POLITICS: OT: Sex, love and reproduction --Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/17/04 9:52:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> I did not use the words love or naturalness.

You did use " natural " and " normal, " but I used love. I used it deliberately,

not meaning to imply you used it, because homosexuality involves love and

sexual desire for someone of the same sex, not reproductive desire for the same

sex.

Regarding your point however in

> that these particular concepts were being comfounded, I agreed in essence

> and added this was a problem in this discussion, but disagreed that sex and

> reproduction in biology are separate and distinct. I can agree with you

> that love and sex are independent phenomena because I understand your

> concepts of the words and how you are using them, but do note that the word

> love is commonly used as a synonomous term with physical sex.

I'm not sure what you're saying in the last sentence here. There are

numerous expressions that use it as such, but I don't see what it has to do with

our

discussion.

> Again, the problem with comfounding is that these concepts are not clearly

> defined, most particularly who is encompassed in the set when the word

> " homosexuals " is used. The arguments going on here and all over elsewhere

> are about providing " rights " to a particular group of people (I don't think

> the right word but another point). Now how can you do that if that group is

> not even defined as to who is a member of it and who isn't?]

Well, this isn't the issue I was disputing with you. I think a homosexual is

clearly defined as someone who engages or desires to engage in sexual and/or

romantic relationships with someone of the same sex. If you're point is that

the boundaries of this group are rather fluid, I agree with you. However, I

think you are biasing the framing of this question in a rather illogical

manner, because one need not grant a " right " to a specific group of people. For

example, you simply can grant the right to *all* people to engage in consensual

anal sex or marriage (without respect to the sexes of the parties involved) or

whathaveyou.

> <Presumably in a discussion of homosexual marriage, a " homosexual " can be

> defined as someone who wishes to marry someone of the same sex. That is, of

> course, a simplified definition, but obviously has optimal accuracy and

> precision, relative to other absurd and irrelevant definitions like " someone

> who lusts after the same sex with uncontrollable sexual desire. "

> ______________

> You put the definition in quotes without providing reference as to who said.

> I have not make that absurb definition nor would I. If someone else posting

> on the board did, I missed it. I only provided the dictionary definition of

> lust which is sexual desire - that can be by anyone for anything, even a

> rock. PLease remember, I did not develop our language. Self control was

> another word I used, not uncontrollable which would have the opposite

> meaning.

You said that homosexuality would be classified as a sin based on its

equation with lust, which you contrasted with the virtue of self-control. My

quote

marks were probably misleading, since you didn't use that phrase; however, you

did say or at least imply that homosexuals are lustfull by definition.

>

> In this definition, then the only difference in a homosexual from any other

> person is in what he wants to do versus what someone else might want to do.

Only if you assume that " want " is entirely volitional. It would be

reasonable to argue that whom one loves is not entirely under one's own control.

> ______________

> <That said, homosexuality is pretty clearly defined as a counterpart to

> heterosexuality. A homosexual is someone who engages in sexual, romantic,

> or marital relationships with someone of the same sex.

> ________________________

>

> I would agree that homosexuality is a part of heterosexuality. I stated

> earlier, perhaps you missed it, that I do not see the differences in

> heterosexuals from homosexuals. I do not see a separate group of people

> that are distinctly different. We all seem one and the same to me.

> Heterosexuals or people who marry the opposite sex, engage in sexual and

> romantic relationships with people of the same sex. Homosexuals get desires

> for the opposite sex, even when in a committed relationship with the same

> sex. Anyone is welcome to explain to me who is and who isn't.

I'm not a homosexual, so I don't know for sure, but on what basis do you

claim that homosexuals desire heterosexual relationships?

Anyway, if your point is correct, what is its significance?

>

> ______________

> <Only in the sense that reproduction can but does not necessarily result

> from sex. There is, however, neither biological nor Biblical basis to say

> that the sole or " natural " " purpose " of sex is reproduction. In fact,

> biology clearly refutes it by the mere fact that anal stimulation can lead

> to orgasm. What reproductive value can that possibly have?

> ______________

>

> That depends on how you define the word. I do believe biologists say that

> the purpose of every living organism is reproduction and sex is the means by

> which that is achieved in many.

I have no idea why you believe this. I've never come across a biology text

arrogant enough to assert that biological science can explain the " purpose of

every living organism. "

Again, you are the one comfounding concepts

> here.

Which concepts am I confounding?

>How does stimulation leading to orgasm refute anything?

It shows that there is are biological mechanisms for sexual pleasure that

have no reproductive value whatsoever, and therefore shows that biology does not

equate sexuality with reproduction. Therefore, what is the natural or normal

mode of reproduction for a species has no bearing on the naturalness or

normality of any given sexuality.

>

> ___________

> <Thus, you are *confounding* the two concepts, by claiming a " naturalness "

> to certain modes of sexuality consonant with the biologically 'ordained'

> reproductive mechanism of the species, rather than simply associating them,

> in which case you would recognize that biologically or in any other way

> there is much more to sex than reproduction.

> _________

> Actually I do not recognize that there is much more to sex than

> reproduction. I think that only delusion and fantasy. Those ideas are not

> biologically based at all, but from psychology which is and was always,

> major messed up in thinking.

So please explain to me the desire for oral and anal sex from a reproductive

perspective. Please explain why humans have sexual desire completely

independent of fertility cycles, unlike many other animals. Please explain

masturbation from a reproductive perspective. Please explain why women still

desire sex

after menopause, still desire sex while pregnant or nursing, and desire sex

while menstruating.

> _________________________

> <By the way, evolutionarily speaking, or, if you don't accept evolution (I'm

> sorry I'm not sure of your view), in comparison to other animals, human

> evolution, or the state of being human, quite clearly has completely

> dissociated sex from reproduction. In most animals, estrus perfectly

> corresponds to peak fertility so that animals engage in sex only during the

> proper point of the ovulatory cycle, and do not engage in sex outside of it,

> whereas humans desire sex without regard to the ovulatory cycle, and some

> women experience heightened sexual desire during the times where they are

> least likely to get pregnant.

> _____________

>

> Yes evolution is fact and proven. But where or when in the world did it

> disassociate sex from reproduction? At least on this planet.

When humans evolved complex social interactions that involved sexual desires

that do not and cannot lead to reproduction.

> You are correct, I have expressed very little of my own views on this

> subject, especially whether I agree or not that marraiges or consentual

> unions should be allowed between members of the same sexes.

True. I personally think it's a rather meaningless question. I'm just

disputing the idea, that I perceived you as expressing, that the normalness or

naturalness of a sexuality can be determined by its reproductive value.

Chris

[Guest guest]

______________________

<I don't see how that's relevant to the point I made. You claimed that

" naturalness " could be attributed to certain types of sexuality or love

based on their " appropriateness " vis-a-vis the reproductive mechanism of the

species. I made the point that sex and love are independent phenomena, by

both scientific and Biblical standards.

_____________________

I did not use the words love or naturalness. Regarding your point however in

that these particular concepts were being comfounded, I agreed in essence

and added this was a problem in this discussion, but disagreed that sex and

reproduction in biology are separate and distinct. I can agree with you

that love and sex are independent phenomena because I understand your

concepts of the words and how you are using them, but do note that the word

love is commonly used as a synonomous term with physical sex.

___________

<Again, I don't see any remote connection between this reply and my

statement, but I'll answer it anyway.

___________

Again, the problem with comfounding is that these concepts are not clearly

defined, most particularly who is encompassed in the set when the word

" homosexuals " is used. The arguments going on here and all over elsewhere

are about providing " rights " to a particular group of people (I don't think

the right word but another point). Now how can you do that if that group is

not even defined as to who is a member of it and who isn't?

______________

<Presumably in a discussion of homosexual marriage, a " homosexual " can be

defined as someone who wishes to marry someone of the same sex. That is, of

course, a simplified definition, but obviously has optimal accuracy and

precision, relative to other absurd and irrelevant definitions like " someone

who lusts after the same sex with uncontrollable sexual desire. "

______________

You put the definition in quotes without providing reference as to who said.

I have not make that absurb definition nor would I. If someone else posting

on the board did, I missed it. I only provided the dictionary definition of

lust which is sexual desire - that can be by anyone for anything, even a

rock. PLease remember, I did not develop our language. Self control was

another word I used, not uncontrollable which would have the opposite

meaning.

In this definition, then the only difference in a homosexual from any other

person is in what he wants to do versus what someone else might want to do.

______________

<That said, homosexuality is pretty clearly defined as a counterpart to

heterosexuality. A homosexual is someone who engages in sexual, romantic,

or marital relationships with someone of the same sex.

________________________

I would agree that homosexuality is a part of heterosexuality. I stated

earlier, perhaps you missed it, that I do not see the differences in

heterosexuals from homosexuals. I do not see a separate group of people

that are distinctly different. We all seem one and the same to me.

Heterosexuals or people who marry the opposite sex, engage in sexual and

romantic relationships with people of the same sex. Homosexuals get desires

for the opposite sex, even when in a committed relationship with the same

sex. Anyone is welcome to explain to me who is and who isn't.

______________

<Only in the sense that reproduction can but does not necessarily result

from sex. There is, however, neither biological nor Biblical basis to say

that the sole or " natural " " purpose " of sex is reproduction. In fact,

biology clearly refutes it by the mere fact that anal stimulation can lead

to orgasm. What reproductive value can that possibly have?

______________

That depends on how you define the word. I do believe biologists say that

the purpose of every living organism is reproduction and sex is the means by

which that is achieved in many. Again, you are the one comfounding concepts

here. How does stimulation leading to orgasm refute anything?

___________

<Thus, you are *confounding* the two concepts, by claiming a " naturalness "

to certain modes of sexuality consonant with the biologically 'ordained'

reproductive mechanism of the species, rather than simply associating them,

in which case you would recognize that biologically or in any other way

there is much more to sex than reproduction.

_________

Actually I do not recognize that there is much more to sex than

reproduction. I think that only delusion and fantasy. Those ideas are not

biologically based at all, but from psychology which is and was always,

major messed up in thinking.

_________________________

<By the way, evolutionarily speaking, or, if you don't accept evolution (I'm

sorry I'm not sure of your view), in comparison to other animals, human

evolution, or the state of being human, quite clearly has completely

dissociated sex from reproduction. In most animals, estrus perfectly

corresponds to peak fertility so that animals engage in sex only during the

proper point of the ovulatory cycle, and do not engage in sex outside of it,

whereas humans desire sex without regard to the ovulatory cycle, and some

women experience heightened sexual desire during the times where they are

least likely to get pregnant.

_____________

Yes evolution is fact and proven. But where or when in the world did it

disassociate sex from reproduction? At least on this planet.

You are correct, I have expressed very little of my own views on this

subject, especially whether I agree or not that marraiges or consentual

unions should be allowed between members of the same sexes.

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@ Chris/mhysmith:

> <Thus, you are *confounding* the two concepts, by claiming

a " naturalness

> to certain modes of sexuality consonant with the

biologically 'ordained'

> reproductive mechanism of the species, rather than simply

associating them,

> in which case you would recognize that biologically or in any other

way

> there is much more to sex than reproduction.

> _________

> Actually I do not recognize that there is much more to sex than

> reproduction. I think that only delusion and fantasy. Those ideas

are not

> biologically based at all, but from psychology which is and was

always,

> major messed up in thinking.

@@@@@@@@@@@@

Sex does not equal sexuality. Chris' original point referred to

sexuality, and this whole discussion is about homosexuality, not

homosexual sex. Even so, did a pretty good job of showing that

even sex itself can be dissociated from reproduction. The

dissociation between sexuality and reproduction is even stronger and

more obvious. You're failing to make these basic, essential

distinctions, and dismissing the entire field of psychology only

makes you seem like someone desperately clutching at straws to defend

an extremist anti-humanitarian ideology in the face of overwhelming

evidence that opposes it. It's fine to criticize the methodology and

theoretical maturity of scientific paradigms, but it makes the

existence of the natural phenomena they target no less palpable. It

appears you would like to use your (laughably broad and overgeneral)

dismissal of psychology as a rhetorical sleight to dismiss the brain

events thereby studied. Sorry, you'll have to pick a more naive

audience next time. While I don't mind mush in my oat porridge, I

find it rather distasteful in discourse about potential violations of

the humanity of million of people.

I have to say I'm quite impressed how you've nailed things

down point by point here. Shame you bought into 's pointless

word game about law and discrimination though...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Yeah!! Let's go back to the desert!! Last one there's a rotten egg!

Heidi, you saved our culture on the brink of disaster! Just when

everyone was lost in the throes of sodomy, letting our economy go to

pot, you bring forth the light of ancient wisdom! Heidi, you are a

prophetess! (Actually, I don't know if that's allowed--maybe you

should change your name to Henry)

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

> Actually, if you read some of the older books, you will see that

there

> are people who say with a great deal of authority that such sex will

> rot your brain and lead to general moral decay. You should only have

> sex if you are intending to create kids, otherwise it is mere

> indulgence. And even then, one should not enjoy it too much.

>

> Now, if you look at it logically, people were much stricter about

> these things in the Puritan days, and in the Middle East -- in both

> cases women were restricted to somber clothing that covered more

> of their body parts, and folks were were immoral could be stoned.

> And in both cases, you can easily see that they were much better

> off than we are, healthier, more peaceful, with a far more robust

> economy. QED.

>

> -- Heidi <weg>

>

>

>

> >

[Guest guest]

> >> . We are, of course, God's Chosen People. QED.

>

> removed]

Wrong. We're all sinners. Dennis

PS Guess I'm not blue yet.

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@

> I humbly thank you from the depths of my bonnet, as I sit here

> sweltering in my long black multi-layered skirt and blouses.

> (Actually the advantage to this getup is that no one can

> tell if I need to lose 30 lbs or not ... or in fact if I am female

> or not. Hmm. This has potential ... a Burkah would be even

better ... ).

>

> -- Heidi Jean

@@@@@@@@@@@

Ain't that something! That's the way I've always pictured you over

there on the left coast--sweltering beneath your hyper-modest attire

while programming, making jerky, and preaching the good word of GF

living... Right down to the bonnet and black colors! My intuition

in uncanny.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@

I hoped that would have enlightened the conversation. I think

one of his points was that there is a biological basis involved in

all behavior.

@@@@@@@@@

That's tautological, not enlightening.

is brilliant, but, as Heidi pointed out, it brings nothing to

the current argument.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@

> As for celibacy being a good thing ... the current situation in the

Catholic

> church and priests molesting kids (thousands of cases, it turns out)

> seems to belie that it WORKS very well.

>

> -- Heidi

@@@@@@@@@

Hmm, maybe there were smiley " wink wink " emoticons after the celibacy

stuff in the Bible left out in the original translations?? Or an

asterisk after " celibate " and a footnote about little boys somehow

lost to history?

Mike

SE Pennsylvania