinifex Hopping Mouse[127]
* Spinner Dolphin[19]
* Spotted Hyena[18][16]
* Spotted Seal[28]
* Squirrel Monkey[128]
* Striped Dolphin[19]
* Stuart's Marsupial Mouse[129]
* Stumptail Macaque[14]
* Swamp Deer[29]
* Swamp Wallaby[23]
* Takhi[112]
* Talapoin[130]
* Tammar Wallaby[23]
* Tasmanian Devil[131]
* Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo[23]
* Thinhorn Sheep[30]
* Thomson's Gazelle[25]
* Tiger[132]
* Tonkean Macaque[14]
* Tucuxi[133]
* Urial[134]
* Vampire Bat[41]
* Verreaux's Sifaka[135]
* Vervet[136]
* Vicuna[137]
* Walrus[138][139]
* Wapiti[140]
* Warthog[141]
* Waterbuck[142]
* Water Buffalo[30]
* Weeper Capuchin[40]
* Western Grey Kangaroo[23]
* West Indian Manatee[143]
* Whiptail Wallaby[23]
* White-faced Capuchin[40]
* White-fronted Capuchin[40]
* White-handed Gibbon[144]
* White-lipped Peccary[145]
* White-tailed Deer[29]
* Wild Cavy[39]
* Wild Goat[30]
* Wisent[21]
* Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
* Yellow-toothed Cavy[39]

Etc, etc.

There's no single 'gay gene' that acts like a switch between straight/gay, there's a whole lot of factors that determine your sexuality, but if you think biology has nothing to do with it, you're a retard.

 

[VirusType2]

Am I a painter if I never paint a picture? Of course not. But is it also realistic to say if I painted a picture when I was 5 and never picked up a paint brush again for the rest of my life am I still a painter? Certainly it can be said 'he painted this age 5' or I could say 'I have painted' but to say 'I'm a painter' wouldn't really be correct would it?

Yet you can still be gay if you've never had any sex with the same sex. People that chose not to act on their desires.


And what you're saying is, a man isn't gay even if he has had anal sex with men for 20 years, as long as he isn't in the act when you ask him if he is gay? Or if he decided that he would stop having sex with men. Yep. Still gay.

What makes someone gay or not, is whether they sexually desire a member of the same sex.

 

[Kadayi]

*snip

I've merely pointed out the inherent logical absurdity of certain presumptions many people make. I'm sorry if any of you find that' offensive' because it doesn't support your tidy world view of generalisations and neat categories, but unfortunately until you can provide an alternative philosophical position (and revolutionise 20th century philosophical thought in the process) there really isn't much you can say that is going to change it regardless of how you move the pieces around the board no matter how much you quote mine, misinterpret or raise your voice. KineticAesthetic understand the position, why can't you?

There's no single 'gay gene' that acts like a switch between straight/gay, there's a whole lot of factors that determine your sexuality, but if you think biology has nothing to do with it, you're a retard.

Without genetic evidence to support your position your pretty much clutching at interpretive straws and presenting them as fact. Hell, I can remember coming home one day from school and finding the dog ****ing the cat. Should we determine therefore that dogs are into bestiality and perhaps do a study? Or would it be just as fair to conclude that animals are dumb, horny and will happily accept any port in a storm?

Yet you can still be gay if you've never had any sex with the same sex. People that chose not to act on their desires.

And what you're saying is, a man isn't gay even if he has had anal sex with men for 20 years, as long as he isn't in the act when you ask him if he is gay? Or if he decided that he would stop having sex with men. Yep. Still gay.

What makes someone gay or not, is whether they sexually desire a member of the same sex.

So by that rationale even though I never killed lil timmy at school I'm a murderer because I thought about it?

 

[The Monkey]

That's your counter? No you? Seriously you just tried to argue that the main difference between men and women is upbringing, completely skipping over the whole biological/genital delineation. I can't say that there are (m)any scientists out there who would remotely support that stance. I'd say the genitals/genetic code have it when it comes to defining what makes a man and what makes a woman.... :dozey:

No, as in you explain to me what the genetic scientists say about the subject. There's nothing to my knowledge to indicate that there's anything biological that would lead to different personalities in men and women. Genders are social constructions, and breaking free of them is something I've seen many people do, and they've lived much richer lives because of it.

 

[Kadayi]

No, as in you explain to me what the genetic scientists say about the subject. There's nothing to my knowledge to indicate that there's anything biological that would lead to different personalities in men and women. Genders are social constructions, and breaking free of them is something I've seen many people do, and they've lived much richer lives because of it.

I think you've misinterpreted what I said:-

There is a clear and tangible differential between the sexes therefore to talk about men and women as separate entities, is logically acceptable.

I'm on about physical differences not cultural gender issues. Probably a better way of couching it would be this:-

There is a clear and tangible differential between the sexes therefore to talk about male and female as separate entities, is logically acceptable.

 

[VirusType2]

So by that rationale even though I never killed lil timmy at school I'm a murderer because I thought about it?

lolol rationale?

homosexual:

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
— ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly adverb

 

[Kadayi]

lolol rationale?

homosexual:

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
— ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly adverb

Quoting the dictionary, all well and good except that the whole point of what Wittgenstein talked about was the inaccuracy of language and the inconsistency of its application. If I have murderous thoughts does that me a murderer? If a rule is applicable in one way, that say having sexual thoughts regarding another man makes me a homosexual, even if I don't act on them, then the same must be true of other thoughts as well such as thoughts about murder, rape, and robbery for example. Do you see the problem with that?

 

[Vegeta897]

Quoting the dictionary, all well and good except that the whole point of what Wittgenstein talked about was the inaccuracy of language and the inconsistency of its application. If I have murderous thoughts does that me a murderer? If a rule is applicable in one way, that say having sexual thoughts regarding another man makes me a homosexual, even if I don't act on them, then the same must be true of other thoughts as well such as thoughts about murder, rape, and robbery for example. Do you see the problem with that?

Except the key difference you seem to not understand is morality. You are not a murderer because you know right from wrong. You are not a rapist because you know right from wrong. Anyone can have thoughts of committing a crime. I may be a pedophile but I'm not a bad person because I know right from wrong.

Homosexuality is nothing of the sort, and doesn't even rely on actions like murder or rape does. Simply sexually/emotionally/whateverly desiring men is all that is required.

 

[Kadayi]

Except the key difference you seem to not understand is morality. You are not a murderer because you know right from wrong. You are not a rapist because you know right from wrong. Anyone can have thoughts of committing a crime. I may be a pedophile but I'm not a bad person because I know right from wrong.

Homosexuality is nothing of the sort, and doesn't even rely on actions like murder or rape does. Simply sexually/emotionally/whateverly desiring men is all that is required.

It's not about morality it's about thought as intention. Imagining I'm painting a picture or imagining I'm writing a novel, don't qualify me to be either considered a painter or a novelist. In exactly the same way that me merely thinking of murder doesn't make me a murderer. A person can only be truly assessed on their actual actions, but given peoples actions are of a time and subject to change quantifying people based upon them is at best an erroneous pursuit.

 

[Maturin]

How people float their boat is entirely up to them, but contrary to popular belief, the notion that homosexuality is anything more than a personal sexual predilection is a mistaken one (the 'gay' gene theory was a myth). There is nothing natural about it. You might as well argue that Furries or autophiles should be allowed equal rights.

I can only assume that anyone who says this has never had an erection.

 

[Vegeta897]

It's not about morality it's about thought as intention. Imagining I'm painting a picture or imagining I'm writing a novel, don't qualify me to be either considered a painter or a novelist. In exactly the same way that me merely thinking of murder doesn't make me a murderer. A person can only be truly assessed on their actual actions, but given peoples actions are of a time and subject to change quantifying people based upon them is at best an erroneous pursuit.

So, what, I'm not a pedophile? Because I don't go out molesting children?

Phew, that's a relief.

 

[Kadayi]

I can only assume that anyone who says this has never had an erection.

Because the gay 'gene' is a myth? :dozey:

So, what, I'm not a pedophile? Because I don't go out molesting children?.

Possessing child pornography is still a crime however vegeta :dozey:

 

[Sledgehammer]

ITT: Kadayi vs. World

 

[Vegeta897]

Possessing child pornography is still a crime however vegeta :dozey:

Good thing drawings are not child pornography.

 

[Kadayi]

ITT: Logic vs. emotion

Fixed.

Good thing drawings are not child pornography.

I'd leave that to the Judge to decide

 

[Vegeta897]

I'd leave that to the Judge to decide

Ok, but I don't live in countries like the UK or New Zealand where it's illegal. So I'll leave the judge to not care.