Homosexuality, Choice or Genetic

Damici · December 20, 2007, 6:31pm

In Papau New Guinea they view sex (by men) with women as an undesirable anomaly, and do it on very rare occasions solely for the purpose of procreation. They normally have sex with young/adolescent boys; that’s what they view as the norm as far as sexual activity. (This is true)!

It’s true that butt-sex in general is an easier way to transmit HIV than vaginal or oral sex. No arguing that. But what’s the point of seizing on that point? You’re not going to (nor should you try to) regulate what people do in their own bedrooms. Other than educating the public about condom use, there’s nothing else to be done about it.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I meant it in a moral sense - my point was that cultures other than those that have a Biblical base have had various biases against homosexual activity and its practitioners, so you can’t just blame it on the Bible.

If you mean “wrong” in a risk-based sense so that there could be a public health reason for regulation, then it would probably be more correct to focus on anal sex rather than homosexual activity. But gay men are subject to a much greater risk from the sexual activity in which they tend to engage than are heterosexuals, on average, in the U.S.

See: The Volokh Conspiracy - -

[/quote]

Damici · December 20, 2007, 6:45pm

Suppose you’re sitting on your couch comfortably, shoes off. Your shoes are sitting on the floor right next to you. You see a giant cockroach start walking across your floor. You grab one of your shoes. BAM!!! Cockroach killed. Problem solved. This was not the shoemaker’s intended purpose. But did it effectively solve your problem? Yes indeed. Was any harm done? No! You’ll simply clean off the bottom of your show with a wet paper towel, wipe the bug guts from the floor and go on with your life. No “eee-vil” consequences whatsoever.

You point out some good examples of things (like communism) going against human nature which therefore end in bad results. But they’re not really analogous to the issue of homosexuality. Communism/socialism, to take an example, didn’t work because a worker in a factor in the old USSR had zero motivation to work harder or innovate in any way – he just got his paycheck for punching the ticket every day. Working any harder than necessary for the same net result (paycheck) went against the INDIVIDUAL’S natural instinct.

A gay INDIVIDUAL’S natural instinct is to hook up with people of the same sex. To them, that is their “nature.” For a gay man, other men are what make their dicks stand. You can’t change them by telling them, “Goshdarnit, you’re just not tryin’ hard enough, bud! Try reeeeally hard now! Concentrate! Close yer eyes and just think of it – pussy! Pussy, pussy, pussy!! See?! Is yer dick standin’ now?!” Won’t work. Same way it wouldn’t work if someone tried to tell you to try really hard so you’d get aroused over another dude.

Obviously, a penis WAS designed to deliver sperm to a vagina. But the penis and the vag/clitoris also happen to have been designed to be able to give their owners pleasure in a multitude of ways, as we all know. Was their “invention” mainly intended for reproduction? Of course. But if you’re trying to tell everyone everywhere (straight or gay) that they should use their sexual organs SOLEY and STRICLY for the purpose of reproduction ONLY . . . well, my friend, you’ve got yourself one uphill battle.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Damici wrote:
Alright then, let’s take one of those points on it’s own, specifically the fourth one and the his overall conclusion.

“Since it is not not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.”

“Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.”

Um . . . because something is not based on the premise of creating new life does not in any way mean that it is therefore “based on the premise of death.” Getting your shoes shined is an activity that is not based on the premise of creating new life. That does not therefore mean that getting your shoes shined is “based on the premise of death.” Not whatsoever. Merely saying something does not make it so.

Furthermore, to use silly terms like “death worship” conjures up images of people sitting around deviously rubbing their hands together and chanting, “Die, die, DIE!! I want us all to DIE!!” So it just gets silly at that point – no need to argue using silly terms or accusations like calling people “death worshippers.”

Are homosexuals naturally able to reproduce (putting aside modern possibilities like artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, etc.)? No, of course not. Does that mean that if we allow gay people to be who they are and live the way they want that the human species will ultimately die off?? No, of course not!

See, they’ve been around since the dawn of time and will, as I explained earlier, always be around. They’re a small minority of the population – the gay community claims they’re 10% of the population, but I and many others suspect it’s probably even much smaller than that. Their numbers ARE NOT GROWING. They will ALWAYS be a small minority of the human population (whatever that population number happens to be), precisely because:

a.) They’re not reproducing. (* And those who do adopt children or use artificial insemination, from everything I’ve read so far, raise children that tend to grow up to be STRAIGHT, just as is normally the case with straight parents, which leads us to the next point . . . )

b.) Homosexuality is a recessive trait/gene. Whether it’s a gene, an environmentally formed trait, a hormonal balance issue or some combination of the above, it is a recessive trait. Although the following example is purely and clearly genetic, it illustrates the point just fine: Think of albinos (you know, the people with super-fair skin and almost white-blonde hair). Their population numbers aren’t growing, are they?

Gays are neither breeding a larger number of gays nor are they “indoctrinating” your children into gay-dom.

I’ll say it again: You really have nothing to fear. Live and let live.

tedro wrote:
Damici wrote:

(4) A perversion is an anamoly. Since it is not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.

Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.

The difference is that HH’s argument can stand on its own. He could have left out the Leviticus 4:20 part and the argument would still be valid.

This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate the time you have taken to clearly state your beliefs. Thank you.

Now, if I used my shoes in a way for which shoes were not designed, what would be the result? If I use just about anything for something other than what it was designed for, its usually a bad idea.

I don’t know if God or nature designed us or evolved us. But I do know that going against our nature usually results in disaster. Look at the Soviet Union, where people were supposed to live not for themselves but for society (aka the government). Disaster. Same for Nazi Germany where people were supposed to live for the Aryan Race and not for their own happiness. Disaster.

A lot of evil has come from not recognizing and defining what a human being is.

I think a human penis was intended to deliver sperm into a vagina and hopefully produce another human being. It was not meant to be inserted in an anus, or anything else that happens to be tight and fit nicely. This is a perversion of the pleasure endowed upon orgasm. Of course, people are free to do this because they have free will. They are NOT free to escape the consequences of doing those things.

Usually, there are no consequences. Luck is that way. But of course, then the gay person dies out with no children. Its the end of the line. Stamp the bill as “PAID”.

[/quote]

BostonBarrister · December 20, 2007, 6:52pm

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I meant it in a moral sense - my point was that cultures other than those that have a Biblical base have had various biases against homosexual activity and its practitioners, so you can’t just blame it on the Bible.

Damici wrote:
In Papau New Guinea they view sex (by men) with women as an undesirable anomaly, and do it on very rare occasions solely for the purpose of procreation. They normally have sex with young/adolescent boys; that’s what they view as the norm as far as sexual activity. (This is true)![/quote]

What does that have to do with the invalidity of trying to blame the Bible for all moral condemnation of homosexual activity?

The point was to answer your question.

Related to a much more overarching point, it was that the government might have reasons to take action to discourage those practices. This does not need to mean the criminalization of homosexuality - it could mean providing benefits for its alternative…

On that broader, overarching issue, but addressing different points, here is an interesting post by Megan McArdle entitled: “A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other” ( Asymmetrical Information )

Damici · December 20, 2007, 2:47pm

Regarding your first question (re: the Bible and homosexual activity. The answer: nothing. Someone (not sure if it was you) had simply mentioned that homosexuality was considered by some or many cultures to not be the norm, or accepted (thereby inferring that that must make it right to call it “wrong”). I was merely pointing out that their are cultures that view homosexual activity as THEIR norm.

Regarding the idea of the govt. providing benefits for one sexual orientation and trying to discourage sexual activity of another kind . . . are you kidding me??! Do you honestly think that any government, anywhere, EVER is going to be able to stop the most basic, primal, deeply rooted, hard-wired of human instincts there is, the instinct to fuck??! Dude, people in all different parts of the world, in all differnt cultures and in all different circumstances have tried to impose various rule and regulations on what is and isn’t “allowed” sexually. And always, everywhere, people have found a way to break those rules, because people HAVE SEX. It’s WHAT THEY DO. Gay people happened to have that same deeply rooted, primal drive as you and I do, theirs just happens to be directed at the same gender.

You could make a federal law saying that anyone have anal sex, or oral sex, or sex outside of marriage would immediately be sentenced to 20 years in prison and 100 lashes. Think that would stop it?

Nope.

Please. Don’t tell me you’re going to try to “discourage” certain sexual practices. (So long as they’re all consensual, of course). Then I’ll tell you I’m going to create world peace by next Tuesday.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
I meant it in a moral sense - my point was that cultures other than those that have a Biblical base have had various biases against homosexual activity and its practitioners, so you can’t just blame it on the Bible.

Damici wrote:
In Papau New Guinea they view sex (by men) with women as an undesirable anomaly, and do it on very rare occasions solely for the purpose of procreation. They normally have sex with young/adolescent boys; that’s what they view as the norm as far as sexual activity. (This is true)!

What does that have to do with the invalidity of trying to blame the Bible for all moral condemnation of homosexual activity?

BostonBarrister wrote:

If you mean “wrong” in a risk-based sense so that there could be a public health reason for regulation, then it would probably be more correct to focus on anal sex rather than homosexual activity. But gay men are subject to a much greater risk from the sexual activity in which they tend to engage than are heterosexuals, on average, in the U.S.

See: The Volokh Conspiracy - -

Damici wrote:
It’s true that butt-sex in general is an easier way to transmit HIV than vaginal or oral sex. No arguing that. But what’s the point of seizing on that point? You’re not going to (nor should you try to) regulate what people do in their own bedrooms. Other than educating the public about condom use, there’s nothing else to be done about it.

The point was to answer your question.

Related to a much more overarching point, it was that the government might have reasons to take action to discourage those practices. This does not need to mean the criminalization of homosexuality - it could mean providing benefits for its alternative…

On that broader, overarching issue, but addressing different points, here is an interesting post by Megan McArdle entitled: “A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other” ( Asymmetrical Information )[/quote]

BostonBarrister · December 20, 2007, 9:15pm

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I meant it in a moral sense - my point was that cultures other than those that have a Biblical base have had various biases against homosexual activity and its practitioners, so you can’t just blame it on the Bible.

Damici wrote:
In Papau New Guinea they view sex (by men) with women as an undesirable anomaly, and do it on very rare occasions solely for the purpose of procreation. They normally have sex with young/adolescent boys; that’s what they view as the norm as far as sexual activity. (This is true)!

BostonBarrister wrote:
What does that have to do with the invalidity of trying to blame the Bible for all moral condemnation of homosexual activity?

Damici wrote:
Regarding your first question (re: the Bible and homosexual activity. The answer: nothing. Someone (not sure if it was you) had simply mentioned that homosexuality was considered by some or many cultures to not be the norm, or accepted (thereby inferring that that must make it right to call it “wrong”). I was merely pointing out that their are cultures that view homosexual activity as THEIR norm.[/quote]

OK - just trying to figure out why you made it a reply to my post if it wasn’t addressing my point.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

If you mean “wrong” in a risk-based sense so that there could be a public health reason for regulation, then it would probably be more correct to focus on anal sex rather than homosexual activity. But gay men are subject to a much greater risk from the sexual activity in which they tend to engage than are heterosexuals, on average, in the U.S.

See: The Volokh Conspiracy - -

Damici wrote:
It’s true that butt-sex in general is an easier way to transmit HIV than vaginal or oral sex. No arguing that. But what’s the point of seizing on that point? You’re not going to (nor should you try to) regulate what people do in their own bedrooms. Other than educating the public about condom use, there’s nothing else to be done about it.

BostonBarrister wrote:
The point was to answer your question.

Related to a much more overarching point, it was that the government might have reasons to take action to discourage those practices. This does not need to mean the criminalization of homosexuality - it could mean providing benefits for its alternative…

On that broader, overarching issue, but addressing different points, here is an interesting post by Megan McArdle entitled: “A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other” ( Asymmetrical Information )

Damici wrote:
Regarding the idea of the govt. providing benefits for one sexual orientation and trying to discourage sexual activity of another kind . . . are you kidding me??! [/quote]

No.

[quote]

Damici wrote:

Do you honestly think that any government, anywhere, EVER is going to be able to stop the most basic, primal, deeply rooted, hard-wired of human instincts there is, the instinct to fuck??![/quote]

That’s a straw man. My point was the government could legitimately take an action to discourage a risky behavior. It doesn’t matter whether they could irradicate it. From a cost/benefit perspective, it only matters whether the net benefit outweighs the net cost.

[quote]

Damici wrote:
Dude, people in all different parts of the world, in all differnt cultures and in all different circumstances have tried to impose various rule and regulations on what is and isn’t “allowed” sexually. And always, everywhere, people have found a way to break those rules, because people HAVE SEX. It’s WHAT THEY DO. Gay people happened to have that same deeply rooted, primal drive as you and I do, theirs just happens to be directed at the same gender.

You could make a federal law saying that anyone have anal sex, or oral sex, or sex outside of marriage would immediately be sentenced to 20 years in prison and 100 lashes. Think that would stop it?[/quote]

This is a false dichotomy, based on your straw man. It’s not an “eradicate it or nothing” choice.

And aside from that, the point was whether the government could have a legitimate interest in incentivizing citizens to refrain from risky behaviors. It obviously does - e.g., speed limits or programs to distribute condoms.

Yes, I suppose that under your reasoning we should give up any government programs that attempt to encourage peace then, eh?

HotCarl28 · December 20, 2007, 9:19pm

sorry i havne’t read a majority of this thread so i apologize if what i say it repetitious but this is pretty much the bottom line when it comes to homosexuality or any other behavioral trait

It is both nature (ur genes) and nurture (the environment in whih u live that includes in the womb)that affect all of ones behaviors including their sexual preference. There is basically no disagreement here among professionals… only to what degree the behavior is affected by each.

but regardless both can be out of the persons control… because u are more impressionable at a younger age when u have less control over ur environment… including when u are still a fetus… it seems like it would be difficult to hold someone accountable for being gay

i define gay here by having a strong attraction to the same sex and little to no attraction towards the opposite sex

orion · December 20, 2007, 4:20pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
(1) Life must perpetuate itself. If any being acted on the premise of death, it would have died out long ago.

(2) Life perpetuates itself from sex. Humans MUST be designed for this or the species ends.

(3) Homosexual sex doesn’t have the possibility of producing new life. For this reason, it is called a perversion; it perverts the purpose of the act.

(4) A perversion is an anamoly. Since it is not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.

Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.

Leviticus, 4:20 ;D[/quote]

From an evolutionary point of view you are approaching it exactly the wrong way.

You think homosexuality has no survival benefits and therefore it most be against evolution, i.e nature.

However, exactly because it must have survival benefits for the genes causing homosexuality, homosexuality does exist.

Otherwise homosexuality would be wiped from the gene pool.

In other words, the fact that homosexuality still exists makes it perfectly natural and actually pro life.

HotCarl28 · December 20, 2007, 4:29pm

if u define gay as overt behavior that is a different story and obviously a choice… u may have no control over whether or not u like men but u choose to fuck them in the ass.

that being said i dont see the problem ppl have with gays… i mean as a straight person can u imagine being attracted to women as u are now… but never having sex with them ur entire life because there is some arbitrary definition of “wrong” associated with it? it would be impossible

outside of biblical arguments can anyone explain to me why they think being gay is wrong… sorry once again been too lazy to read thread

Beowolf · December 20, 2007, 9:53pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
(1) Life must perpetuate itself. If any being acted on the premise of death, it would have died out long ago.

(2) Life perpetuates itself from sex. Humans MUST be designed for this or the species ends.

(3) Homosexual sex doesn’t have the possibility of producing new life. For this reason, it is called a perversion; it perverts the purpose of the act.

(4) A perversion is an anamoly. Since it is not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.

Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.

Leviticus, 4:20 ;D[/quote]

Based on this;

(1) Kissing does not perpetuate the species. Kissing is a sexual act that cannot produce new life.

(2) Kissing is therefore a perversion. A perversion is an anomaly. Since it is not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.

Conclusion: Kissing is immoral.

For a REALLY fun time, replace “kissing” with “abstinence”.

HotCarl28 · December 20, 2007, 10:15pm

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
(1) Life must perpetuate itself. If any being acted on the premise of death, it would have died out long ago.

(2) Life perpetuates itself from sex. Humans MUST be designed for this or the species ends.

(3) Homosexual sex doesn’t have the possibility of producing new life. For this reason, it is called a perversion; it perverts the purpose of the act.

(4) A perversion is an anamoly. Since it is not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.

Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.

Leviticus, 4:20 ;D

From an evolutionary point of view you are approaching it exactly the wrong way.

You think homosexuality has no survival benefits and therefore it most be against evolution, i.e nature.

However, exactly because it must have survival benefits for the genes causing homosexuality, homosexuality does exist.

Otherwise homosexuality would be wiped from the gene pool.

In other words, the fact that homosexuality still exists makes it perfectly natural and actually pro life.

[/quote]

im actually going to have to disagree with u here… while this is generally true… i actually think homosexuality is an exception - the problem with human traits is that they become culturally skewed

what i mean is this… even though it is disadvantageous to be a homosexual from an evolutionary perspective… culturally we have not been very accepting of homosexuals and hence have limited their lifestyle causing many to be in heterosexual relationships and have children ect… thus passing on their genes… furthermore homosexuals can get atrifically inseminated etc… to have children… so while technically this does make them evolutionarily viable… it certainly not in the sense ppl are thinking about

i guess its just sort of funny to me that back in the day the intolerance of homosexuality actually contributed to its current prevalence

pookie · December 20, 2007, 10:45pm

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Based on this;

(1) Kissing does not perpetuate the species. Kissing is a sexual act that cannot produce new life.

(2) Kissing is therefore a perversion. A perversion is an anomaly. Since it is not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.

Conclusion: Kissing is immoral.

For a REALLY fun time, replace “kissing” with “abstinence”.[/quote]

Nice one.

Note also that engaging in sex with your own daughter, or passing her around to your beer buddies for a little fun might also result in creating a new life.

Headhunter believes that child abuse and child prostitution are subsets of life worship, hence, a natural prerogative.

Damici · December 20, 2007, 10:54pm

BB,

You can throw around the “straw man” phrase all you want; it does not change my basic premise, which in essence is this:

Government (or society at large) can control and influence a lot of things. For example, they can use certain taxes and tax incentives to influence what we do and don’t buy, how we invest, how much of a certain product or substance we do and don’t consume, etc. (Just for example).

They can significantly influence behavior in some cases by educating people, for example, to use condoms with sexual partners who they don’t know extremely well. This has been done quite effectively over the past couple of decades in the Western world, and as such STD rates and unplanned pregnancies are nowhere near the levels in the U.S. and Canada that they are in, say, Africa. And, by the way, that same educational effort leads to your (I assume) desired end result – or as close to it as you’re going to realistically get – which is that most people in this part of the world are aware not only that HIV is spread through sex, but that it’s more easily spread through anal sex than through oral or vaginal sex.

That’s fairly common knowledge in this part of the world nowadays, and that’s a good thing. So the “sex ed” part of your concern is essentially done and accomplished, at least here in the U.S. Sure, you can always do a little more of it or a more thorough job, but the bottom line is that all that stuff is now pretty common knowledge in this country.

What NO government or society will ever, ever be able to significantly influence, however – even in any significant degree nevermind in an “all or nothing” way, as you wrongly feel I was trying to focus on – is the fact that people DO fuck and ALWAYS WILL FUCK. They will NEVER STOP THE FUCKING, nor even significantly diminish it. Neither between straight people or gay people. If you’re lucky you can slightly alter the way they do it, i.e. educate them about using condoms and make them a little less casually promiscuous, but people in this part of the world are also well educated nowadays on the fact that the only FULLPROOF form of safe sex is abstinence. Funny, though, that (abstinence) hasn’t caught on (in either community, straight or gay).

Why can no govt. or society ever stop the actual fucking? Because, as I mentioned, it is so damn hard-wired into human beings, it is at the primal core of their very existence. They will NEVER stop doing it, or even significantly decrease the amount of it. And when someone DOES try to unnaturally abstain from sex, bad things usually happen. (Catholic priest scandals, anyone? Hello!).

So if you think some tax incentives, or prohibition of marriage rights, or bully pulpit, or aaaaanything else is going to stop gay people from having plenty of gay sex, or even lessen the frequency of it to any significant degree, I would respectfully submit to you that you are essentially out of your mind. The actual ACT of sex amongst adults is not something that is going to be diminished. Period.

Which brings me to a question: Suppose you were, hypothetically, able to accomplish your objective and significantly diminish the level of gay sex that was happening. (Oh, happy day)! What would you propose that all those gay people do? Try as hard as they can to “be” straight and go about living a (what would be false, closeted and completely psychologically traumatizing) “straight” life, with opposite-sex spouse and kids? You think THAT would be a healthy course of action?? See Jim McGreevy for the answer. Would you have them just spend their lives alone and abstain from sex? Do you honestly think THAT is healthy for anyone to do?? (I again refer you to the Catholic church).

And in the end, what harm does it do you anyway? Why on earth do you CARE if two guys, or two girls, are fucking away in their apartment down the block anyway?

Which brings up another point: With approximately half the gay population being male and the other half being female, one could argue that, though gay males might have a higher rate of HIV transmission than straight people, gay females have a much LOWER HIV transmission rate than straight people (essentially zero), as their method of sexual interaction is extremely unlikely to spread it. So, when taken as a whole, the gay females very likely statistically balance out the gay males, so the gay community as a whole (including the females) might very well have no higher an HIV rate than the straight community. And no, I haven’t looked it up, I’m just throwing it out there. Would you therefore concede that it’s perfectly ok for gay females to have sex with each other, and that there’s no use trying to diminish that . . . ?

But I have a feeling that HIV transmission from one gay man to another gay man is not your main dog in this fight. That’s not your primary concern here, let’s be honest . . . .

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
I meant it in a moral sense - my point was that cultures other than those that have a Biblical base have had various biases against homosexual activity and its practitioners, so you can’t just blame it on the Bible.

Damici wrote:
In Papau New Guinea they view sex (by men) with women as an undesirable anomaly, and do it on very rare occasions solely for the purpose of procreation. They normally have sex with young/adolescent boys; that’s what they view as the norm as far as sexual activity. (This is true)!

BostonBarrister wrote:
What does that have to do with the invalidity of trying to blame the Bible for all moral condemnation of homosexual activity?

Damici wrote:
Regarding your first question (re: the Bible and homosexual activity. The answer: nothing. Someone (not sure if it was you) had simply mentioned that homosexuality was considered by some or many cultures to not be the norm, or accepted (thereby inferring that that must make it right to call it “wrong”). I was merely pointing out that their are cultures that view homosexual activity as THEIR norm.

OK - just trying to figure out why you made it a reply to my post if it wasn’t addressing my point.

BostonBarrister wrote:

If you mean “wrong” in a risk-based sense so that there could be a public health reason for regulation, then it would probably be more correct to focus on anal sex rather than homosexual activity. But gay men are subject to a much greater risk from the sexual activity in which they tend to engage than are heterosexuals, on average, in the U.S.

See: The Volokh Conspiracy - -

Damici wrote:
It’s true that butt-sex in general is an easier way to transmit HIV than vaginal or oral sex. No arguing that. But what’s the point of seizing on that point? You’re not going to (nor should you try to) regulate what people do in their own bedrooms. Other than educating the public about condom use, there’s nothing else to be done about it.

BostonBarrister wrote:
The point was to answer your question.

Related to a much more overarching point, it was that the government might have reasons to take action to discourage those practices. This does not need to mean the criminalization of homosexuality - it could mean providing benefits for its alternative…

On that broader, overarching issue, but addressing different points, here is an interesting post by Megan McArdle entitled: “A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other” ( Asymmetrical Information )

Damici wrote:
Regarding the idea of the govt. providing benefits for one sexual orientation and trying to discourage sexual activity of another kind . . . are you kidding me??!

No.

Damici wrote:

Do you honestly think that any government, anywhere, EVER is going to be able to stop the most basic, primal, deeply rooted, hard-wired of human instincts there is, the instinct to fuck??!

That’s a straw man. My point was the government could legitimately take an action to discourage a risky behavior. It doesn’t matter whether they could irradicate it. From a cost/benefit perspective, it only matters whether the net benefit outweighs the net cost.

Damici wrote:
Dude, people in all different parts of the world, in all differnt cultures and in all different circumstances have tried to impose various rule and regulations on what is and isn’t “allowed” sexually. And always, everywhere, people have found a way to break those rules, because people HAVE SEX. It’s WHAT THEY DO. Gay people happened to have that same deeply rooted, primal drive as you and I do, theirs just happens to be directed at the same gender.

You could make a federal law saying that anyone have anal sex, or oral sex, or sex outside of marriage would immediately be sentenced to 20 years in prison and 100 lashes. Think that would stop it?

This is a false dichotomy, based on your straw man. It’s not an “eradicate it or nothing” choice.

And aside from that, the point was whether the government could have a legitimate interest in incentivizing citizens to refrain from risky behaviors. It obviously does - e.g., speed limits or programs to distribute condoms.

Damici wrote:
Nope.

Please. Don’t tell me you’re going to try to “discourage” certain sexual practices. (So long as they’re all consensual, of course). Then I’ll tell you I’m going to create world peace by next Tuesday.

Yes, I suppose that under your reasoning we should give up any government programs that attempt to encourage peace then, eh?[/quote]

pookie · December 20, 2007, 10:55pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I think a human penis was intended to deliver sperm into a vagina and hopefully produce another human being. It was not meant to be inserted in an anus, or anything else that happens to be tight and fit nicely.[/quote]

One does not preclude the others.

If we had one ejaculation per life, you’d have a point. With multiple per day possible, not so much.

And if their was “a Designer,” it would’ve been pretty easy to “design” parts that couldn’t fit anywhere else. So either there is one who doesn’t really care which tight and snugly orifice we choose to enjoy; or there isn’t and we can simply thank blind luck for those aforementioned snugly orifices.

Lorisco · December 20, 2007, 11:07pm

[quote]MMG wrote:
Before i start this is not meant to offend anyone.

Yesterday a programe in the UK called ‘make me a muslim’ came on, and on there an islamic preist talking to a homosexual said that he believes that a person makes a conscious choice to be gay, while the homosexual said that it is something you are born with and can not choose.

This got me thinking, and was wondering what other people thought on the topic as to whether you make a conscious choice or are born gay?

I personally dont know and cant get my head round this topic. [/quote]

Apparently it is a choice for some people as some people do decide not to be gay:

Damici · December 20, 2007, 11:16pm

You do realize those efforts by religious zealots to “cure” gay people through counseling are the absolutely laughingstock of the educated world, right? The “failure/relapse” rate is tremendously high. Gee, I wonder why that is . . . ?

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
MMG wrote:
Before i start this is not meant to offend anyone.

Yesterday a programe in the UK called ‘make me a muslim’ came on, and on there an islamic preist talking to a homosexual said that he believes that a person makes a conscious choice to be gay, while the homosexual said that it is something you are born with and can not choose.

This got me thinking, and was wondering what other people thought on the topic as to whether you make a conscious choice or are born gay?

I personally dont know and cant get my head round this topic.

Apparently it is a choice for some people as some people do decide not to be gay:

[/quote]

Lorisco · December 20, 2007, 11:18pm

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I think a human penis was intended to deliver sperm into a vagina and hopefully produce another human being. It was not meant to be inserted in an anus, or anything else that happens to be tight and fit nicely.

One does not preclude the others.

If we had one ejaculation per life, you’d have a point. With multiple per day possible, not so much.

And if their was “a Designer,” it would’ve been pretty easy to “design” parts that couldn’t fit anywhere else. So either there is one who doesn’t really care which tight and snugly orifice we choose to enjoy; or there isn’t and we can simply thank blind luck for those aforementioned snugly orifices.

[/quote]

“Penile Vaginal Intercourse (a.k.a. PVI), (not anal sex, not oral sex, and not masturbation) is the only sexual behavior associated with indicies of better physical and mental health in a growing body of empirical literature”. http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1837572

Enough said!

HotCarl28 · December 20, 2007, 11:36pm

kinda a side note but the whole
“a designer would have done this” is never a valid argument
reason being u can’t guess at the motives of a designer, supernatural(whatever that means) or otherworldly.

For instance perhaps the designer wanted to give a choice of asshole and vag and wanted to see how humans generally chose… or maybe the designer had never “thought” of the asshole as being a place to put a penis, but that behavior evolved… it seems to a be a common assumption that a creator is always omnipotent which also wouldn’t necessarily have to be true

you cant assume a designer would be rational or wouldn’t have hidden motives etc…

even now im attributing human qualities to a designer that may not be relevant…

BostonBarrister · December 20, 2007, 7:04pm

I don’t know why you bother to reply to my posts, and then go off on your own tangents unrelated to my points…

My point was not before, is not now, and will never be, irrespective of how often you capitalize, that the government can stop people from fucking.

My overall point is, was, and will continue to be, that if the government has a rational basis for encouraging or discouraging a certain behavior, it has the power to use benefits to do so.

So, to cease being too abstract, if the government wants to encourage heterosexual couplings, it can create a package of benefits tied to the condition of engaging in a heterosexual coupling - e.g., marriage. The only requirement legally is a “rational basis,” which means basically any reason that isn’t impossible. Encouraging less risky sexual behavior would pass “rational basis” scrutiny. As would encouraging the creation of children. Or a whole bunch of other reasons.

[quote]

Damici wrote:
BB,