Human Sexuality

[julianw]

Which one is higher, meta?

 

p.s. I am a lazyass.

[taks]

This here bottle of bourbon told me so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you should really lay off the bourbon, r-p. rum is a much more sensible and level-headed liqour to discuss such matters with.

 

taks

[Archmonarch]

Does anyone besides me ever feel the need to rid the world of idiots, preferably through humane sterilization of the criminal and mentally challenged community? I do not challenge their right to live, nor even their ability to have sex, simply the right to procreation that may negatively affect human normalities of behavior and intellect. Over time, most genes that cause such behavior (it is at least in part due to genetics) would be eradicated from the population, without detrimentally affecting diversity. And with individuals of such genetic predispositions gone environment would be more conducive to a contributing and conscientious society.

 

Either that or a nanobot plague.

[Reveilled]

Does anyone besides me ever feel the need to rid the world of idiots, preferably through humane sterilization of the criminal and mentally challenged community? I do not challenge their right to live, nor even their ability to have sex, simply the right to procreation that may negatively affect human normalities of behavior and intellect. Over time, most genes that cause such behavior (it is at least in part due to genetics) would be eradicated from the population, without detrimentally affecting diversity. And with individuals of such genetic predispositions gone environment would be more conducive to a contributing and conscientious society.

 

Either that or a nanobot plague. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...umm, occasionally. But what has that got to do with a thread on Homosexuality?

[metadigital]

As I said, I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I am very wary of those people who inist that homosexuality is a choice, because their unstated implication is that the choice is wrong and these people are "evil" or "perverted". Where on;y one step away from 1943 Germany, and the "re-education camps" for these poor erstwhile souls ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing like one presupposition to serve another. You've just foisted the homosexiphobic bigotry/nazi tag (albiet with the "wary" caveat, indicating your openmindedness) onto those who believe that there is choice involved, because you believe they have similarly foisted an "evil" or "perverse" tag on the gay population.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Call me any name you want, I am making sure we are all discussing the same thing, here, and some aren't engaged in a closeted (:D) argument about the "validity" of homosexuality.

 

And the Nazis are just the most obvious image I can use for this type of "behaviour modification"; the Chinese lined up all the Opium addicts after the revolution and shot them (after the Opium wars with the British, which resulted in Hong Kong being "leased" to them for 99 years).

 

It is a bee's d!ck from "it's a choice" to "it's a perversion that should be stopped".

 

Don't like the accusation? Then be very clear about your motivations, and state them. I have.

[Darth Flatus]

Am i imagining it or was the "choice or not" question asked in a broader context? like comparative discrimination or something.

[cewekeds]

Do people choose to be straight?

[metadigital]

Does anyone besides me ever feel the need to rid the world of idiots, preferably through humane sterilization of the criminal and mentally challenged community? I do not challenge their right to live, nor even their ability to have sex, simply the right to procreation that may negatively affect human normalities of behavior and intellect. Over time, most genes that cause such behavior (it is at least in part due to genetics) would be eradicated from the population, without detrimentally affecting diversity. And with individuals of such genetic predispositions gone environment would be more conducive to a contributing and conscientious society.

 

Either that or a nanobot plague. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Technically, it's called eugenics, but the theory has lost a lot of favour in the popular press since it's height in the interregnum (even Churchill was a big fan).

 

Of course it's not really a problem; society needs stupid people more than smart ones: someone has to work the machineries of civilization, and the smarter people seem to have delusions of grandeur and tend not to want to do the boring but necessary tasks of empire ...

[alanschu]

I would bet that if a society existed that favoured homosexual relationships, and only used heterosexual intercourse for procreative purposes, then I'd say we "choose" to be straight, in that it's affected a lot by the environment.

 

Just speculating...although I do remember reading up about tribe that used homosexual relationships as a rite of passage to manhood. I won't get into the details, it is "colourful"

[alanschu]

Technically, it's called eugenics, but the theory has lost a lot of favour in the popular press since it's height in the interregnum (even Churchill was a big fan).

 

Of course it's not really a problem; society needs stupid people more than smart ones: someone has to work the machineries of civilization, and the smarter people seem to have delusions of grandeur and tend not to want to do the boring but necessary tasks of empire ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I remember hearing about all the hoopla of Alberta's eugenics history. Interesting stuff, and certainly walking the highline of controversy.

[Walsingham]

Actually, Meta, the reverse is true. Arguing it is genetic leads to calls for it to be sterilised out. An idea which I find hilarious for reasons of logic. Just like it says a homosexual will be damned unto the nth generation in the bible.

 

It really is irrelevant how it arises _when there is nothing wrong with it_. An enquiry like the one here into the cause implies censorship.

 

Conversely as I say, an enquiry into why people find it sexy to hurt people seems fairly sensible.

[metadigital]

Which one is higher, meta?

p.s. I am a lazy-ass.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...AIDS: The number of AIDS cases dropped 30 % and AIDS death rates dropped more than half between 1996 and 1998. Approximately 320,000 persons were living with AIDS in the year 2000. A convergence occurring between U.S. AIDS rates for males and females is due to increases in rates of HIV transmission through heterosexual sex and through injection drug use. An estimated 12,000 women became newly infected with HIV each year. ...

 

So, it is not clear how many homosexuals were infected from the statement, but approximately 12000 women per annum were infected (assumedly from males, as there is little chance of the HIV transferring during lesbian intercourse, for obvious reasons).

 

I read that as 12000 or less males per annum, including homosexuals. But I haven't dug into the internecine details of the site, so feel free to do so ...

[Lucius]

I already asked that Cewekeds, suffice to say noone knew what to answer.

 

And Julian, I can't recall anyone else supporting your argument that nr.3 was in any way normal for homosexual practicing that kind of sex, everyone was as puzzled about this unusual statement as me.

And as Meta pointed out (I was too lazy to finds evidence myself, but I knew that the stats had changed since the 80'ies) Aids is not a sole homosexual problem, at all

 

As for religion, I know enough about Christianity to put this quote in my sig, of course Christianity itself didn't do anything (doh), but a lot of horrible things were done in its name and with the blessings of the Church, which is all that matters eventually.

[metadigital]

Actually, Meta, the reverse is true. Arguing it is genetic leads to calls for it to be sterilised out. An idea which I find hilarious for reasons of logic. Just like it says a homosexual will be damned unto the nth generation in the bible. 

 

It really is irrelevant how   it arises _when there is nothing wrong with it_. An enquiry like the one here into the cause implies censorship.

 

Conversely as I say, an enquiry into why people find it sexy to hurt people seems fairly sensible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, but the people who are most interested in the research are homosexuals; tired of being ostracised and guilty for being "different", they seek to justify where it is not necessary.

 

Sort of proves their argument, too: who would choose to be gay? I certainly wouldn't. (Remember it was a crime punishable with imprisonment in the UK as late as fifty years ago.)

[julianw]

Hah! So homosexuality is not as unhealthy as I made it out to be. (It's still somewhat unhealthy though). I guess I was worrying too much.

 

Meta - I am just wondering if the rate of infection is actually higher among heteros. I know the rate among heteros is growing faster, but is it already higher?

 

p.s. Never mind. I guess it is already higher.

 

p.s. Wait a minute! That's only the total numbers, not the actual rate. Heteros have a much larger population.

[Walsingham]

I think someone irreligious needs to take a stand for the Church here. You need to understand the historical context of Judaism/Christianity/Islam. We were all three subject at different times to empires and kings who placed no authority higher than personal gratification. They rebelled against this by placing a higher absolute moral imperative on people. A concept that even us feelthy atheists tend to adhere to these days.

 

Homosexuality was just one aspect of the 'corruption' of these regimes that could be pointed at in big bold letters. The real message was that a person's sexuality, the most powerful of human drives, still had to obey God.

 

At least that's what I heard. Correct my history if I'm wrong.

[metadigital]

Technically, it's called eugenics, but the theory has lost a lot of favour in the popular press since it's height in the interregnum (even Churchill was a big fan).

 

Of course it's not really a problem; society needs stupid people more than smart ones: someone has to work the machineries of civilization, and the smarter people seem to have delusions of grandeur and tend not to want to do the boring but necessary tasks of empire ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I remember hearing about all the hoopla of Alberta's eugenics history. Interesting stuff, and certainly walking the highline of controversy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess it all related to the pedigrees of the Royalty, y'know how every noble mapped their proximity to the Royal family like thoroughbreds, and this didn't sit well with the behaviourists and their "baton in every knapsack" theory that every child was capable of everything, from Field Marshal to Conductor of the Royal Philharmonic (H

[metadigital]

Hah! So homosexuality is not as unhealthy as I made it out to be. (It's still somewhat unhealthy though). I guess I was worrying too much.

 

Meta - I am just wondering if the rate of infection is actually higher among heteros. I know the rate among heteros is growing faster, but is it already higher?

 

p.s. Never mind. I guess it is already higher.

 

p.p.s. Wait a minute! That's only the total numbers, not the actual rate. Heteros have a much larger population.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The rate is accelerating. Blame all those stupid hormone-blinded teenagers. *looks around the forum*

[cewekeds]

They note that the latest CDC statistics show that U.S. AIDS is growing 15 times faster in women than in men.

 

http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/107/10...tm?pagenumber=1

 

I couldn't find percentage but many reports of the increase about HIV in women.

[Reveilled]

I think someone irreligious needs to take a stand for the Church here. You need to understand the historical context of Judaism/Christianity/Islam. We were all three subject at different times to empires and kings who placed no authority higher than personal gratification. They rebelled against this by placing a higher absolute moral imperative on people. A concept that even us feelthy atheists tend to adhere to these days.

 

You silly English aaaa-theest. Your mother was a hamster, and your Father apparently does not exist. Now go away or I shall attempt to convert you a second time.

 

Even Eris hereself is out for personal gratification. She only created mankind because no one invited her to parties. Silly Atheists and Islamo-Judeo-Christians. "

[julianw]

At first, I thought that homosexuality is unhealthy enough for us to look for cures, since I had a friend who was suffering greatly from it. Now I realize that the actual enemy is abusive and irresponsible sexual behaviors.

 

If any one was angered by my ignorance, I apologize.

[metadigital]

I think someone irreligious needs to take a stand for the Church here. You need to understand the historical context of Judaism/Christianity/Islam. We were all three subject at different times to empires and kings who placed no authority higher than personal gratification. They rebelled against this by placing a higher absolute moral imperative on people. A concept that even us feelthy atheists tend to adhere to these days.

 

Homosexuality was just one aspect of the 'corruption' of these regimes that could be pointed at in big bold letters. The real message was that a person's sexuality, the most powerful of human drives, still had to obey God.

 

At least that's what I heard. Correct my history if I'm wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on your take of "history". Various Church authorities have taken it upon themselves to interpret the "truth" contained within the scriptures; look at Onan and the derivation of onanism: how confused it has become (not least because of the life force inherent in a language like English).

[Lucius]

Heh, that's kinda funny Meta, "onanere" means... yeah, in Danish today.

[Dark Moth]

I already asked that Cewekeds, suffice to say noone knew what to answer.

 

And Julian, I can't recall anyone else supporting your argument that nr.3 was in any way normal for homosexual practicing that kind of sex, everyone was as puzzled about this unusual statement as me.

And as Meta pointed out (I was too lazy to finds evidence myself, but I knew that the stats had changed since the 80'ies) Aids is not a sole homosexual problem, at all

 

As for religion, I know enough about Christianity to put this quote in my sig, of course Christianity itself didn't do anything (doh), but a lot of horrible things were done in its name and with the blessings of the Church, which is all that matters eventually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, if you can cite one passage in the Bible that explicitely justifies the horrible acts done by Nazis (who weren't motivated by Christianity, Hitler was not what you would call a Christian), the Spanish Inquisition, witch burnings, etc., feel free to do so. That is what matters most, not what the Church says. And the Church at one time did bless these terrible acts, but as I said that was human cruelty and misinterpretation of the Bible.

 

BTW: it's 'duh' (someone might confuse you with Homer Simpson) d'oh!

[Reveilled]

Depends on your take of "history". Various Church authorities have taken it upon themselves to interpret the "truth" contained within the scriptures; look at Onan and the derivation of onanism: how confused it has become (not least because of the lfe force inherent in a language like English).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He was actually slain because he missed her face. "

 

Wouldn't be an Obsidian Forums thread wihtout a bukkake reference now, would it?