Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[ponderingturtle]

Listen to myself? Why don't you try talking to what I've wrote instead of what you think I meant?

It is what the words you wrote mean. It is just a somewhat less polite way of saying it. I don't think I am insulting people more or less if I do it in a polite fashion or a dirrect fashion.

I never advocated for putting people in asylums to treat deviant behaviour, I said it was no one elses business so they should forget about it.

So when do we need to intervene in immoral behavior?

This is the difference, I am for intervetion in behavior I consider to be immoral, and if intervention is not needed I don't consider it immoral.

You are so far off it's pathetic. It's strawman after strawman, I expected more from a member I actually respected. I think there's more going on here than you would like to admit. Get a grip, read for comprehension and start addressing what I wrote.

It isn't stawmen, it is applying your justifications on why homosexuality is immoral and why anal sex is immoral to things you don't consider immoral and trying to parse appart what you are saying. You said things right off that offended people, and stand by your assertions. I don't care at all that I have offended you because of this.

fyi- Im now mobile and busy so please, if you could stop spamming me then claiming I dodged your strawmen that would be great.

If you don't have time or ability to post reasonable answers wait to respond until you do. You will not be accused of dodging a question if you don't respond at all. It is repeatedly responding to the thread and not responding to specific issues that gets you called on dodging questions.

How a question can be a strawman is beyond me though.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So if a man is uncomfortable with performing oral sex on a woman, because he doesn't feel it's proper or dirty or whatever, he's a bigot. That's what you two are saying. That's unbelievably messed up.

No. We are saying that if someone said that men shouldn't perform oral sex on women(cunnilingus or annilingus?) and that it was a perverted act that they would be a bigot. Especialy if they classed all men who did it as perverts.

It is the extension of going from I don't want to do X so that X is wrong.

 

[volatile]

So if a man is uncomfortable with performing oral sex on a woman, because he doesn't feel it's proper or dirty or whatever, he's a bigot.

No. As I explained in my very first post to you on this forum, it's not how you feel about yourself performing an act that makes you bigoted, it's how you feel both about other people performing an act, and how you feel about them seeking not to be marginalised or belittled for it.

That you make this statement leads me to believe you've not read much of what's been directed to you. How you feel about your own sexual behaviour has never been an issue. The issue is when you extrapolate these feelings to judge anyone else who engages in activity you personally choose to refrain from.

 

[Furcifer]

You two have wallowed into a world of stupid here.

It's just a bunch of hand waving. If I guy isn't into oral, he isn't going to be comfortable with the thought of soemone else doing it.

 

[volatile]

You two have wallowed into a world of stupid here.

Yes, we have. It's all coming from your mouth.

It's just a bunch of hand waving. If I guy isn't into oral, he isn't going to be comfortable with the thought of someone else doing it.

I don't want to go horseriding. The thought of other people doing it certainly doesn't make me feel much at all, let alone "uncomfortable". And it certainly doesn't make me feel aggreived if a member of the Pony Club talks about horseriding. I wouldn't accuse him of "thrusting" equestrianism in my face.

Why does what other people get up to bother you so much?

 

[volatile]

Is oral sex "proper"?

 

[Furcifer]

Your reasons for not horse riding aren't the same at all. Pick another failed analogy. I know several men who have expressed similar distain for oral sex for the same reasons I've cited against anal. I don't feel the same way, but I've never called someone a bigot for this. You two should be ashamed of yourselves for displaying this level of intolerance based on failed misconceptions. It's the exact same reasoning the bigots you admonish cling to.

 

[Furcifer]

Is oral sex "proper"?

lol, I'm not biting. You two have created so many strawmen and I'm on to you. Proper with a horse? A 12 year old? Barbra Walters? Who cares?

 

[ponderingturtle]

lol, I'm not biting. You two have created so many strawmen and I'm on to you. Proper with a horse? A 12 year old? Barbra Walters? Who cares?

So you are never going to provide any diffinitive definition of what acts are proper vs improper. You will just declair things proper or improper, and use your authority to prove it.

Are you the Pope?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Your reasons for not horse riding aren't the same at all. Pick another failed analogy. I know several men who have expressed similar distain for oral sex for the same reasons I've cited against anal. I don't feel the same way, but I've never called someone a bigot for this. You two should be ashamed of yourselves for displaying this level of intolerance based on failed misconceptions. It's the exact same reasoning the bigots you admonish cling to.

You are still not understanding the difference between oral sex is a perverse act, vs I don't like performing oral sex.

 

[ponderingturtle]

3BP, let me give you an example of the difference in how Volatile and I are saying these things vs how you are saying these things.

I will pick foot fetishes as an example, because it is something that I do not feel any sexual attraction for and have difficulty seeing why others would find it sexually attractive.

Me
"I don't get why licking someones feet and toes is a turn on, I wouldn't get turned on by it, I don't want it done to me, and I would be reluctant to do it to someone else."

You
"If sexual attraction to feet and the licking of toes and feet is a deviant sexual practice." Of course deviant sexual practice is clinical speak for perverted and wrong.

The difference is that I am only speaking about the sexual activities I want to engage in. I am not in this case making statements that malign those who practice these things. You are using defamatory statements and are still not acknowledging it. Are you a native english speaker?

I am not saying this because of anything technicaly wrong with your writing, but you seem to have no idea what an average person will think you mean using the words you are in that fashion.

 

[Furcifer]

So you are never going to provide any diffinitive definition of what acts are proper vs improper. You will just declair things proper or improper, and use your authority to prove it.

Are you the Pope?

Nice appeal to authourity. The issue was rectum or vagina, which is more proper. You're wanting me to define everything has become utterly useless in terms of this conversation.

 

[Steve]

Yes, we have. It's all coming from your mouth.

I don't want to go horseriding. The thought of other people doing it certainly doesn't make me feel much at all, let alone "uncomfortable". And it certainly doesn't make me feel aggreived if a member of the Pony Club talks about horseriding. I wouldn't accuse him of "thrusting" equestrianism in my face.

Why does what other people get up to bother you so much?

Volatile, and ponderingturtle -

It is my opinion that you are both attributing a position to 3bodyproblem that he has not taken, and doing so in an overly aggressive manner. I would briefly like to get away from the discussion of sex acts and give the example of my wife, who is absolutely terrified if snakes. It would be an accurate statement to say that she is uncomfortable with the mere thought of someone handling a snake. She would not feel "aggrieved" if someone was discussing the handling of snakes in her presence but she would certainly remove herself from the discussion as quickly as possible. This does not make her bigoted toward those who enjoy snakes and she certainly would not consider them to be "perverts" by any definition of the word. Her attitude could be summed up as - You go ahead and enjoy your snakes, but I do not want to know about it. While there may be a component of irrationality to such feelings I do not think that they are entirely unreasonable or unacceptable, especially as she is in no way saying that those who like snakes should not be free to enjoy them as they see fit. I see 3bodyproblem's position in this thread in a similar light. I would suggest that the "hot topic" of homosexuality may have somewhat clouded your judgment on this issue.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nice appeal to authourity. The issue was rectum or vagina, which is more proper. You're wanting me to define everything has become utterly useless in terms of this conversation.

No, the question is why do you class one as proper and one as improper.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Volatile, and ponderingturtle -

It is my opinion that you are both attributing a position to 3bodyproblem that he has not taken, and doing so in an overly aggressive manner. I would briefly like to get away from the discussion of sex acts and give the example of my wife, who is absolutely terrified if snakes.

Does your wife class the handeling of snakes as deviant behavior?

It would be an accurate statement to say that she is uncomfortable with the mere thought of someone handling a snake. She would not feel "aggrieved" if someone was discussing the handling of snakes in her presence but she would certainly remove herself from the discussion as quickly as possible.

Does she make a point that the handeling of snakes is deviant behavior before she leaves?

This does not make her bigoted toward those who enjoy snakes and she certainly would not consider them to be "perverts" by any definition of the word.

Calling something sexualy deviant is the definition of perverted.

I would suggest that the "hot topic" of homosexuality may have somewhat clouded your judgment on this issue.

Or it could be the labeling of people as sexual deviants(a nicer way of saying perverts).

Oddly given his liking of the mathmatical definition of deviant, he does not class redheads as deviants, so there is a clear moral component to his defition, that being a deviant is improper.

 

[Furcifer]

3BP, let me give you an example of the difference in how Volatile and I are saying these things vs how you are saying these things.

I will pick foot fetishes as an example, because it is something that I do not feel any sexual attraction for and have difficulty seeing why others would find it sexually attractive.

Me
"I don't get why licking someones feet and toes is a turn on, I wouldn't get turned on by it, I don't want it done to me, and I would be reluctant to do it to someone else."

You
"If sexual attraction to feet and the licking of toes and feet is a deviant sexual practice." Of course deviant sexual practice is clinical speak for perverted and wrong.

The difference is that I am only speaking about the sexual activities I want to engage in. I am not in this case making statements that malign those who practice these things. You are using defamatory statements and are still not acknowledging it. Are you a native english speaker?

I am not saying this because of anything technicaly wrong with your writing, but you seem to have no idea what an average person will think you mean using the words you are in that fashion.

Your insecurities with definitions are not my concern. Like I've said, it's the understanding of these definitions that holds us back.

 

[Furcifer]

Volatile, and ponderingturtle -

It is my opinion that you are both attributing a position to 3bodyproblem that he has not taken, and doing so in an overly aggressive manner. I would briefly like to get away from the discussion of sex acts and give the example of my wife, who is absolutely terrified if snakes. It would be an accurate statement to say that she is uncomfortable with the mere thought of someone handling a snake. She would not feel "aggrieved" if someone was discussing the handling of snakes in her presence but she would certainly remove herself from the discussion as quickly as possible. This does not make her bigoted toward those who enjoy snakes and she certainly would not consider them to be "perverts" by any definition of the word. Her attitude could be summed up as - You go ahead and enjoy your snakes, but I do not want to know about it. While there may be a component of irrationality to such feelings I do not think that they are entirely unreasonable or unacceptable, especially as she is in no way saying that those who like snakes should not be free to enjoy them as they see fit. I see 3bodyproblem's position in this thread in a similar light. I would suggest that the "hot topic" of homosexuality may have somewhat clouded your judgment on this issue.

I was an amateur herpotologist. I bred leopards geckos and standings day geckos. Oh, and I had a few ball pythons

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Darwin didn't say much on the subject. Besides which, not to put to fine a point on it, Who Cares?

Darwin is a distinguished scientist who helped define a theory that became central to biological science. Aristotle helped define the role of logic, which is crucial to assessing arguments. Newton developed calculus and the basic Law of Motion in physics, which both are fundamental tools to understanding and assessing the world around us.

I don't give a rip what Aristotle, Newton, or Darwin said about homosexuality. It wasn't in the arena of their substantial and valuable contributions to the method and knowledge body of science. The use of "appeal to authority" and "it's in the Book" as arguments is not valid as a means of knowledge. This is not a Bible study class; I don't care who said it, I care if it can be tested and shown to be true or false, or partially true.

Without having read most of the preceding 5 pages, I'm sure there has been a lot of moralizing and counter-punching on the subject of homosexuality. Here's the point, though: The basic question of the thread is neatly answered by, "What difference does that make?" That Darwin said it doesn't make it more likely to be true or false than that Liberace said it.

The point of skepticism, and for that matter, of science, is to look at "what is true", not "who is right". What someone a century ago thought about something tangental to their area of expertise is no more than an historical curiosity.

Just my opinion, but a reasoned one, Miss_Kitt

 

[ponderingturtle]

Your insecurities with definitions are not my concern. Like I've said, it's the understanding of these definitions that holds us back.

So we should ignore standard english useage for a useage that you refuse to define now?

It is your refusal to clearify your statements that is holding us back.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I was an amateur herpotologist. I bred leopards geckos and standings day geckos. Oh, and I had a few ball pythons

Deviant.