Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling

[Natoma]

Legion:

I have answered your questions. Either through lack of comprehension or lack of reading you seem to have see this.

You stated:

I completely disagree with these statements. Sex drive is caused by chemical reactions in the brain. Human reaction and follow through is a matter of choice.

To which I responded:

And where do you think the brain gets the notion to release those chemical reactions? Especially considering almost every human being's brain operates within the same way wrt "lower" brain functions. Where? Our DNA.

How chemical reactions work in our brain is determined in large part by our DNA. Environmental factors can indeed influence chemical reactions as well. But we all start off as slaves to our genetically driven impulses.

For instance, take two children. Place one in the wild, and place one in "civilization." The child in the wild will no doubt become feral while the child in "civilization" will not. The child in "civilization" not reverting to a feral state does not mean however that the child does not possess the same drives and instincts as the feral child. It only means that the feral child expresses those instincts to a greater degree due to his environment. But they are still there.

Lol How do you know the person can't surpress his animalistic sexual desires? Have you ever studied monks Natoma or the effects of their practices?

I also used the example of a celibate priest. While they are good at suppressing their sexual urges, the point remains that they still possess those sexual urges. Suppression is not the point of this conversation legion. The point remains that the biological *urge* for sex is *still* present. Otherwise, what would be there to suppress??

:?

This is very basic biology Legion. I don't think you're stupid or anything, but you show a serious lack of understanding wrt this subject. You are right that it's nary impossible to continue a conversation on these lines, but it is because you simply do not understand moreso than anything else.

 

[Natoma]

2) That leaves the open question of "what if someone chooses to make themselves incapable of reproduction?". As far as this being "right and wrong", This can have a topic of it's own. But "choosing" to make yourself incapable of reproduction is certainly not "natural".

There are men that decide to get a vasectomy, or women who have tubal ligation. Some before ever having children (they usually decide to save their sperm and eggs in cryogenic freezing for in vitro purposes), and some after they have children.

Does that also fit under the umbrella of "wrong"? I know you haven't specifically stated whether you think it's "right" or "wrong," but I'm interested in knowing your opinion.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Does that also fit under the umbrella of "wrong"? I know you haven't specifically stated whether you think it's "right" or "wrong," but I'm interested in knowing your opinion.

My personal opinion is, "it depends". (And as I said, we can devote a whole additional topic to this.)

Just a recap of my definition: basically "if the relationship goes against the proliferation of the Human Race, it's wrong." So very generally speaking, if an "act" goes against the proliferation of the human race, it's wrong.

Whether or not "choosing" to become sterile (vasectory, etc.) is right or wrong then, would generally depend on the impact it has to the proliferation of the human race.

In your specific exanple: If one has such an operation (before having ANY kids) solely because "they don't want to have kids", then that would be wrong, IMO. You have chosen to purposefully not contribute to the proliferation of the human race.

However, what if the person believes that by reproducing, they are causing damage to the proliferation of the human race? For example, if the person has a genetic disorder, and they believe proliferation of that disorder is "bad" for the human race, it could very well be argued they are furthing the human race by not reproducing. So he/she may choose sterilization on that basis. IMO, this type of choice is not wrong.

There certainly are gray areas (as there often are in "right and wrong"). What if you have sterlization after you have some childern? Again, it depends IMO mostly on the reason for getting sterilized. Is it simply because "you don't want more kids?"

Or because having kids when the mother is is in the late 30's or 40's significantly increases the chances of genetic disorders...which could be considered a detriment to the proliferation of the human race?

 

[Legion]

Legion:

I have answered your questions. Either through lack of comprehension or lack of reading you seem to have see this.

No Natoma you haven't. Answering questions requires you to back up your statements. You haven't done this.

But we all start off as slaves to our genetically driven impulses.

This is such a baseless assumption. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever considered moral objections to sexual reaction? Is it possible i may be repulsed and not sexually aroused as a being driven by sexual impulses should be?

Many members of religious groups throughout history have demonstrated the ability to reduce outside stimuli of all types. Realizing their capacity to minimize their "instincts" raiseseven more questions about instinctual drive of man then mere moral objections do.

I also used the example of a celibate priest. While they are good at suppressing their sexual urges, the point remains that they still possess those sexual urges.

This isn't a proper example. How are you or i to determine the effects of various instinctually arousing stimili on these Preist? Have you studied the effects monk's have acheive via meditation and moral obligations?

Suppression is not the point of this conversation legion. The point remains that the biological *urge* for sex is *still* present. Otherwise, what would be there to suppress??

Apparently you believe it isn't possible to surpress something until you can't experience it or experience it differently.

This is another perfect example of what i am talking about. You make such foolish and bold assumptions Natoma. Why?

Let me break this down for that it is easier for you to understand

You stated before that you couldn't determine the measure of the link between instinct and man. Now you make a bold state declaring that sexual desire is something that is innate in all of us that can't be effected by the inviroment. You have logically contradicted yourself.

On top of this you haven't proven that sexuality can't be removed or altered by the enviroment.

This is very basic biology Legion. I don't think you're stupid or anything, but you show a serious lack of understanding wrt this subject. You are right that it's nary impossible to continue a conversation on these lines, but it is because you simply do not understand moreso than anything else.

Clearly you don't even grasp what you are talking about Natoma. You haven't even once validated any your claims. You spit out rhetoric over and over again as filler for your otherwise empty mantra. You repeat basic priniciples of biology as though they some how demonstrate your point. Of course none of what you have stated does.

Natoma, do you not understand there is a difference between sexuality and sex?

You haven't addressed:

1. Sexuality as genetic
2. The depth instinct effects humanity
-humorously you have admitted you don't now the level at which it effects people but then proceed to tell me every decision we make is some how determined by instinct.
3. Reasons why your moral objections are inately superior to everyone elses

 

[Legion]

Natoma i hope this serves to demonstrate your futher inconsistancies. This along with my objections on the previous page demonstrate the meaninglessness behind your "instinctual" jargon. Since you can't prove instincts have anythign to do with the determination of sexuality you ought to ask yourself the question why on earth you brought up such a link int he first place when you yourself admitted you are unkowning of the depths that instinct effects our behavior.

in·stinct ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nstngkt)
n.
An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
A powerful motivation or impulse.
An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.

Can you demonstrate how sexuality is an instinct? You have yet to do this.

 

[Silent_One]

natoma wrote:

How chemical reactions work in our brain is determined in large part by our DNA. Environmental factors can indeed influence chemical reactions as well. But we all start off as slaves to our genetically driven impulses.

For instance, take two children. Place one in the wild, and place one in "civilization." The child in the wild will no doubt become feral while the child in "civilization" will not. The child in "civilization" not reverting to a feral state does not mean however that the child does not possess the same drives and instincts as the feral child. It only means that the feral child expresses those instincts to a greater degree due to his environment. But they are still there.

And what are the instincts you refer to?? And what behaviour will a feral child express that are not learned or taught to him? Hunger? A baby will know hunger, but what is it's instinctual responce? Crying? Remember, a human baby is one of the, if not THE most helpless animals born. This is because of the lack of instincts. So, again, what are the few remaining human instincts? In regards to sex ==Reproduction!

You continue to use the trems "Drive" and "Instinct" as if there interchangable. They are not. Like you say this is basic biology.

 

[Legion]

Natoma would you object to speaking with me on AIM or any other instant messaging program perhaps our points could be better convey in other medium?

 

[Natoma]

:?

You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever Legion.

First off you didn't address the example I gave wrt the child put into the wild vs a child put into "civilization". I give you an example, but you only address the conclusion, out of context, so that it seems to stand alone without any proof. I keep giving you examples and keep summarily ignoring them. That example addresses #2.

Second, you make the fallacious argument with regard to suppression. I *never* stated that I sexual desire cannot be affected by the environment. Or did you miss this statement?

Human reaction and follow through is most certainly a matter of choice. If it weren't, you wouldn't have celibate priests. You wouldn't have homosexual activity. However, in both cases you *still* have sexual drive, despite the choice, or not, to inhibit that sexual drive.

How is choice determined in higher species? Through genetic and environmental factors. And I also made the following statement:

While they are good at suppressing their sexual urges, the point remains that they still possess those sexual urges.

How difficult is it to understand that you cannot suppress something unless it exists? We are *all* sexual beings. Whether or not we choose to *act* on those sexual impulses is where the suppression comes in. I suppressed my homosexual impulses for a great many years and in some cases participated in heterosexual activity. Was I happy or content? Oh most definitely not. Did it drive me nuts to fake who I was? Yes. To the point where I almost committed suicide when I was 16 because I couldn't take it anymore.

What part of this *don't* you understand? Sheesh.

Third, you completely ignore my statement wrt sex and genetic influences:

How chemical reactions work in our brain is determined in large part by our DNA. Environmental factors can indeed influence chemical reactions as well. But we all start off as slaves to our genetically driven impulses.

Actually you completely snipped it out and then stated that I never spoke on that. Please. Learn how to read. DNA instructions give our body the blueprint for how to build our brain. The brain, once built continues to be influenced by our genes, the hormones surging through our bodies (especially during puberty), and our environment. What are you going to do now. Snip this section again and state, yet again, that I haven't answered your question?

My "moral" objections do not depend on reproductive biases which fail in certain circumstances. My "moral" objections do not depend on religion which is in and of itself *terribly* flawed.. My "moral" objections indeed don't have any perceptible flaw or failure in "certain circumstances."

Satisfied? Or am I going to have to get out the colored blocks and legos.

 

[Legion]

natoma wrote:

How chemical reactions work in our brain is determined in large part by our DNA. Environmental factors can indeed influence chemical reactions as well. But we all start off as slaves to our genetically driven impulses.

For instance, take two children. Place one in the wild, and place one in "civilization." The child in the wild will no doubt become feral while the child in "civilization" will not. The child in "civilization" not reverting to a feral state does not mean however that the child does not possess the same drives and instincts as the feral child. It only means that the feral child expresses those instincts to a greater degree due to his environment. But they are still there.

And what are the instincts you refer to?? And what behaviour will a feral child express that are not learned or taught to him? Hunger? A baby will know hunger, but what is it's instinctual responce? Crying? Remember, a human baby is one of the, if not THE most helpless animals born. This is because of the lack of instincts. So, again, what are the few remaining human instincts? In regards to sex ==Reproduction!

You continue to use the trems "Drive" and "Instinct" as if there interchangable. They are not. Like you say this is basic biology.

You got me there to silent you are right instincts are response to the drives. I didn't catch that.

 

[Natoma]

Can you demonstrate how sexuality is an instinct? You have yet to do this.

Oh my god.

I've stated this before. The "sex drive" is instinctual. "Sexuality" is the *expression* of that instinct. Expression of a gene is affected not only by the genes, but the environment as well. I've said this over and over again. Most recently in the last post I made before this one, just above.

They are two separate notions.

This post is for you too Silent_one.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma would you object to speaking with me on AIM or any other instant messaging program perhaps our points could be better convey in other medium?

I object to no one messaging me. I do leave my information out there for a reason. Well, I do object to spam but that's a completely different story.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My "moral" objections do not depend on reproductive biases which fail in certain circumstances. My "moral" objections do not depend on religion which is in and of itself *terribly* flawed.. My "moral" objections indeed don't have any percepible flaw or failure in "certain circumstances."

I haven't been following this particular debate in depth, but I think one point is:

What are your moral objections based on?

When it comes down to it, if your moral objection doesn't depend on some bias (which DOESN'T break-down in certain circumstances), doesn't depend on religion, etc.....

What does it depend on?

Some internal compass that just innately tells you if something is right or wrong? You decide this for yourself based on your own internal gut instinct?

I'm not saying that's not a valid approach (it is.). Just that if you accept that approach, you should not expect that others "explain" their moral basis any differently. It just is, in my opinion. Or it just isn't.

Can you explain why homosexuality is morally OK?

Can you answer these questions for me?

Is polygamy morally OK? (I don't believe you've commented on it, or I missed it in the past pages). Why or why not?

What about incest? Why or why not?

(Edit: and I mean your personal opinion on this. Just like I gave my opinion on "consciously chosen sterilization" being right / wrong. Not whether or not you think there should be legislatoin for or against it. Simply whether or not you believe, and why, the above two items are morally right or wrong.)

 

[Legion]

You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever Legion.

Some how i feel this is your fault.

First off you didn't address the example I gave wrt the child put into the wild vs a child put into "civilization". I give you an example, but you only address the conclusion, out of context, so that it seems to stand alone without any proof. I keep giving you examples and keep summarily ignoring them. That example addresses #2.

Of course i didn't it has nothing to do with what i am talking about.

Natoma do you not understand the difference between Sex drive and Sexuality?

Second, you make the fallacious argument with regard to suppression. I *never* stated that I sexual desire cannot be affected by the environment. Or did you miss this statement?

Then what was the purpose or that comment you made that suppression is merely masking the desire? Why can't you completely supress the desire to the point you no longer feel it?

How is choice determined in higher species? Through genetic and environmental factors. And I also made the following statement:

While they are good at suppressing their sexual urges, the point remains that they still possess those sexual urges.

Natoma right here you are suggesting it is impossible to removal sexual desire through suppression.

How difficult is it to understand that you cannot suppress something unless it exists?

Natoma how hard is it of your to understand that you could possible suppress something until it no longer manifests? Suppression is a possible route to take to achieve this. The act of suppression stops when the behavior stops. Well that is of course you believe behaviors can be modified

We are *all* sexual beings.

Prove it.

[quoteWhat part of this *don't* you understand? Sheesh.[/quote]

The part where you bold the assertion that we are all sexual beings enlight of the fact you have no idea how much instinct effects people. Can you not see why i might be confused? Of course aside from your missuse of drive and instinct.

Third, you completely ignore my statement wrt sex and genetic influences:

with good reason. They are irrelevant. You don't understand what sexuality is in psychological terms.

Allow me to define sexual orienation for you

Saul Kassin's Third Edition book of Psycology defines sexual orientation as follows: one's sexual prefernce for members of the same sex (you), oppostie sex (Vince), or both sexes (me).

Do you not understand what i am asking you to explain? Perhaps you misunderstood what i meant by sexuality?

Actually you completely snipped it out and then stated that I never spoke on that. Please. Learn how to read. DNA instructions give our body the blueprint for how to build our brain. The brain, once built continues to be influenced by our genes, the hormones surging through our bodies (especially during puberty), and our environment. What are you going to do now. Snip this section again and state, yet again, that I haven't answered your question?

I completely ignored it because you aren't answering my question. I am asking you essentially to explain how genetics/instincts determined vince to be heterosexual, you to be homosexual, and myself to be bisexual.

Am i making myself clear now Natoma?

My "moral" objections do not depend on reproductive biases which fail in certain circumstances.

Your objection to incest surely did.

My "moral" objections do not depend on religion which is in and of itself *terribly* flawed..

whoa! I wouldn't go as far to say the foundations of what all christians believe based on the reasoning "because the bible says so".

Honestly i don't understand your objections. You some how believe your morality is superior because you base it on something other than religion. As if that automatically rendered it more substanitive. I wouldn't agree at all with this.

After discussing certain matters with you i came to the clussion you really don't have a sound moral bases for objecting to various aformentioned sexual behaviors (ie incest and paedophilia). I have demonstrated to you situations throughtout history that were in violation of your personal beliefs but were respectively successful as societal institutions.

IE the ancient jews marrying at the age of 13. To you this is considered paedophlia however the culturaly differences and societal requirements forced children to mature at much younger ages then they do now.

My "moral" objections indeed don't have any percepible flaw or failure in "certain circumstances."

I just demonstrated their flaws.

Satisfied? Or am I going to have to get out the colored blocks and legos.

You certainly are the drama queen aren't you Natoma?

 

[Natoma]

<snip>

I base my "morality" on Modern Humanism, which is an outgrowth of Secular Humanism. Modern Humanism is a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion.

In short, you could call science and humanity my "god," if you want to equate it in some way shape or form to religious constructs.

Can you explain why homosexuality is morally OK?

I thought I have though in my prior posts? What would you like me to elaborate on?

Can you answer these questions for me?

Is polygamy morally OK? (I don't believe you've commented on it, or I missed it in the past pages). Why or why not?

What about incest? Why or why not?

I have no issue with polygamy. If people want to get married to multiple husbands or wives, then so be it. It's really only in monogamous cultures where polygamy is shunned, but that is because of religious reasons moreso than anything else.

The reason why I'm against incest is because of the genetic defects that it can cause. However, if the incestuous couple were sterilized, or if they used genetic manipulation (obviously some time far in the future) to make sure that none of the recessive genes that could cause issues were stamped out then there could be no objection to incest anymore by anyone. At it's base, incest is a heterosexual construct. Remove the issues of deformity and it becomes just like a "normal" heterosexual relationship.

In fact, if I recall correctly, the bible only outlaws incest at the time that the Jews are trying to build up the nation of israel. In order to do that, they needed to make sure they kept their bloodline as clean as possible. On top of that, they also needed to make sure they followed strict rules wrt to hygiene, which is where the cultural impetus behind the book of Leviticus came from. But now we're getting into sociology of the bible. hehe.

 

[Natoma]

Unfortunately I have to get back to work so I must be brief.

Legion:

1) Yes, I am suggesting it is impossible to remove our most basic impulses no matter how much you suppress them. Monks and Priests spend much time doing meditation for the reason of doing their best to suppress their humanistic urges. I spent a good while in Catholic school. I know a lot about this particular subject.

2) I defined the difference between the sex drive and sexuality, a couple of times. Here it is explicitly from a post just above:

The "sex drive" is instinctual. "Sexuality" is the *expression* of that instinct. Expression of a gene is affected not only by the genes, but the environment as well.

p.s.: My family was of the Pentecostal Denomination. I grew up in church, going 2-3 days a week, from the age of 2 until I was 19. I was *heavily* involved. In fact for a time I was studying to become a minister in the Pentecostal faith. I actually did quite well for a time. It was during that time that I was suppressing my sexuality as best I could, through meditation, scripture, and prayer. Unfortunately all it did was make me nuts. I almost committed suicide. Others who do the same suppression molest little children, or do other reprehensible acts.

I went to catholic school for 3 years and learned a great deal about the differences between the Pentecostal Denomination and the Catholic Denomination there, and it also peaked my interest in other religions, which I began studying when I went to high school, and then later on when I enrolled in college.

 

[Silent_One]

First off you didn't address the example I gave wrt the child put into the wild vs a child put into "civilization". I give you an example, but you only address the conclusion, out of context, so that it seems to stand alone without any proof. I keep giving you examples and keep summarily ignoring them

This goes both ways. I addressed your example. I got no responce.
Again:

For instance, take two children. Place one in the wild, and place one in "civilization." The child in the wild will no doubt become feral while the child in "civilization" will not. The child in "civilization" not reverting to a feral state does not mean however that the child does not possess the same drives and instincts as the feral child. It only means that the feral child expresses those instincts to a greater degree due to his environment. But they are still there.

Again, what instincts are you refering too? To seek shelter? Not an instinct. Hunger? What is the genetic driven responce to hunger?

You like to speak of the reproductive instinct as "Sex Drive" and the expression of that "Sex Drive" as "Sexuality". Again what is the "Sex Drive"? It is an instinctual drive to reproduce.

A qucik additional point. A child in the wild will not "revert" to a feral state. He will become feral.

 

[Legion]

Oh my god.

I've stated this before. The "sex drive" is instinctual. "Sexuality" is the *expression* of that instinct. Expression of a gene is affected not only by the genes, but the environment as well. I've said this over and over again. Most recently in the last post I made before this one, just above.

They are two separate notions.

Natoma its clear i am going to have to lead you along here as well

Have you ever heard of William McDougal? Clearly you haven't. William McDougal was a motivational theorist who in 1908 set out to prove all ranges of human behaviors are instinctually based. His theories were soon reject by the scientific community do the the major fallacious circuitous logic such a position imploys.

"why are people aggressive? because human beings possess a powerful instinct to agress. How do we know humans have this instinct? Because there is so much aggression."

"Sexuality" is the *expression* of that instinct. Expression of a gene

Correction. Its the expression of a drive.

is affected not only by the genes,

By the drive you mean.

but the environment as well. I've said this over and over again. Most recently in the last post I made before this one, just above.

Natoma. Do you understand why this isn't answering my question?

THis is what i am asking you:

How is homo/hetero/bi-sexuality determined by genetics.

Your asnwer states what a sexual orientation is not how genes predispose you.

 

[Legion]

1) Yes, I am suggesting it is impossible to remove our most basic impulses no matter how much you suppress them. Monks and Priests spend much time doing meditation for the reason of doing their best to suppress their humanistic urges. I spent a good while in Catholic school. I know a lot about this particular subject.

2) I defined the difference between the sex drive and sexuality, a couple of times. Here it is explicitly from a post just above:

The "sex drive" is instinctual. "Sexuality" is the *expression* of that instinct. Expression of a gene is affected not only by the genes, but the environment as well.

p.s.: My family was of the Pentecostal Denomination. I grew up in church, going 2-3 days a week, from the age of 2 until I was 19. I was *heavily* involved. In fact for a time I was studying to become a minister in the Pentecostal faith. I actually did quite well for a time. It was during that time that I was suppressing my sexuality as best I could, through meditation, scripture, and prayer. Unfortunately all it did was make me nuts. I almost committed suicide. Others who do the same suppression molest little children, or do other reprehensible acts.

I went to catholic school for 3 years and learned a great deal about the differences between the Pentecostal Denomination and the Catholic Denomination there, and it also peaked my interest in other religions, which I began studying when I went to high school, and then later on when I enrolled in college.

to be fair i will wait to respond to this later.

 

[zidane1strife]

I mean after all the only thing wrong with it is genetic flaws in potential offspring..

Time... it does not stand still... gm will allow for HEALTHIER offspring than can be achieved even through natural means.

If we are both consenting adults that love one another we ought to be able to get married, right Natoma?

I'm not Natoma.... but yes. So if she was an adopted child it would be ok, in the eyes of society... but just because of THE GENES... you believe it's wrong?

You should be able to marry whomever you please provided you're both consenting and sufficiently developed/mature/intelligent/etc...

actions vs genes.

Indeed actions vs genes... We do not control love, who we fall in love with is outside our control... So in this case we see genes are the prob... Genes to make him a man, or she a woman.... Soon that will be meaningless... Those actions, to follow their feelings... to express them... I personally see no erring in doing so.
Think now... if that whom your married to where but... your long lost brother/sister/etc whom you never knew you had? Would you abandon him/her? consider it a sin? If so... I ask do you really love that person then?

And homosexual reproduction is, clearly in my mind, an extreme exercise in vanity.

So the desire of an infertile couple to have their own child is vanity to you? Or is it just that they are same s2x? If they were not you'd consider it ok then? Why?

NOT A NATURAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

and even if, so what? Oh, the couple is behaving in an unnatural way... Oh they kissed in an unnatural way... Oh they ate that in an unnatural way.... Oh a blowj#b that's unnatural!!!! @nal s3x my god that can't lead to a baby!!! What nonsense... natural or unnatural it MATTERS NOT.

I stated my definition of NATURAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP.

Well, instead of a s3xual relationship as seen in nature, as practiced by organisms in nature... You equate it to one in which the two individuals were they healthy could actually conceive... But that I believe is INCORRECT, you're equating it to natural procreation.... although some dictionaries actually equate the two... It is clear that homosexual relations are naturally occurring in all sexual populations as previously said by others...

Is procreation/conceiving offspring the same as engaging in s3x? Well I think many couples know the answer to that one... heheh... (in case you don't know, the answer is NO.) Can s3x lead to procreation? yes. Is it obliged as a possibility in order to be natural? I believe no.

Sexual acts that do not result in childbirth are not inherently unnatural unless you dynamically reassign the definition of "unnatural" with regard
to sexual acts to mean "sexual acts that do not result in reproduction".

Correct.

Nature is neither good nor bad, and even if you try to argue from a utilitarian standpoint what is natural for humans was evolutionary fit, the fact of the matter is, human survival is no longer dependent on the conditions that existed 1 million years ago, and we live much longer today eating diets and living lifestyles thoroughly against "nature"

I concur

That the purpose and rationality behind the sexual relationships under heterosexuality serve a fundimental biological purpose that pushes forward the progress of the organisms gene-line.

And that does not really matter when you have other means to achieve that same function, be they natural or not... and again that should have nothing to do with the right for two individuals to share their lives....

s3x is not something wrong that we need a reason to justify in order to engage in it.

only heterosexual relations would serve a purpose beyond the gratification and/or sexual desires of said parties.

gratification and/or sexual desires of said parties... if you desire a reason that is enough/sufficient reason. The act of sharing pleasure with a loved one.

The purpose of reproduction should not justify nor vilify sexual acts... That is pure nonsense.... Haven't we all learned it's just an ACTIVITY that should be enjoyed, and that it is not wrong or evil?

But with my argument with regards to the natural family Father-Mother-Children ought to be exclusive for the institution of marriage based on the fact that this is the most predominant institution of society for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact it just won’t die or go away either as all children have a one father and one mother and this is an exclusive arrangement that nature itself cannot deny, only a fool would try to deny the reality of the natural family.

Actually, a lot of nasty things have lasted for hundreds of thousands of years(wonder what all those humans were doing prior to the rise of civilization... which put an end to a vast number of them.). In any case there exists a very good possibility that will be one of the institutions that will fall out of sheer necessity...

The fact that something has been established for a long time does not serve to defend it...

If homosexuality is a matter of choice then these people are needlessly imposing homosexuality on a society that doesn’t want it.

In reality the biases that predominate are most likely keeping compatible minds apart, as such they are interfering in what is to be desired... Once the human mind is freed from it's current primitive form it shall easily grasp this concept and free itself from primitive biases with no significant basis.

Natural selection is natures way of culling negative traits.

...and positive... but expensive traits... that is why we will take the helms... we will take control..

I have noticed a number of you seem to be operating with the notion that people are born with forms of sexuality. How do you know this? What information are you considering to come to such determinations?
As children boys and girls do not fully understand the sexual difference in their make up and how they differ one to the other. Being that this is true much can be said about the obvious lack of sexual awareness. Logically it is hard to argue at this point that one's sexuality is predetermined by genetics when an individual isn't born with the preconceived notion of male and female.

The case I saw most recently was of a boy who had abnormally sm@ll genitalia, thus the parents chose(as recommended by a twisted physician) to make him female... to give him female toys, to give him a female name... to raise him as a female... he ALWAYS BEHAVED as a boy, breaked the dolls and the dresses, was kinda what you'd called TOMBOYISH... disliked his nature, and never felt right... when he developed more... he liked other girls... he never felt right.... and was terribly emotionally scarred.... later in life when he found the truth... HEH... he could never believe his parents had done such an atrocity... That case was shown in MSNBC investigates on the obvious tv channel.

How do you know a 15 year old doesn't? How do you know a 20 year old does?

If the 15... 10... 1yr old is mature/developed/intelligent enough... They can interact with others in as many ways as they please, provided both consent, and is in their best interest.

Is it possible then for a thirteen year old to understand the rammications of sex, correct? They obviously did and do in many cultures.

What? children?...disease? soon most s3xual contact wont lead to that... Emotions? It is us who've given it such importance...
There are to be no ramifications...

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

The fittest for a particular enviroment is not always the best...

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.

Nature strives for adaptation... what is a failure in a particular circumstance... is but a successful/positive trait in another...
Nature streamlines, wiping the good with the bad in favor of adaption...

But in the end it's up to a human's upbringing (nurture) and environment (culture) what he/she will become--

When I see genetic influence... overriding nurture and the enviroment.... when REAL WORLD cases show us such... I cannot help but to differ in opinion... Nurture and enviroment are far from being final/end all...

How on earth do you know what a mentally retarded person can think or feel? Personally i am disugsted by this statement. Are they some how less human then you or I? Do they not deserve to be loved the same way? Who are you to judge their capacities?

They are to be loved and all... but if you believe that they can engage in a romantic/loving 'not in the family sense' relationship... then you're saying undeveloped children do have the right to these relationships too, aren't you? In which case a stranger should have the right to take your child away permanently and engage in consensual s3xual acts, etc... that inmature/unintelligent/undeveloped individuals, even animals have the right to engage in such relations for they are conscious.... Well in a way you're right... as long as they are with people in equal circumstances/condition.

Why not among those in diverging/different states of awareness/development/intelligence? for a developed individual(for example adult) might take advantage and manipulate the less dev. one(child). Or do you ACTUALLY BEG to differ?

So let's cut the BS, and get to the point. Two conscious highly developed beings have the RIGHT to share their lives, and interact in as MANY ways as they see fit, be that s3x or otherwise... provided they take the means not to bring injury on to others. The need for procreation to be necessary for s3x is a joke, what is this some religious drivel? NATURE is irrelevant, it was created by consciousness for consciousness, to serve consciousness, knowledge/science is there for when it does not deliver...

GENES are the only thing that makes one a male/female, and within this century they SHALL MATTER NO MORE... In any case... They should under NO circumstances serve as reason to separe individuals in love... things as trivial as these? Society has blinded you for now, but worry not once enlightened you too will understand.

 

[Legion]

Honesly i must rather stop this for now. Its fruitless.