Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[Furcifer]

"Fuzzy"?

You're projecting again. Just because you d not see the pleasure in an activity, it does not make that activity inherently unpleasant.

strawman.

I never said it did. I said it made me uncomfortable, you've projected and said I thought it unpleasant. I didn't make any mention of what is or isn't unpleasant for the participants.

Nice try.

 

[Furcifer]

You're projecting again. Just because penetration with something other than a penis turns you and your partner off, this does not apply to everyone (or even a majority of people).

You've become boring and contrary. Of course it doesn't apply to everyone. Talking in absolutes, and making reference to them is so, well just plain weak.

You're naive if you think a bulk of heterosexual activity is going to consist of penetration with anything other than the penis. Especially anally. All you've done is continue to make a case for deviant behaviour.

Well done

 

[volatile]

strawman.

I never said it did. I said it made me uncomfortable, you've projected and said I thought it unpleasant. I didn't make any mention of what is or isn't unpleasant for the participants.

Nice try.

So the thought of other people having sex in a way you personally disapprove of makes you feel uncomfortable, but you don't find it unpleasant?

In what dialect of English does that sentence make sense?

 

[Furcifer]

He wears the same outfit in both, so it is an honnest mistake.

The onus is on you to not make these mistakes. Especially if you're going to start with the name calling. You wouldn't have made "an honest mistake" if you took the time to think before you typed. It's not that hard. Back up your ramblings or get called on them. You have yet to retract them, only make excuses for making them. Pretty lame.

 

[volatile]

You've become boring and contrary. Of course it doesn't apply to everyone. Talking in absolutes, and making reference to them is so, well just plain weak.

You're naive if you think a bulk of heterosexual activity is going to consist of penetration with anything other than the penis. Especially anally. All you've done is continue to make a case for deviant behaviour.

Well done

What on earth are you talking about? In this thread, you have summarily declared the actions of consenting adults to be repulsive, unacceptable, improper and disgusting based on incoherent appeals to evolutionary biology and statistics; have attempted to support your baseless prejudices with silly and self-defeating justifications only to retract them once you realised just how silly they were; failed, utterly, to make a compelling or logical case even for your own opinions, let alone the broader application of those opinions; and, basically, shown yourself up as a bigot led my nothing more than a childish, juvenile reaction to a set of sexual practices you personally do not care for.

 

[Furcifer]

So the thought of other people having sex in a way you personally disapprove of makes you feel uncomfortable, but you don't find it unpleasant?

In what dialect of English does that sentence make sense?

lmfao. How the **** would I know what other people find pleasant? FFS, I assume they somehow find it pleasant.

 

[volatile]

lmfao. How the **** would I know what other people find pleasant? FFS, I assume they somehow find it pleasant.

Err... what?

By definition, something which makes me feel uncomfortable is something I find unpleasant. I can't find something pleasant if it is uncomfortable.

What language are you speaking?

 

[Furcifer]

What on earth are you talking about? In this thread, you have summarily declared the actions of consenting adults to be repulsive,

A lie.

unacceptable,

Another lie.

improper and disgusting

Another lie

based on incoherent appeals to evolutionary biology and statistics;

Me anatomy, you cucumbers. lmfao.

have attempted to support your baseless prejudices with silly and self-defeating justifications only to retract them once you realised just how silly they were;

I've yet to retract anything. You have yet to show how my being uncomfortable with people putting things in their anus is prejudiced. You've cited morality, I've just said it seems gross. To me.

failed, utterly, to make a compelling or logical case even for your own opinions, let alone the broader application of those opinions;

So says you, but you've said a lot of unsubstantiated things. This is yet another.

and, basically, shown yourself up as a bigot led my nothing more than a childish, juvenile reaction to a set of sexual practices you personally do not care for.

Oh yes, it's very mature to put things in your rectum and cucumbers in a vagina. WTF?

You've failed miserably at everything but proving my orginal point. There's an inherent need to demonize homosexuality or make it seem perfectly normal. I'm so tired of it.

 

[Furcifer]

Just because you d not see the pleasure in an activity, it does not make that activity inherently unpleasant.

Do you see what you've said here? It is a strawman. I never said my not seeing the pleasure in the activity makes the act inherently unpleasant.

You've tried to put words in my mouth that I never said. Ever. You continue to change words or attribute things to me I never said. It is a strawman you are talking to not me.

I've answered your questions, politely and with much more decency than you have mine. Please, go back and answer my question.

 

[jmcvann]

Harking back to my OP...I wonder what Darwin would say about the evolution of this thread!

Good reading, people!

 

[Furcifer]

Harking back to my OP...I wonder what Darwin would say about the evolution of this thread!

Good reading, people!

Sorry. I think it's on topic in a round about way. Kinda.

There has been some interludes along the way that have tied it back to the original topic of evolution and Darwin.

edit: like altruism. I've never heard of this before, but it makes sense. At least as a theory that fills in the gaps. The nature or nuture does not encompass all there is to the issue.

 

[volatile]

What on earth are you talking about? In this thread, you have summarily declared the actions of consenting adults to be repulsive,

A lie.

Did you, or did you not, say "a majority of males find the thought repulsive." ?

unacceptable,

Another lie.

Did you, or did you not, say "Trying to change people's attitude towards homosexuality isn't going to begin with telling people it's a perfectly normal and acceptable practice to engage in anal sex"?

improper and disgusting

Another lie

Did you, or did you not say "the anus is not the proper place to be putting a penis. Fact.", and, ""the thought of anyone doing it makes me physically ill"?

Have you forgotten that anyone can go back over this thread and see what you've written in your own words?

based on incoherent appeals to evolutionary biology and statistics;

Me anatomy, you cucumbers. lmfao.

How does an evolutionary is imply a moral ought? Do vaginas secrete lubrication solely for the insertion of penises? On what basis do sheer weight of numbers inform social norms? You've not addressed any of these questions.

have attempted to support your baseless prejudices with silly and self-defeating justifications only to retract them once you realised just how silly they were;

I've yet to retract anything.

So you're going to stand by your definitions of "normal" and "proper", namely: that anal sex is improper because it may lead to injury, and vaginal sex is proper because the vagina becomes lubricated when penetrated by a penis? You stand by those definitions?

You have yet to show how my being uncomfortable with people putting things in their anus is prejudiced. You've cited morality, I've just said it seems gross. To me.

Because, as I've explained on numerous occasions, your projecting your disgust onto the acts of other people renders your statement a moral one. If you are disgusted by the thought of having anal sex yourself, OK, fine. But when you widen that digust such that it is belittling the behaviours of others because it does not conform to your own preferences, your attitude belies a bigoted moral stance. You are negatively judging someone based simply on your own internalised disgust. That's a bigoted stance.

and, basically, shown yourself up as a bigot led my nothing more than a childish, juvenile reaction to a set of sexual practices you personally do not care for.

Oh yes, it's very mature to put things in your rectum and cucumbers in a vagina. WTF?

It's mature to accept that such actions are part of the normal, pleasurable and fulfilling sex lives of a great number of people, and that no matter whether you personally enjoy them or not, that does not render them "disgusting", "repulsive" or mean they need cause you discomfort.

Your whole argument (and, might I say, your use of "LMFAO") suggests a juvenile, puerile approach to this topic. Your objections haven't risen beyond the level of the playground. "Bums! GROSS!"

You've failed miserably at everything but proving my orginal point. There's an inherent need to demonize homosexuality or make it seem perfectly normal. I'm so tired of it.

You're tired of the people you call repulsive telling you to mind your own damn business? Or explaining to you that you have no right or even logical reason to "feel uncomfortable" about what they choose to do in the bedroom? Or that in explaining these rather simple concepts to you, they are not "thrusting" anything "in your face" other than a reflection of your own idiocy?

 

[Furcifer]

Did you, or did you not, say "a majority of males find the thought repulsive." ?

Yes, but you've attributed it to me. I was saying I think you would find a much more negative response in many males.

Did you, or did you not, say "Trying to change people's attitude towards homosexuality isn't going to begin with telling people it's a perfectly normal and acceptable practice to engage in anal sex"?

There is an area between acceptable and unacceptable. This is where I've been all along. This is what I've been saying. Why can't you see that? My God man, have you not been listening to anything? Just because I don't find it "perfectly normal and acceptable" doesn't mean I have to find it "unacceptable". I don't like being made to make these choices and it seems like I have to. Numerous times I've said I find homosexuality acceptable, it's that final defining act I'm not comfortable with. Why should I throw out the entire practice based on what I find uncomfortable? Do you know how many people I talk to that think it's wrong soley based on buggery? As if that is the only defining thing.

Did you, or did you not say "the anus is not the proper place to be putting a penis. Fact.", and, ""the thought of anyone doing it makes me physically ill"?
Have you forgotten that anyone can go back over this thread and see what you've written in your own words?

Well I may have, I'll have to go and look back. I may have overstated it at some point today. If I did, I will retract that. Unless it was in reference to me, I'm not really keen on being raped.

How does an evolutionary is imply a moral ought? Do vaginas secrete lubrication solely for the insertion of penises? On what basis do sheer weight of numbers inform social norms? You've not addressed any of these questions.

I did, you overlooked the defintion I sought out and asked you about. That's your shortcoming.

So you're going to stand by your definitions of "normal" and "proper", namely: that anal sex is improper because it may lead to injury, and vaginal sex is proper because the vagina becomes lubricated when penetrated by a penis? You stand by those definitions?

Cherry picking. You've failed to consider the discussion an instead focussed on two things. The proper orfice to insert a penis into is a vagina. The rectum is an alternative not physically equipped to deal with said insertion properly. There are physical responses in a vagina that facilitate the insertion of the penis that are not present in the rectum. The rectums function is not the same as the vagina.

This is bloody basic anatomy. No amount of handwaving or tropical fruit is going to change that.

Because, as I've explained on numerous occasions, your projecting your disgust onto the acts of other people renders your statement a moral one. If you are disgusted by the thought of having anal sex yourself, OK, fine. But when you widen that digust such that it is belittling the behaviours of others because it does not conform to your own preferences, your attitude belies a bigoted moral stance. You are negatively judging someone based simply on your own internalised disgust. That's a bigoted stance.

Who did I judge negatively? Let him stand forward and cast the first stone. I have several friends who would bitch slap you for saying this about me without knowing me. I've had this conversation with a few friends. They've either said "Don't knock it till you tried it" or "If you don't like it then don't do it". Never been called bigot. Well, except by people that only think they know me.

It's mature to accept that such actions are part of the normal, pleasurable and fulfilling sex lives of a great number of people, and that no matter whether you personally enjoy them or not, that does not render them "disgusting", "repulsive" or mean they need cause you discomfort.

You were going along great there then tagged on the very last bit. How about you just forget the very last few words and we agree on something?

Your whole argument (and, might I say, your use of "LMFAO") suggests a juvenile, puerile approach to this topic. Your objections haven't risen beyond the level of the playground. "Bums! GROSS!"

You're talking to an ass man. (insert joke here)

You're tired of the people you call repulsive telling you to mind your own damn business? Or explaining to you that you have no right or even logical reason to "feel uncomfortable" about what they choose to do in the bedroom? Or that in explaining these rather simple concepts to you, they are not "thrusting" anything "in your face" other than a reflection of your own idiocy?

Strawman. I've never called anyone repulsive. Some of the most endearing people I've ever met have been and continue to be gay.

It's funny, but most of the gay friends I've had get that I don't get it. I've never had anyone care. I've had the gross out competition. You say one thing they say another. They've been equally uncomfortable with the thought of vaginal sex as I have with anal. Possibly even more so.

 

[MikeSun5]

I think it's weird how whenever homosexuality is debated on forums like this, it's almost always a bunch of straight dudes discussing anal sex.

Fixate much, fellas?

So, getting back to the OP after a 3 page cucumber/butt-sex derail...

Here's an interesting article that discusses male homosexuality (without mentioning anal wow, I know) as actually being beneficial to our species. An exerpt:

Male homosexuality is just the first example of an unknown number of sexually antagonistic traits, which contribute to the maintenance of the natural genetic variability of humans. The new perspectives opened by the models developed for sexually antagonistic selection may also contribute to a better understanding of most genetically-based sexual conflicts, which are, at present, poorly understood in humans.

An unexpected implication of the new models concerns the impact that the sexually antagonistic genetic factors for male homosexuality have on the overall fecundity of a population. The findings suggest that the proportion of male homosexuals may signal a corresponding proportion of females with higher fecundity. Consequently, these factors always contribute, all else being equal, a positive net increase of the fecundity of the whole population, when compared to populations in which such factors are lower or absent. This increase grows as the population baseline fecundity decreases; this means that the genes influencing male homosexuality end up playing the role of a buffer effect on any external factors lowering the overall fecundity of the whole population.

 

[sol invictus]

Earth. Why do you ask?

It was a reference to what has recently become a pretty famous quote.

What? This is beyond words.

The idea that there is a "proper place" for penises is so.... staggeringly naive and childish. I honestly cannot bring myself to think that you actually believe it, so I won't bother to address it again.

How exactly did you come to that conclusion again? Oh right, because normal sex is intercourse between a man and a woman. lmfao.

Yes, that comment among many others has made it very, very clear.

 

[Furcifer]

The idea that there is a "proper place" for penises is so.... staggeringly naive and childish. I honestly cannot bring myself to think that you actually believe it, so I won't bother to address it again.

Just...Wow. This is a whole new level of denial I've never experienced before. I know your familiar with basic human anatomy, but unwilling to acknowledge a simple fact. I'm searching for the words, but you have me at a complete and utter loss. I have no idea where you are coming from.

Yes, that comment among many others has made it very, very clear.

If you only knew how very, very wrong you are.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, I think the physical response is a result of anticipation for the insertion of a penis, not a cucumber. I hardly think the vagina evolved to accomodate vegtables. The response might be intiated by anything the woman fancies.

So you are not basing this on any real evidence but you belief about how sex should be.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'll assume you grabbed that quote to ask the question?

I see that as normal. I can understand homosexuality up to the point of coitus. Then it gets fuzzy. How that makes me a bigot is even more confusing.

You are a bigot for calling people the definition of pervert. You are drawing a very very strange distinction between the definition of a word and the word itself. Of course with out anal sex you really are for the other ways that they would achieve orgasm, so a couple that is non anal and mainly oral would not be deviant sexualy(perverted).

 

[ponderingturtle]

Genetics, anatomy, social customs or established norms.

So in other words what ever you can find to justify your preconcieved notions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The point is: if your criteria for what kind of sex is "proper" (your term) is whether it promotes vaginal secretion (your definition), then you must include cucumbers. By your own "logic".

Only if you expect consistency in his logic, as it seems to be more rationalizations than a rational argument I would not expect the consistency.

If you disagree with the "promotion of vaginal excreta" criterion for determining whether or not a sexual practice is "proper", could you explain what criteria you now wish to turn to? If making someone wet doesn't define propriety, what does, in your opinion?

And there is the whole problem of why include oral sex but not anal. Anal sex is certainly more sexualy stimulating to the recieving partner.