is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?

[dubman]

i literally scream everything i write.
i *do* have you on ignore, i just get logged out an awful lot.

besides, why is it on me to avoid you?
you should stop posting.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

You are just so cute when you get pissed off. I could just pinch your cheeks(on your face).

Please, just ignore me, I have more fun just reading what you have to say about what's going on with the other voices here.

Oh, and with this little shit right here:

Originally Posted by dubman

you should stop posting.

Mum always told me when people tell you can't do what they do, you just do more. Pisses them off.

[dubman]

people refrain from talking to you directly because they think you're autistic and they would feel bad

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by myrrh

we are both as a sex, either male or female. Therefor the natural disposition of a male species is to be with the female of that species and vice versa.

The above premise/conclusion is decidedly shaky, mostly I think because of that phrase 'natural disposition'.

Yes we can deduce that we are split into male or female, because of natural reproduction, because that's what has enabled the continuation of the species. So yes, obviously there is a reason for the two separate sexes, absolutely. Not only that, the majority of our species has a natural disposition - or inclination, if you like - to members of the opposite sex. Again, obviously, and the reasons are apparent to anyone.

However..... what is ALSO natural - and this is what you're glossing over - is that there exists a fairly significant minority with a disposition towards members of the same sex. A disposition that occurs just as naturally, even though it doesn't contribute to sexual reproduction.

You're effectively only commenting on what you think should be the universally natural order of things - based on procreation. I think I'm providing a more realistic and honest account of what the natural order is. Ie. for whatever reason, there exists a certain percentage of us who are gay.

Insisting that there exists a single 'natural disposition' actually doesn't tell us anything of substance beyond what I've been willing to acknowledge. All it does is imply - in a somewhat vague way - some higher purpose that things should be universally this way. Well maybe they should and maybe homosexuals are - from an evolutionary perspective - defective. I'm not offended if anyone wants to speculate in that way because it's essentially a scientific and philosophical question. Evolutionary biologists have some interesting things to say about it. But the point is, things are not universally that way, and protesting "but they should be!" is pretty pointless.

Originally Posted by myrrh

I am just stating this because I am not sure if you meant that a virgin can be both a homosexual and a heterosexual (as in the same time), or they can be either one or the other.

The virgin reference was to make the point that you don't have to have ever had sex to still be classed as, say, heterosexual. In other words, homosexual and heterosexual usually refers to sexual orientation rather than sexual activity. I was just trying to establish a common definition (and trying to avoid that godawful phrase "practising homosexual").

Originally Posted by myrrh

This I wholeheartedly disagree with. So there is no point in debating what followed it because it is based off your belief in the above.

OK, but I think I've explained elsewhere the reasoning behind it.

If we're getting hung up on that natural disposition phrase, then let me ask you: would you agree that same-sex attraction occurs naturally to the 6% or whatever of the population? By natural, I specifically mean in the sense of being hard-wired into us. For the moment, don't think about whether or not we choose to act on our feelings, or dwell on the fact that such activity is not compatible with sexual reproduction - just tell me whether you accept that same-sex attraction occurs naturally - in nature?

If it does, it is natural. The fact that homosexuals still happen to have genitals that can fit into the genitals of a person of the opposite sex does not change the fact that the same-sex attraction is still naturally occurring and possibly genetically-predetermined.

If you don't believe it occurs naturally and isn't as hard-wired as opposite-sex attraction is to you, then who or what is responsible for this sexual orientation? The devil?

And what of the 1,500 or so other species in which homosexual activity has been recorded?

Originally Posted by myrrh

I would say that it is our natural disposition that instinctually tells us what is right and wrong.

I think you would be interested to study the origin of ethics - specifically, the evolutionary origin, or at least ethics in the animal kingdom generally. It's quite humbling. That's not to deny we don't each have our personal code of morals, whether it's rooted in the golden rule or the idea of consenting adults and not causing harm, etc. But it's useful, if for no other reason than to keep our egos in check.

But with regard to homosexuality, you have still not laid out how or why not contributing to sexual reproduction prompts a moral dimension to take over once we act on those feelings. Why does a biological issue have to become a moral issue? Or at least, acting on our biological inclination - given that no harm needs to be caused to anyone else, and both parties consent? Why the heck does morality have to be introduced at this point?

I know you're keen to emphasize that these are all your own personally held views, but in truth I think you're not being completely honest with us, and the moral dimension is in fact introduced from your religion. You're just trying to make the beliefs sound more reasoned than they are by avoiding referring to Islaam explicitly, which I guess is understandable given all the times we've criticised you for it over the years. However, the strangely arbitrary point at which morality lands into the argument is, I think, the point at which the influence of your religion's teachings is exposed.

Feel free to convince me otherwise though, that there is a rational basis for this moral angle that can be explained independent of religion.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by myrrh

If we were born without sexual organs, and they developed after 10 years, then you would have a point. However, we are both as a sex, either male or female. Therefor the natural disposition of a male species is to be with the female of that species and vice versa. Like I said, you may have feels towards a member of the same sex, but to act upon them goes against this natural disposition.

Well, we're only born with a partially formed set of sexual equipment really. Sure, the wee-wee and hoo-hoo are there, but that's only the most visible portion of the entire sexual package - the hormones and chemicals necessary to activate everything sexually like sperm and egg production don't kick in for a good decade at least. So effectively, we are indeed born asexual.

[cacophony]

here's a random fact: every single one of us, male and female, started out as a female embryo. the male chromosome doesn't kick in until a few weeks after fertilization.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by dubman

people refrain from talking to you directly because they think you're autistic and they would feel bad

lol this rules.

john, fuck off already.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by myrrh

They don't resort to the snide bullshit like was quoted here, that tends to be spit out by many. Because of this, I can sit and discuss things with them, and people like them, even on points where we clearly disagree. I don't feel that I disrespect them (or anyone) with my posts, either

You are right. Sean and Deckard are more respectful and articulate. Which is why I hold the amount of respect I do for them.

Doesn't mean I want to take back what I posted, even if you felt disrespected, which was not my intention at all. You clearly have a problem with some of our lifestyle choices, even though you are clearly trying to persuade us that you don't judge us or anybody in particular. Maybe Sean and Deckard have the courtesy to rerfrain from turning that on its head towards you, but I don't.

I have serious problems with the life choices and attitudes that your posts represent. So is it really my invective that you find disrespectful, or that someone would actually have the nerve to tell you this?

Because, as little as you care for my ideas/posts, I find it very advantageous to read your ideas because of how contrary they are to my personal views.

[Deckard]

I would hardly call you less articulate, my friend!

In all honesty, you say what I think Sean and I probably feel like saying anyway. It's a good arrangement. You take the flak, we get the credit.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Deckard

The above premise/conclusion is decidedly shaky, mostly I think because of that phrase 'natural disposition'.

Yes we can deduce that we are split into male or female, because of natural reproduction, because that's what has enabled the continuation of the species. So yes, obviously there is a reason for the two separate sexes, absolutely. Not only that, the majority of our species has a natural disposition - or inclination, if you like - to members of the opposite sex. Again, obviously, and the reasons are apparent to anyone.

As well as an individual's sexual "desire"(I'm sure there's a better, scientific term for this, but I'm being all Freudian Autistic) does not become an awareness to the individual until around the age of 5.

Originally Posted by Deckard

If we're getting hung up on that natural disposition phrase, then let me ask you: would you agree that same-sex attraction occurs naturally to the 6% or whatever of the population?

That percentage is way off, more like 10-15%.

Originally Posted by dubman

people refrain from talking to you directly because they think you're autistic and they would feel bad

Originally Posted by Strangelet

lol this rules.

john, fuck off already.

Oh I do declare, ya'll ah fightin' ova my love. My heart is justa pitter apatterin'.