 |
| |
|
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:34
|
|
Scenario: a gay male couple and a woman (a total of THREE people) are on an island at the same time. Suddenly everyone else in the world disappears, leaving only the three island-goers.
Question - if you are one of the gay guys, and you are really attracted to your gay partner, and don't really like or feel anything for the girl, what do you do?
A - Stay true and gay, and only "date", WINK WINK, your male friend, and sexually avoid the female,
--OR--
B - Have "relations" WINK WINK with the female, even though you don't want to, in the interests of preserving the species.
The dilemma here for homosexuals and their activists is this -
If you pick A, you are terminating the species through your homosexuality, a clearly immoral and illegal act a la the guy who killed Harrison Ford's wife in The Fugitive. In a more theoretical sense, you are discouraging a culture of life and reducing the evolutionary potential of the species significantly.
If you pick B, you are essentially arguing that homosexuality is a sexual luxury and not a biological requirement, in essence reducing the practice to deviance.
Yahtzee! I think my analysis holds water.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
It meets the "SUV-sized hole" test. I'm not inclined to keep my hand in a hot fire for ten hours, but if it would save the world, I sure as hell would.
But it's not very fiery. You even said "Yahtzee." What is this? PC Hour? Bring out the flames, man.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
If you pick A, you are terminating the species through your homosexuality, a clearly immoral and illegal act a la the guy who killed Harrison Ford's wife in The Fugitive.
|
Immoral and illegal? Please explain? In the context of the three people on the island you need to show how the future of the human race is a necessary condition to any of their future actions.
quote:
If you pick B, you are essentially arguing that homosexuality is a sexual luxury and not a biological requirement, in essence reducing the practice to deviance.
|
Which operates on the assumption that that which is not a biological requirement to the perpetuation of the human race is a deviance, which again you need to show.
Nobody can possibly question that homosexuals cannot biologically produce children with their partners but this excludes a number of factors. Firstly, considering that many/all higher mammals have a proportion of homosexual individuals, we cannot describe it as a function of superior human intelligence or an artificial superlative, indeed one might argue it serves a useful evolutionary purpose, since it is not in the interests of humanity to have too many individual for its given local ecosystem to support. The bacteria in the petri dish problem.
Furthermore, consider Maslows hierarchy of needs. In a situation like that, survival is a priority and it is less likely that sexual realisation and actualisation will occur than in a context where life is not so much of a life-and-death situation. Which leads me on to the final point. Given those numbers of people, any species which reproduces using dualistic sex (male+female) as opposed to asexual would not be able to survive given a start of two males and one female because of the lack of variety in the gene pool and the probability of decendents being unable to genetically survive.
Given a greater number of people in any case, homosexuality is both an option regarding procreation (other sources of genetic material), though you still need to answer my first questions, and an eventuality (more people, higher up Maslows hierarchy of needs, more chance of sexual/personal/interpersonal realisation).
Quad erat demonstrandum 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Mr Mitchell, the thing is, if you put your hand on the hot plate so to speak, you are INVALIDATING the practice of HOMO-SEXUALITY.
Why?
Because you now argue it is a LUXURY.
Marriages ain't about luxury. |
...no.
Actually only reason I post in thread is say thanks.
Thanks Wiglaf! You motivate me take English course. I now learning God's Language.
I use FOXNEWS as practice. It very good English practice. Thank yu!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Mr Mitchell, the thing is, if you put your hand on the hot plate so to speak, you are INVALIDATING the practice of HOMO-SEXUALITY.
|
Hardly, if you consider it as contextual as in my previous post, for example, on a given level on the HoN it is not invalidated in its own context. In the context of a single gay person it does not invalidate it because homosexuality for him will be descriptive and not prescriptive. That is to say he is not defined solely by his sexuality and thus in a situation where another part of his definition is exhibited (for example a hypothetical desire to extend the human race (operating on the assumption you have failed to qualify previously), the other parts are not involved anyway, so it does not "invalidate" it.
quote:
Why?
Because you now argue it is a LUXURY.
Marriages ain't about luxury.
|
So suddenly this has switched from Lord of the Flies to Hugh Grant and the Oxford Rectal Society?  . I very much doubt that in the cutthroat beginnings of the human race marriages existed. Procreation occured through rape and yet even then there are some theories that homosexuality existed. Marriage, in the examples you have used, ARE a luxury.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
If I was gay in that position (no pun intended) I would stay true and let the human race die out. It seems like a huge mistake anyway...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Thanks defend me , Whaleboy.
Wiglaf tell me take English but still loose in the head.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
WAKE UP PEOPLE. You got to draw the line somewhere. And so far the analysis has not even been challenged.
The great are only appreciated when they are dead, the saying goes. Well I ain't waiting.
|
Diatripe. Please qualify. I'll ignore the second sentence on the grounds of BS, the first is wrong considering that you were already demolished before I even looked at this thread, and what line? And why draw it where you are, considering that the ridge upon which you would draw it has been turned to rubble.
quote:
Everyone else on the planet has been destroyed due to a meteor or somesuch.
|
No you misunderstand. I used the term "necessary condition" to ask you why they should NECESSARILY act to preserve the human race. That poses a deep philosophical question of whether or not we do so anyway! Certainly in that context an anticipatory approach would be replaced by sensational anyway, put another way, one would live in the present and not worry about some hypothetical future.
quote:
NO NO NOT EVERYTHING. Just a coupling of two people who want to live forever who, without the deviant factor, would have made babies WINK WINK and thus evolved the race.
|
Who want to live forever? WTF are you on about?
As a bisexual I find it offensive that you call it the "deviant" factor so I'll assume you mean in your example if a person was heterosexual as opposed to homosexual. I default back to my previous question of why, baring in mind the hierarchy of needs, it is a necessary condition to preserve the human race in that context, as opposed to surviving or being comfortable/happy for example?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
the homosexuals would be forced to have sex with the woman. |
EXACTLY. When push comes to shove, relationships suddenly get serious??? Does that not seem morally wrong to you? Goodness, the hypocricy is making me want to shoot my monitor.
quote:
Marriage, in the examples you have used, ARE a luxury. |
HUH? By marriage I also meant "hookups." Anything but homosexuality. Obviously in this day and age, marriage is more of a necessity. But in cave-man world, we're talking.
quote:
Taking this a step further - if you don't have children, your commiting an atrocity!
Every male on Poly should rape as many women as they can |
Nope, but the government does not have to endorse people not having children.
And to bastardize relationships into luxuries is to bastardize my toaster into a sex-object. 
quote:
In the context of a single gay person it does not invalidate it because homosexuality for him will be descriptive and not prescriptive. |
Homosexuality always reflects on the individual's sexuality, regardless of circumstance. Every time gay guys hookup, the gene pool weakens. A dog dies, if you will.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
Sex is an unholy word. G-d punishes you to eternity in hell if you say it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Wiglaf my teacher say is costumary for someone say " You welcome " after I say thank you. You not say " You welcome " to me ? I just simple illegal immigrant. I just want friend.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-08-2004 05:37
|