08-16-2004, 06:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-16-2004, 06:30 PM by Chaerophon.)
Quote:Let me get this stright. You think that people go through all the dangers and uncomforts of pregnancy, then raise a completely paracitic unappreciative individual for YEARS just because society says they should? Why should people feel the desire for sex at all? It's a potentially unhealthy act with no benifits to the individual. There is a clear instinct and biological need to procreate and raise children. It may be stronger in some and weaker in others
Nope, that's actually not what I said. You're confusing two different things here. Many homosexuals want kids too; maybe even for biological reasons. Unfortunately, they're not attracted to the other sex.
I'll turn your argument around: "You think that such vast numbers of people would go through all the dangers and uncomforts of homosexuality...if it wasn't in their blood?" I know I don't. However, society imposes the concept of "abnormalcy" on these people who cannot help their sexuality. How does this improve the human race? Supposedly by dissuading such people from their practices. Is that just? NO. We must assume a conscious creator if we are going to assume that there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to have sex. Otherwise, there is just the way that most people do it, and the way that some - a rather large, "some" I might add - do, or want to do it.
It is not that society says "heterosexuality is normal, so are kids, so everyone should do it"; rather, it is "the majority of the population has never had homosexual urges, so we should normatively assume that the remaining 10-15% (less in terms of those who practice) are somehow "disfunctional". I would say that they are just part of a different numerical minority, and probably just as worthy of respect as the heterosexual majority.
Quote:Heterosexual sex is a boilogical fact and has been practiced longer than humans have exsisted let alone human society so to say it is a social creation is asinine.
This should be all cleared up by now. It is not the predominance of heterosexuality that is societally imposed; it is the normative stigma around homosexuality. That stigma is born of either dogmatic religious conditioning or undemocratic, majoritarian conceptions of "normalcy". To say that such a large chunk of the population is somehow "broken" is foolish. They're just different. Depends on what you see as the "purpose" human existence. If it is merely to procreate, then sure, they're broken. If it's to please God through acts, then, yeah, most would say that they're broken. If the "purpose" or "proper goal" is to live a good, happy life of your choosing that does not restrict/infringe that of others (as advocates of liberalism constantly argue is the case - recall, separation of church and state and all that)... then what place do such characterizations have in the equation?
Quote:don't let your anti religion bias get in the way of your logic.
Truth be told, I'm actually feeling quite religious these days. As for my logic: it remains sound.
But whate'er I be,
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II