DiscussMormonism.com

I am opening a thread to hopefully discuss the homosexual debate starting with the raw examination and moving upward.

I started with the biological view. Man and woman have two seperate roles. Man is the protector, woman is the nurturer. Both enjoy sex in order to give them motivation to have sex and procreate. Sex biologically has only one value. Make children. There is no real way of having sex naturally without the risk of pregnancy. So from a biological point of view, there is no other value in sex.

A second mechanism exists that makes man and woman come together. It is a sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Science claims this is biological. That there is something wired in our brains that make us attracted to one another.

In a homosexual, I contend there is a break in this wiring. Hence it is by definition, a defect. Just like depression, sexual addiction, autism, or ADHD. For someone who is depressed, the "sad" state is very real. While there might not be anything to be sad about, the feeling is very real. Feelings feel natural, so the depression, while negative, feels like a real part of our existance. Homosexuality creates a feeling of attraction to the same sex. It feels very real, hence a homosexual would see nothing "wrong" with it.

I say that we should avoid making it into a "lifestyle". That it should be treated, and that modern Psychology has become PC to the point of flowing with the "alternative lifestyle" view.

Just my thoughts. Hope this can stay civil.

JMS

Could you describe the main features of the "lifestyle"?

LSD

I'll repeat the comments I made on the other thread.

Analysis appears to support the model that human beings actually evolved to have short term primary bond mating, while engaged in cheating on the side. The advantage of the primary bond mating is to heighten the survival chances of those particular offspring. But, at the same time, cheating on the side enables the male to increase his chances of other offspring, even if he is not invested in ensuring their survival. They still may survive. And for the female, it increases her chances of utilizing possibly superior genetic material from the cheating partner, while benefiting from the cuckold male still ensuring the survival of those offspring.

My point is that you are oversimplifying sexuality.

Another example - if the sole purpose of sex was procreation, human beings would not have the instinct to keep having sex after the female is pregnant.

Your point about "defects" also is over-simplistic - as if "defects" ought to be simply weeded out. In reality, some of these "defects" may simply be slightly different wiring that may be more beneficial under certain circumstances. The fact that these differences may not be beneficial under one specific set of circumstances, such as our modern society, does not mean that these differences may not be beneficial under other circumstances. Hence, not really "defects" at all, but simply perceived as such by the current dominant group.

beastie wrote:I'll repeat the comments I made on the other thread.

Analysis appears to support the model that human beings actually evolved to have short term primary bond mating, while engaged in cheating on the side. The advantage of the primary bond mating is to heighten the survival chances of those particular offspring. But, at the same time, cheating on the side enables the male to increase his chances of other offspring, even if he is not invested in ensuring their survival. They still may survive. And for the female, it increases her chances of utilizing possibly superior genetic material from the cheating partner, while benefiting from the cuckold male still ensuring the survival of those offspring.

My point is that you are oversimplifying sexuality.

Another example - if the sole purpose of sex was procreation, human beings would not have the instinct to keep having sex after the female is pregnant.

Your point about "defects" also is over-simplistic - as if "defects" ought to be simply weeded out. In reality, some of these "defects" may simply be slightly different wiring that may be more beneficial under certain circumstances. The fact that these differences may not be beneficial under one specific set of circumstances, such as our modern society, does not mean that these differences may not be beneficial under other circumstances. Hence, not really "defects" at all, but simply perceived as such by the current dominant group.

I am sorry, but I won't be replying to you at all from here forth. What you did on the other threads is just unforgivable. I won't bring this up again, but I'll be ignoring you from here forth. Sorry..

Jersey Girl wrote:Could you describe the main features of the "lifestyle"?

LSD

In defining the "lifestyle" I mean allowing it to become a social norm. That homosexuality is not a defect at all, but a natural and normal behavioral pattern.

JMS

jskains wrote:I started with the biological view. Man and woman have two seperate roles. Man is the protector, woman is the nurturer. Both enjoy sex in order to give them motivation to have sex and procreate. Sex biologically has only one value. Make children. There is no real way of having sex naturally without the risk of pregnancy. So from a biological point of view, there is no other value in sex.

One can have sex after menopause and in human beings this serves the natural purpose of bonding. Similarly, I have heard that when women nurse, it serves not only to feed the baby, but also to promote bonding and may help the uterus to contract.

I remember hearing that there are some whiptail lizards of which only females exist. As I recall, they still engage in behavior that is like mating and this somehow promotes healtieer offspring. Perhaps bonding is an important aspect in sex for these animals as well.

In a homosexual, I contend there is a break in this wiring. Hence it is by definition, a defect. Just like depression, sexual addiction, autism, or ADHD. For someone who is depressed, the "sad" state is very real. While there might not be anything to be sad about, the feeling is very real. Feelings feel natural, so the depression, while negative, feels like a real part of our existance. Homosexuality creates a feeling of attraction to the same sex. It feels very real, hence a homosexual would see nothing "wrong" with it.

Another possibility is that this "miswring" is as harmless as synthesia and needs no cure. It may also be as harmless as men who simply prefer other things to the adrenalin / testosterone rush of sports. I see no reason to cure men who are slightly different than the norm with regard to sports. It seems that what nature wished for with men is irrelavent so long as these men choose to remain as they are and so long as these men pose no danger to society. Indeed, one might argue that nature's way of having men be agressive through testerone is actually dangerous--men tend to engage in more risky behavior and tend to be involved in more violent and abusive crime. Is that due to testerone? I'm not 100% sure, but I have heard such is likely the case.

One can have sex after menopause and in human beings this serves the natural purpose of bonding. Similarly, I have heard that when women nurse, it serves not only to feed the baby, but also to promote bonding and may help the uterus to contract.

Is sex after menopause a product of biology (IE: we did it from the very early days) or a product of our social conversion of sex into a more "advanced" activity.

Another possibility is that this "miswring" is as harmless as synthesia and needs no cure. It may also be as harmless as men who simply prefer other things to the adrenalin / testosterone rush of sports. I see no reason to cure men who are slightly different than the norm with regard to sports. It seems that what nature wished for with men is irrelavent so long as these men choose to remain as they are and so long as these men pose no danger to society. Indeed, one might argue that nature's way of having men be agressive through testerone is actually dangerous--men tend to engage in more risky behavior and tend to be involved in more violent and abusive crime. Is that due to testerone? I'm not 100% sure, but I have heard such is likely the case.

But it still is Miswiring. And I still wonder if one miswiring could lead to other miswiring. How can we ignore some of the more outlandish behavior of a very large number of homosexuals. Bathhouses, multiple partners, etc. etc. There WAS very real reasons that HIV spread so quickly though homosexuals than heterosexuals. I don't agree with the nasty ideology it was somehow "gay cancer" brought on by God, but we can't ignore all of this for PC reasons. SO the question is if this risky behavior is more common in homosexuality, is that a reflection on a bigger side-effect of the miswiring?

JMS

jskains wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:Could you describe the main features of the "lifestyle"?

LSD

In defining the "lifestyle" I mean allowing it to become a social norm. That homosexuality is not a defect at all, but a natural and normal behavioral pattern.

JMS

If it's okay with you to inject religious aspects here, if Christians believe that God created humankind, does that mean that God created humankind with sexual defects? If so, why regard homosexuality as different than say one who is born without reproductive ability?

Next up, what in your view, constitutes a social norm?

I'll post more tomorrow if I can. If the religious tangent isn't agreeable to you, just say the word and I'll drop it.

LSD

I am sorry, but I won't be replying to you at all from here forth. What you did on the other threads is just unforgivable. I won't bring this up again, but I'll be ignoring you from here forth. Sorry..

That's your choice, of course. It won't stop me from commenting.

Is sex after menopause a product of biology (IE: we did it from the very early days) or a product of our social conversion of sex into a more "advanced" activity.

Postmenopausal women still have a sex drive. This would not be so if postmenopausal sex is some "product of social conversion".

Likewise, pregnant women have sex drives - sometimes even stronger than before.

Abman is correct, in my opinion - sex is as much about pair bonding as it is about procreation. Pair bonding is beneficial to human survival, overall - not just in regards to reproduction.

Aside comment: On this board when you create a thread, you can request that people remain on topic or that only serious replies are offered. When others fail to meet that request, you can ask moderators to remove off topic or non-serious replies. They will take the extraneous comments and place them in another thread of their own. Just letting you know.