Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling

[notAFanB]

I think it would be justification of a type of normality when discussing natures systems and their (sidee?) effects. but no we prolly have to throw the 'nature' element out the window when discussing the ethics of such an issue.

First you have to uncover the basis of those natural systems. To my knowledge no one has been able to demonstrate this.

I don't understand why anyone still argues a natural aspect to homosexuality - its a double edged sword.

I prefer to think of it as toothless.

my point is the type of argumentation conducted could be used as a basis to justify any other commonly reject sexual behavior. If you start here using such argument where do you stop?

I know these one line replies are annoying but, you don't (stop that is)

 

[Vince]

As I stated before, anything that happens in nature is natural. Whether or not it is "morally" objectionable is another debate altogether. But that's been said before and did not need a long winded paragraph from you to say that.

So, your point?

This is basically where my argument left off. I was intent on allowing this argument to wind down and not make myself feel bad by critisizing your chosen way of life even more and perhaps, to a much futher extreme.

But, your comment of "So, your point?" pisses me off. The point Natoma is that you're own argument has been reduced to moral grounds exclusivly. There is no tangible biological distinction or proof that gives homosexuality any more purpose than a fallicious and wrong way of life that's outside of nature's intention (as per origional design) as is beastiality (interspecies) or incest (leading to genetic problems) or any of the bizzare sexual practices that I can't even fathom.

The problem is that since you're not willing to put yourself on the same plane as beastiality, incest, et al - you're retreated to this "Moral" argument that has no tangible envidence to support it. Morality, as opposed to the tangible passing of genetic material forward via heterosexual intercourse, is a human quality that's as fluid and dynamic as the society which is currently dictating the "Morality."

Thus, you have this odd and inconsistent duality in your argument where you state that it's "natural" where is agrees with your actions (eg. "Homosexuality = natural because it's in nature"), but then retreat to a morality argument when you don't want to be compared to other "natural" acts (eg. beastiality, incest).

So, Natoma - can you (in all your self-supposed state of educated enlightenment that we lack) at the very least concede that the concept of homosexuality doesn't serve a undimental biological purpose (eg. reproduction)? Can you then concede that, just perhaps, homosexuality is a biological flaw that serves no purpose in lower-lifeforms other than perhaps sexual gratification and/or is truely a genetic anomoly (or concurrently related to)?

How you argue this is beyond me. I don't care what you do in your own time, in your own bedroom; but please don't try to tell me that your practice isn't biologically useless. You're a dead end and unless nature wants to use you to cull some genes or population or some other action; you're a flaw that doesn't add to the future in a fundimental natural way. Of course there is morality to say that you do surve a purpose (which you do), but I really don't think there is any scientifically sanctioned theory that would allow for the primordial evolution upto you which serves a purpose that's tntellectual or materialistic or otherwise non biological.

 

[Natoma]

See my last post on page 14. And yes, by my definition, heterosexuality is on the same level as homosexuality, incest, beastiality, yadda yadda yadda.

So again, what is your point?

 

[notAFanB]

But, your comment of "So, your point?" pisses me off. The point Natoma is that you're own argument has been reduced to moral grounds exclusivly. There is no tangible biological distinction or proof that gives homosexuality any more purpose than a fallicious and wrong way of life that's outside of nature's intention (as per origional design) as is beastiality (interspecies) or incest (leading to genetic problems) or any of the bizzare sexual practices that I can't even fathom.

hi vince, my question is is heterosexuality on the same level as stated above (that is the result of evolutionary mutations, and successful one to boot).

 

[Vince]

hi vince, my question is is heterosexuality on the same level as stated above (that is the result of evolutionary mutations, and successful one to boot).

Hola, Yet there is a fundimental biological purpose/necessity (as I subsequently stated) to heterosexual relationships in higher organisms that doesn't occur in homosexual, beastility or incestual relationships.

So, why is there homosexuality? What does it do biologically? What does it do at all? Allow Natoma to get off?

 

[Vince]

See my last post on page 14. And yes, by my definition, heterosexuality is on the same level as homosexuality, incest, beastiality, yadda yadda yadda.

Your responce is woefully inaccurature and inconsistent. I have since adressed these concerns in my prior post, which I would recommend you read again.

I have adressed several time why these aren't on the same level (biological purpose) and your responce has consistely been the evasive and inconsistent:

I've only argued that what exists in nature is natural. I then stipulated that the argument of what is "morally" objectionable and what is not is something left for another debate.

Which is avoiding the argument that within nature there lies biological entities and occurances which are erronious and flaws. How do you know Homosexuality isn't one of these and how does it differ from actions such as beastilaity and incestual relationships that are biologically irrelevent and/or hurtful to the genetic line?

The distinction between homosexualty (et al) and Heterosexuality is clear. One produces offspring and is biologically significant, the others aren't.

 

[Legion]

1) Natural was defined, according to Webster's Dictionary, as that which is found in nature. That is the accepted definition of natural, and under that definition, homosexuality is indeed natural.

Natoma Antler place quotes around the world implying a specific meaning. I want him to define it.

Natoma under that definition incest, paedophilia, etc are also natural.

However, that is a completely different argument wrt the moral objections to homosexuality. The arguments should be kept completely separate because they are completely separate.

I agree. Infact i consider the natural argument irrelevant.

2) Human nature is demonstrably not different than that of other animals. We are mammals after all. Despite our intelligence, despite our "civilization," we are still floating on top of millions of years of evolution and animal instinct.

Have you done research concerning this? Can you provide me research demonstrating sexuality as a predetermined genetic feature? Please demonstrate how instinct impacts animals in the same way (to the same degree) it impacts humans and vice versa.

We are driven by three undeniably animalistic forces. Hunger, Sex, and the need for shelter. We are most certainly animals, despite our intellect.

Natoma if you reread my previous post you will realize i mentioned there are genetic proponents and instincts humans have. Many basic ones are shared within humans and those of other animals. However sexuality demonstratably isn't. Natoma it should occur to you that simply implying a link between various instincs in other animals doesn't mean there are any. Simply put when is the last time you saw a dog with an instinctual desire to build a web?

Is the drive for sex sexuality? Of course not. A mere genetic reference can't help explain the varying sexual preferences and orientations we see in society. Of course this is an assumption on my part that you grasp the possibility no such gene exists that causal humans to be aroused by animals, children, etc.

You are clearly willing to assume a great deal.

3) Indeed, it is natural to have sex outside your species. As you have stated, it does indeed occur in nature. And I admit wholeheartedly that in earlier disputes wrt this, I got caught up with equating natural with good, which is not necessarily the case. Natural is completely separate from our moral objections of what is good.

The mere fact you have a moral code is proof there is more to you then mere instinct Natoma.

Now, my particular beliefs on sexuality and the species is that human sex should occur only with beings who possess the same, or greater, level of intellect that we possess.

Really? Why? Why shouldn't people be allowed to have sex with others not up to their "intellectual" standards? What difference does it make who or what they are having sex with? Why can't people have a genetic predisposition to have sex with other animals?

Why do I put it like that? Because if/when we ever make contact with alien races (yes I am being serious), there is no doubt in my mind that there will be intermingling, which would be "illegal" under the definition of "natural" sex that humans should only co-mingle with humans.

What about intelligent cognisant machines?

I also believe that sexual relations should only occur between those who are fully capable of making the decision, understanding the ramifications of their actions, and thus acting on that.

How do you know they aren't fully capable of understanding their decisions? Seems to me that a great number of young men and women get involved in sexual relationships without understanding the outcome of their choices (the reason for the vast number of abortions).

So under my open ended belief structure wrt to beastiality, underage sex, yadda yadda yadda, it would not be good for a woman to marry a pig. But if she wants to marry an intelligent pig from the planet Zoufrous , then that's perfectly fine by me.

I disagree. Both of your statements do not back your beliefs against beatiality and underage sex.

1. You made the comment that people should be able to have sex with other animals of their intelligence. Is having sex with other animals the basis of the definition of bestiality?

2. You stated you don't believe people should have sex with those incapable of understanding the rammifications of sex. How do you know a 15 year old doesn't? How do you know a 20 year old does? Is saying that they should mean they could or that they do? Do you think societies' legal age limit has always been the same? No of course not. Is it possible then for a thirteen year old to understand the rammications of sex, correct? They obviously did and do in many cultures.

Incest should not occur because of the fact that it can produce horribly physically deformed and/or mentally disabled children. However, this is already expressed in the laws in this country as it is legal to marry your second cousin, or a more distant relation. Obviously this is because the genetic drift between the second cousin and greater is wide enough to bring the genetic problems brought up through incest to a more acceptable level.

Natoma, what if they agree not to have children (via sterilization)? Why then shouldn't they be able to life together? Should partners with a high propensity towards turning out children with mental retardations and other genetic disoders be forbidden to live together as well or force sterilized? If homosexual unions shouldn't be objected to for their lack of producing offspring then this occassion shouldn't be either. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. Who are you to tell them whom they can love or how they can express their love? I am getting that Margrit Sanger feeling Natoma and sure why...

 

[Natoma]

hi vince, my question is is heterosexuality on the same level as stated above (that is the result of evolutionary mutations, and successful one to boot).

Hola, Yet there is a fundimental biological purpose/necessity (as I subsequently stated) to heterosexual relationships in higher organisms that doesn't occur in homosexual, beastility or incestual relationships.

So, why is there homosexuality? What does it do biologically? What does it do at all? Allow Natoma to get off?

Did you read my last post on page 14? Incest can indeed serve a biological purpose/necessity wrt reproduction. Not in every case does incest produce malformed children. In fact, if you believe the bible, the human race began solely *because of* incest.

So heterosexuality is just as good as incest. Or should I say, incest is heterosexual wrt reproduction. So it appears that you are the one who is applying a "moral" code to the state of incest when it does in fact serve your fundamental biological purpose/necessity.

In fact, even the US government sanctions incest by allowing you to marry your second cousin. Your family member!

 

[notAFanB]

hi vince, my question is is heterosexuality on the same level as stated above (that is the result of evolutionary mutations, and successful one to boot).

Hola, Yet there is a fundimental biological purpose/necessity (as I subsequently stated) to heterosexual relationships in higher organisms that doesn't occur in homosexual, beastility or incestual relationships.

So, why is there homosexuality? What does it do biologically? What does it do at all? Allow Natoma to get off?

Did you read my last post on page 14? Incest can indeed serve a biological purpose/necessity wrt reproduction. Not in every case does incest produce malformed children. In fact, if you believe the bible, the human race began solely *because of* incest.

So heterosexuality is just as good as incest. Or should I say, incest is heterosexual wrt reproduction. So it appears that you are the one who is applying a "moral" code to the state of incest when it does in fact serve your fundamental biological purpose/necessity.

In fact, even the US government sanctions incest by allowing you to marry your second cousin. Your family member!

I won't tocuh the subject of incest here but I believe vince is refering to the concept of genetic diversification.

however I do feel that as time passes this sexual drive as a prerequisite to the continuation of the species will have a reduced emphasis. the 'intellect as a result of the same process may very well see to that.

I am curiouse to see whether the bio-components involvined in sexualality cease to evolve or change over such extended period tho.

 

[kyleb]

well i have always been a strong supporter of male homosexuality as it improves my odds with the ladies.

but as for biological reasoning, it seems reasonable to me that it may be nature's cure for overpopulation.

 

[notAFanB]

well i have always been a strong supporter of male homosexuality as it improves my odds with the ladies.

but as for biological reasoning, it seems reasonable to me that it may be nature's cure for overpopulation.

maybe but then it is a failure in the sense that intellect allow us to bypass it to some extent.

 

[Vince]

Incest can indeed serve a biological purpose/necessity wrt reproduction. Not in every case does incest produce malformed children. In fact, if you believe the bible, the human race began solely *because of* incest.

Who believes the bible word for word? I don't believe you'll find any serious upper-tier scholar who does.

Legion around? heh.

So heterosexuality is just as good as incest. Or should I say, incest is heterosexual wrt reproduction. So it appears that you are the one who is applying a "moral" code to the state of incest when it does in fact serve your fundamental biological purpose/necessity.

Incest is biologically insignificant and actually hinders genetic advancement. Can you find me a true incestual isolated community that has survived and prospered? I think Emily Nietzsche would disagree with you.

In fact, even the US government sanctions incest by allowing you to marry your second cousin. Your family member!

You're disapointing me. They're you're second cousin thanks to genetic diversification via four(?) minimal heterosexual relationships between you that has introduced outside genes into the line... unlike true incest or your biologically insignifant way of life.

So, what purpose does Homosexuality serve in biological terms to differentiate it from incest and beastiality to rise to your supposed parity with heterosexuality.

 

[kyleb]

so notAFanB, if something doesn't work perfectly you consider it a failure? i hardly see that is logical, reality is rarly a black and white thing. i think Leonard Cohen hit the nail on the head when i sang "there is a crack in everything."

on i side note, if one is born with a natural tenancy towards homosexuality but makes a conscious effort to lead a heterosexual life i would hardly call that an act of intellect, sounds more like ignorance to me. i mean, if social pressures had it that i should stick to homosexual relationships, it would seem that i would have to be pretty damn stupid to go around trying to please society as opposed regard for my own desires.

 

[Natoma]

1) Natural was defined, according to Webster's Dictionary, as that which is found in nature. That is the accepted definition of natural, and under that definition, homosexuality is indeed natural.

Natoma Antler place quotes around the world implying a specific meaning. I want him to define it.

Natoma under that definition incest, paedophilia, etc are also natural.

To which I agree. Pedophilia was in fact a very natural and supported pillar of society during grecian and roman times, in order to initiate young boys into the world of men.

And as I stated earlier, if you're a believer in the bible, incest was the only means by which we could grow from "Adam and Eve" into today's 6 Billion strong population.

So yes, those actions are indeed as natural as heterosexuality, homosexuality, beastiality, et al. However, the moral objection to it is a completely different matter.

I'm not really sure how many times I can state that.

However, that is a completely different argument wrt the moral objections to homosexuality. The arguments should be kept completely separate because they are completely separate.

I agree. Infact i consider the natural argument irrelevant.

Hey I'm not the one who brought it up in this discussion.

2) Human nature is demonstrably not different than that of other animals. We are mammals after all. Despite our intelligence, despite our "civilization," we are still floating on top of millions of years of evolution and animal instinct.

Have you done research concerning this? Can you provide me research demonstrating sexuality as a predetermined genetic feature? Please demonstrate how instinct impacts animals in the same way (to the same degree) it impacts humans and vice versa.

I said that despite our intelligence and our "civilization," we are still subject to the forces of our animalistic nature. We are not completely disembodied, 100% intellectual beings. I have never stated that our instincts dominate us to the same degree as they dominate an amoeba, or a lion, or whatnot.

If we weren't driven by our animal impulses anymore, you wouldn't have adultery, obesity, the insatiable male sex drive P), etc etc etc.

We are driven by three undeniably animalistic forces. Hunger, Sex, and the need for shelter. We are most certainly animals, despite our intellect.

Natoma if you reread my previous post you will realize i mentioned there are genetic proponents and instincts humans have. Many basic ones are shared within humans and those of other animals. However sexuality demonstratably isn't. Natoma it should occur to you that simply implying a link between various instincs in other animals doesn't mean there are any. Simply put when is the last time you saw a dog with an instinctual desire to build a web?

The desire to build a web? That is a means by which a spider procures food. The dog has no such need to do that, nor is it physically capable of doing such a thing. Dogs however have evolved the ability to hunt in packs and cooperate in dominance societies in order to increase their survival.

However they are still outgrowths of the initial basic biological need to satiate hunger.

Is the drive for sex sexuality? Of course not. A mere genetic reference can't help explain the varying sexual preferences and orientations we see in society. Of course this is an assumption on my part that you grasp the possibility no such gene exists that causal humans to be aroused by animals, children, etc.

You are clearly willing to assume a great deal.

Yes, the drive for sex does indeed express itself in varying ways of sexuality just as the hunger drive expresses itself in differing animals in varying ways.

3) Indeed, it is natural to have sex outside your species. As you have stated, it does indeed occur in nature. And I admit wholeheartedly that in earlier disputes wrt this, I got caught up with equating natural with good, which is not necessarily the case. Natural is completely separate from our moral objections of what is good.

The mere fact you have a moral code is proof there is more to you then mere instinct Natoma.

I never said or alluded to the fact that we are only driven by instinct. I merely stated that despite our intelligence and our civilization, we are still driven in large part by instinct. However, that instinct is tempered by our intellect and our civilization.

See the relative lack of killing in our "advanced" societies. In nature, killing is an every day occurrence and there is no moral code attached to it. It is merely a fact of life. Kill or be killed. But never did I state that we should go out and kill simply because we are biologically hardwired to do so in order to protect our assets.

Our intellect and our civilization, and the natural outgrowth of that, i.e. our collective moral code, is what helps separate us from "lower" animals.

However, "lower" animals also display civilization and intellect, and in some cases a collective moral code. See dolphins, primates, and elephant herds as example.

Now, my particular beliefs on sexuality and the species is that human sex should occur only with beings who possess the same, or greater, level of intellect that we possess.

Really? Why? Why shouldn't people be allowed to have sex with others not up to their "intellectual" standards? What difference does it make who or what they are having sex with? Why can't people have a genetic predisposition to have sex with other animals?

Wrt to the intellectual level, that was not meant to imply that if you have an IQ of 120, you can't consort with someone who has an IQ of 110. That was a general statement, and looking at my statement I apologize for not making that clearer.

There is a certain level at which human intelligence ceases to be human intelligence, and moves to the intellect seen in "lower" life forms. For instance, if you find a human who is mentally disabled with an IQ of 60, they are for all intents and purposes no smarter than a 5 year old child. Applying a moral code to who should engage in sexual interactions, I would say that I think someone at that level should not engage in sexual interactions with someone who has a "normal" level of intelligence due to the fact that I don't believe they can fully appreciate and understand what it is they are doing.

It almost becomes, in a sense, an advantage taking situation. It's one of the reasons why people in general have a negative predilection towards pedophilia, and imo rightfully so.

That is why I stated that I don't believe a woman having sex with a pig is something that would be "good." However if she wants to have sex with an intelligent pig from the planet Zoufrous, I would not be opposed to that.

What grounds would I have to oppose that? None.

Why do I put it like that? Because if/when we ever make contact with alien races (yes I am being serious), there is no doubt in my mind that there will be intermingling, which would be "illegal" under the definition of "natural" sex that humans should only co-mingle with humans.

What about intelligent cognisant machines?

It's the same situation. If a machine can indeed "interface" with a human being on a sexual level, and they evolve to the point of sentience I would see nothing wrong with it. However, this is something that will not occur for another century or two anyways, so my opinion on the matter is probably moot.

Well, that's if the machines don't kill us all or put us into pods full of goo.

I also believe that sexual relations should only occur between those who are fully capable of making the decision, understanding the ramifications of their actions, and thus acting on that.

How do you know they aren't fully capable of understanding their decisions? Seems to me that a great number of young men and women get involved in sexual relationships without understanding the outcome of their choices (the reason for the vast number of abortions).

Yes, and I believe that "underage" sex is something that shouldn't happen, because a great many of people having "underage" sex don't understand the full ramifications of their actions. Some heterosexuals don't understand the ramifications wrt pregnancy (a huge problem, as you mentioned) or VD transmission. Some homosexuals don't understand the ramifications wrt to VD transmission.

Abortion is something that when completed on a child can have serious psychologically scarring effects. That's why I support abortion for an underage woman only if the parents are notified. Not that they would necessarily agree to the procedure, but that they are notified and can then speak with their child regarding the situation. But now we're getting into a completely different topic.

So under my open ended belief structure wrt to beastiality, underage sex, yadda yadda yadda, it would not be good for a woman to marry a pig. But if she wants to marry an intelligent pig from the planet Zoufrous , then that's perfectly fine by me.

I disagree. Both of your statements do not back your beliefs against beatiality and underage sex.

Huh? How do they not back my beliefs wrt to beastiality and underage sex? Hopefully I've clarified that above.

1. You made the comment that people should be able to have sex with other animals of their intelligence. Is having sex with other animals the basis of the definition of bestiality?

I thought I was clear on this point. If a woman wants to have sex with a run of the mill lower life form pig here on earth, I would be opposed due to the outlined boundaries I expressed above. If that same woman wants to have sex with an intelligent pig from Zoufrous, I see nothing wrong with that.

If that same woman wants to have sex with an AI, I see nothing wrong with that.

2. You stated you don't believe people should have sex with those incapable of understanding the rammifications of sex. How do you know a 15 year old doesn't? How do you know a 20 year old does? Is saying that they should mean they could or that they do? Do you think societies' legal age limit has always been the same? No of course not. Is it possible then for a thirteen year old to understand the rammications of sex, correct? They obviously did and do in many cultures.

I completely agree. It is a difficult thing to conceptualize. I've merely stated my belief on the situation. How one would then legislate that is a completely different story. As stated earlier the romans and the grecians practiced pedophilia and it was accepted in their societies as an every day occurrence and passage into adulthood.

Today that is not the case. My belief on the subject is obviously an outgrowth of the society I've grown up in, which lets children spend 20-25 years maturing into adults. In past times, you were an adult the moment you had your period, or the moment you first ejaculated or could hold a sword.

So my belief structure wrt to underage sex is most decidedly influenced by our current system of letting children spend the better part of 3 decades maturing psychologically, emotionally, and physically.

I believe that as our life spans increase and our intellect grows, the time we spend maturing into adults will no doubt grow. In 100 years, you may not be seen as an adult in society until you're 30 or even 40, especially if we're all living to 150 years of age.

I can only speak for the time we live in however.

Incest should not occur because of the fact that it can produce horribly physically deformed and/or mentally disabled children. However, this is already expressed in the laws in this country as it is legal to marry your second cousin, or a more distant relation. Obviously this is because the genetic drift between the second cousin and greater is wide enough to bring the genetic problems brought up through incest to a more acceptable level.

Natoma, what if they agree not to have children (via sterilization)? Why then shouldn't they be able to life together? Should partners with a high propensity towards turning out children with mental retardations and other genetic disoders be forbidden to live together as well or force sterilized? If homosexual unions shouldn't be objected to for their lack of producing offspring then this occassion shouldn't be either. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. Who are you to tell them whom they can love or how they can express their love? I am getting that Margrit Sanger feeling Natoma and sure why...

If they agree to not have children, or they get sterilized, then there would be no opposition to their marriage. As stated before, the government allows incestuous relationships as long as the participants are at least second cousins, in order to reduce genetic problems associated with "near blood" sexual interactions.

Wrt the partner who turns out children with mental retardations and other genetic disorders being forbidden to live together or being forced sterilized. I believe that that is most certainly something that in the future won't even need to be addressed. Why? Genetic engineering. It will be quite easy to have a child and then root out any genetic flaws that would lead to mental retardation or other life threatening or disabling disorders such as cystic fibrosis, spina bifida, etc etc etc.

Btw, I'm not sure who Margrit Sanger is. Please enlighten me.

 

[Vince]

so if something doesn't work perfectly you consider it a failure?

The natural world does exactly that. This is how we progress and advance as a biological species. Unless of course you'd rather nature to have been more "moral" in her culling of shit ideas, in which case we'd still be single celled.

 

[kyleb]

i am sorry Vince, what you said makes absolutely no sense to me; could you rephrase that? more to the point, are you saying that nature considers everything a failure or are you insisting that some things are perfect? i really do not follow you.


oh and on the incest thing, there is actually very little added risk of deformation in the offspring of first cousins, it is more social dogma than anything. in much of the world such unions are commonplace.

 

[Vince]

Natoma, you are perhaps the most inconsistent poster here:


You state:

So yes, those actions are indeed as natural as heterosexuality, homosexuality, beastiality, et al. However, the moral objection to it is a completely different matter.

So, you seem to state that "Morality," a human quality that as far as we know is distincly human and as such ia fluid, dynamic and shouldn't be argued apon as they differ from individual to individual, culture to culture.

Yet, you just stated in the previous line as justification some other human creations as proof:

To which I agree. Pedophilia was in fact a very natural and supported pillar of society during grecian and roman times, in order to initiate young boys into the world of men.

And as I stated earlier, if you're a believer in the bible, incest was the only means by which we could grow from "Adam and Eve" into today's 6 Billion strong population.

Perhaps you can keep restating it untill it isn't pure bullshit.

 

[Vince]

i am sorry Vince, what you said makes absolutely no sense to me; could you rephrase that? more to the point, are you saying that nature considers everything a failure or are you insisting that some things are perfect? i really do not follow you.

I suggest you look into basic Darwinian Theory, usually embodied in the widely known Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest theories.

Entities in natural that are inferior or "failures" (as you stated) are culled and die out without allowing their inferior genes to survive. Thus, Nature does infact consider things that doen't work 'perfectly' as failures and ever strives for perfection - we're just one small step in that direction.

 

[Natoma]

Incest can indeed serve a biological purpose/necessity wrt reproduction. Not in every case does incest produce malformed children. In fact, if you believe the bible, the human race began solely *because of* incest.

Who believes the bible word for word? I don't believe you'll find any serious upper-tier scholar who does.

Legion around? heh.

Lots of every day joe schmoes believe the bible word for word, or at least try to interpret it to fit their particular beliefs. Growing up in christianity for 17 years however taught me that you can either accept the bible in its entirety as Jesus stated, or you don't.

Because of my issues with certain aspects of the bible (excluding the gay part mind you. ), I chose to reject the bible as a piece of work to live by. Obviously there are certain aspects of the bible that permeate our society, such as giving respect to your elders, not killing, being kind to your neighbor, etc etc etc. However I believe those are humanistic qualities that should be expressed and not religious qualities.

So heterosexuality is just as good as incest. Or should I say, incest is heterosexual wrt reproduction. So it appears that you are the one who is applying a "moral" code to the state of incest when it does in fact serve your fundamental biological purpose/necessity.

Incest is biologically insignificant and actually hinders genetic advancement. Can you find me a true incestual isolated community that has survived and prospered? I think Emily Nietzsche would disagree with you.

Check up on the island of Tristan de Cunha. Everyone on Tristan de Cunha is related. In fact, due to extensive inbreeding over the last 200 years, any pair of islanders are as closely related as first cousins.

They live on an island in the South Atlantic. There was also another group of americans who have inbred for almost 300 years. While the people at Tristan de Cunha do not display many of the recessive/dominant traits that would be deemed undesirable (enlarged skulls, shortened bodies, etc etc etc), they do suffer an intolerably high rate of asthma as well as retina pigmentosa, which as you know can lead to blindness. However, they have thrived.

The other colony however, have displayed the recessive/dominant traits that would be deemed undesirable. Apparently the initial group of settlers had "faulty" DNA which has now become expressed after generations of inbreeding.

In fact, even the US government sanctions incest by allowing you to marry your second cousin. Your family member!

You're disapointing me. They're you're second cousin thanks to genetic diversification via four(?) minimal heterosexual relationships between you that has introduced outside genes into the line... unlike true incest or your biologically insignifant way of life.

So, what purpose does Homosexuality serve in biological terms to differentiate it from incest and beastiality to rise to your supposed parity with heterosexuality.

1) Incest is still incest, no matter how you would like to look at it.

2) Homosexuality is different from incest in that incest can produce offspring. As can certain forms of beastiality. See horse/donkey as an example. Thus, incest and beastiality have more in common with heterosexuality than homosexuality.

 

[Natoma]

So yes, those actions are indeed as natural as heterosexuality, homosexuality, beastiality, et al. However, the moral objection to it is a completely different matter.

So, you seem to state that "Morality," a human quality that as far as we know is distincly human and as such ia fluid, dynamic and shouldn't be argued apon as they differ from individual to individual, culture to culture.

Yet, you just stated in the previous line as justification some other human creations as proof:

To which I agree. Pedophilia was in fact a very natural and supported pillar of society during grecian and roman times, in order to initiate young boys into the world of men.

And as I stated earlier, if you're a believer in the bible, incest was the only means by which we could grow from "Adam and Eve" into today's 6 Billion strong population.

Perhaps you can keep restating it untill it isn't pure bullshit.

Uhm, and you must be the most confused poster here. You didn't read this?

I never said or alluded to the fact that we are only driven by instinct. I merely stated that despite our intelligence and our civilization, we are still driven in large part by instinct. However, that instinct is tempered by our intellect and our civilization.

See the relative lack of killing in our "advanced" societies. In nature, killing is an every day occurrence and there is no moral code attached to it. It is merely a fact of life. Kill or be killed. But never did I state that we should go out and kill simply because we are biologically hardwired to do so in order to protect our assets.

Our intellect and our civilization, and the natural outgrowth of that, i.e. our collective moral code, is what helps separate us from "lower" animals.

However, "lower" animals also display civilization and intellect, and in some cases a collective moral code. See dolphins, primates, and elephant herds as example.

I stated that "natural" and "morality" are separate entities and should not be intermixed because it can become far too messy and cumbersome to do so.

However, you can argue the "morality" angle wrt our current society. I never said you couldn't.

What is your point? :?