h0m0sexu@lity choice or born that way???

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]lol @ assuming that heterosexuality and the desire to procreate are the sameghoklebutter

Of course they're not synonymous. They are compatible, though.

No it doesn't. It reinforces my argument. The software is not compatible with the hardware for gay people, whether procreation is the intent or not.

hartsick, what do you think about Asexuals?

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I thought I just explained that. It's analogous to having the wrong software on a piece of hardware. It also interferes with the continuation of the human race through natural procreation if it spreads far enough. How is that not a disorder?

hartsickdiscipl

The wonders of basic logic. It tends to trump the overly complex atttempts of people trying to argue that putting a square peg in a round hole is natural.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Of course they're not synonymous. They are compatible, though.

hartsickdiscipl

No it doesn't. It reinforces my argument. The software is not compatible with the hardware for gay people, whether procreation is the intent or not.

You're saying that gay people have a disability because their attraction prevents them from procreating. But because the desire to procreate is independent of sexual attraction, that isn't true.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]lol @ assuming that heterosexuality and the desire to procreate are the sameAce6301

Of course they're not synonymous. They are compatible, though.

Gays are not capable of procreation. To say that they are is nonsense. Using modern technology as a workaround to let people do whatever the hell they want doesn't change the obvious configuration that they were born with. I can't prove 100% that gays are or are not born that way. I can prove that they were born with male or female hardware, properly functioning in most cases.

I'm sure there is rare case that it's a choice, but the large majority of gay people (or other people with alternative sexualities) are born that way.

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Of course they're not synonymous. They are compatible, though.

hartsickdiscipl

I find that my life is much simpler than most people that I know. That comes from clarity of thought. I do have some issues of my own, don't get me wrong. However, I've been pretty lucky.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] So? You do know that the fact that they aren't synonymous blows a massive hole in your argument, right?ghoklebutter

No it doesn't. It reinforces my argument. The software is not compatible with the hardware for gay people, whether procreation is the intent or not.

You're saying that gay people have a disability because their attraction prevents them from procreating. But because the desire to procreate is independent of sexual attraction, that isn't true.

A person can be sexually attracted to a car. That doesn't change the fact that their biology isn't set up to work all that well with the car.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]Which I guess is good enough for you, given how muddied your thinking always seems to beAce6301

I find that my life is much simpler than most people that I know. That comes from clarity of thought. I do have some issues of my own, don't get me wrong. However, I've been pretty lucky.

IDK what my personal religious/evolutionary/world views have to do with this discussion, other than the fact that you find them confusing. I don't. At least not to the extent that it interferes with my everyday life.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Of course they're not synonymous. They are compatible, though.

hartsickdiscipl

Gays are not capable of procreation. To say that they are is nonsense. Using modern technology as a workaround to let people do whatever the hell they want doesn't change the obvious configuration that they were born with. I can't prove 100% that gays are or are not born that way. I can prove that they were born with male or female hardware, properly functioning in most cases.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

No it doesn't. It reinforces my argument. The software is not compatible with the hardware for gay people, whether procreation is the intent or not.

hartsickdiscipl

You're saying that gay people have a disability because their attraction prevents them from procreating. But because the desire to procreate is independent of sexual attraction, that isn't true.

A person can be sexually attracted to a car. That doesn't change the fact that their biology isn't set up to work all that well with the car.

Way to dodge my point. It's not about whether they are designed to work well with the opposite sex; the crux of the matter here is that the desire to procreate isn't the same as the desire to have sex with the opposite sex. Therefore, gay people can still have the desire to procreate even though they aren't attracted to the opposite sex. And that further proves that gay people are not unable to procreate. Even if they lacked the desire to procreate they would be capable of procreation.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Homosexuality is compatible with procreation too. Your argument is pretty nonsensical. You seem to think homosexuality will spread and threaten the population. Despite gays being capable of procreation.Ace6301

Gays are not capable of procreation. To say that they are is nonsense. Using modern technology as a workaround to let people do whatever the hell they want doesn't change the obvious configuration that they were born with. I can't prove 100% that gays are or are not born that way. I can prove that they were born with male or female hardware, properly functioning in most cases.

Ok, sure... a gay person could force themselves to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. They could reproduce. However, parenting is part of the cycle of reproduction. I have to assume that the child would be parented by the gay couple, which would not be their natural parents. I don't know how you feel about this, but I think that for a gay person to cheat on their significant other to procreate, and then raise someone else's child is pretty messed up.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Gays are not capable of procreation. To say that they are is nonsense. Using modern technology as a workaround to let people do whatever the hell they want doesn't change the obvious configuration that they were born with. I can't prove 100% that gays are or are not born that way. I can prove that they were born with male or female hardware, properly functioning in most cases.

hartsickdiscipl

Ok, sure... a gay person could force themselves to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. They could reproduce. However, parenting is part of the cycle of reproduction. I have to assume that the child would be parented by the gay couple, which would not be their natural parents. I don't know how you feel about this, but I think that for a gay person to cheat on their significant other to procreate, and then raise someone else's child is pretty messed up.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

You're saying that gay people have a disability because their attraction prevents them from procreating. But because the desire to procreate is independent of sexual attraction, that isn't true.

ghoklebutter

A person can be sexually attracted to a car. That doesn't change the fact that their biology isn't set up to work all that well with the car.

Way to dodge my point. It's not about whether they are designed to work well with the opposite sex; the crux of the matter here is that the desire to procreate isn't the same as the desire to have sex with the opposite sex. Therefore, gay people can still have the desire to procreate even though they aren't attracted to the opposite sex. And that further proves that gay people are not unable to procreate. Even if they lacked the desire to procreate they would be capable of procreation.

Actually, at it's root, the desire to have sex does stem from reproductive urges. That's true of any species. Of course humans and a handful of other species have sex without the conscious intent to reproduce all the time, but that belies their base instincts. We have sexual urges because of the nature of our design or evolution. The fact that people don't always feel like raising a kid doesn't change the base reason for those urges.

Actually, at it's root, the desire to have sex does stem from reproductive urges.

hartsickdiscipl

If that were necessarily true, then gay people would have no desire to spread their genes. But many do, so...

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] But gays are capable of procreation. They're just not inclined toward it through natural means because they're not attracted to the opposite sex. A gay male is just as capable of fathering a child through genital sex as a straight male. So it's clearly not a threat to the population. We also have that technology which you admit works. So they're capable of procreation. Your entire argument about it being a possible for homosexuality spreading and hurting the population is bunk then.Ace6301

Ok, sure... a gay person could force themselves to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. They could reproduce. However, parenting is part of the cycle of reproduction. I have to assume that the child would be parented by the gay couple, which would not be their natural parents. I don't know how you feel about this, but I think that for a gay person to cheat on their significant other to procreate, and then raise someone else's child is pretty messed up.

This is more an issue of principle and opinion on the real root of homosexuality. I don't really think it likely that homosexuality will become so rampant that the human race will cease to exist. That's not the point. I'm also not an advocate of forcing gay people to try to become straight. I just feel that it's clearly a disorder, since their programming isn't set up to work quite right with their hardware. That applies whether we're talking reproduction or sex without it.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Ok, sure... a gay person could force themselves to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. They could reproduce. However, parenting is part of the cycle of reproduction. I have to assume that the child would be parented by the gay couple, which would not be their natural parents. I don't know how you feel about this, but I think that for a gay person to cheat on their significant other to procreate, and then raise someone else's child is pretty messed up.

hartsickdiscipl

This is more an issue of principle and opinion on the real root of homosexuality. I don't really think it likely that homosexuality will become so rampant that the human race will cease to exist. That's not the point. I'm also not an advocate of forcing gay people to try to become straight. I just feel that it's clearly a disorder, since their programming isn't set up to work quite right with their hardware. That applies whether we're talking reproduction or sex without it.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Actually, at it's root, the desire to have sex does stem from reproductive urges.

ghoklebutter

If that were necessarily true, then gay people would have no desire to spread their genes. But many do, so...

What happens when a gay man isn't aroused by the naked woman laying in front of him as he tries to reproduce? Would he not have difficulty being aroused? I should think so. If so, doesn't that indicate a disorder, since his reproductive system needs to be aroused for him to mate? Doesn't his erection (or lack thereof) really come from his mind being attracted to the imagery and sensations that he's being exposed to?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] I think believing that homosexuality will spread to the point where it causes this hypothetical situation to play out while using it to oppose equal rights is pretty messed up personally. Perhaps not oppose equal rights, you did say you didn't oppose gay marriage. You obviously are using this for something though or you wouldn't be bothering.Ace6301

This is more an issue of principle and opinion on the real root of homosexuality. I don't really think it likely that homosexuality will become so rampant that the human race will cease to exist. That's not the point. I'm also not an advocate of forcing gay people to try to become straight. I just feel that it's clearly a disorder, since their programming isn't set up to work quite right with their hardware. That applies whether we're talking reproduction or sex without it.

Not everyone debates with an agenda. Sometimes I do, but on this issue it's more about the logic. It's an interesting subject.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Actually, at it's root, the desire to have sex does stem from reproductive urges.

hartsickdiscipl

If that were necessarily true, then gay people would have no desire to spread their genes. But many do, so...

What happens when a gay man isn't aroused by the naked woman laying in front of him as he tries to reproduce? Would he not have difficulty being aroused? I should think so. If so, doesn't that indicate a disorder, since his reproductive system needs to be aroused for him to mate? Doesn't his erection (or lack thereof) really come from his mind being attracted to the imagery and sensations that he's being exposed to?

i just told you that his lack of attraction is irrelevant because he still has the desire to procreate. It's about that desire and nothing else.

Also, heterosexual desire is instrumental to procreation because it encourages sex with the opposite sex. But it is not the same as the desire to procreate. And since merely lacking an incentive does not by itself preclude the possibility of it happening, being non-heterosexual doesn't prevent the desire to procreate.ghoklebutter

It very well might prevent the arousal to procreate. Besides, sex is supposed to a pleasant thing between 2 people who are very attracted to each other. Why force it? Oh, that's right.. Because we have to force it for the gay person to procreate. You don't see a problem here?

It very well might prevent the arousal to procreate.

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

If that were necessarily true, then gay people would have no desire to spread their genes. But many do, so...

ghoklebutter

What happens when a gay man isn't aroused by the naked woman laying in front of him as he tries to reproduce? Would he not have difficulty being aroused? I should think so. If so, doesn't that indicate a disorder, since his reproductive system needs to be aroused for him to mate? Doesn't his erection (or lack thereof) really come from his mind being attracted to the imagery and sensations that he's being exposed to?

i just told you that his lack of attraction is irrelevant because he still has the desire to procreate. It's about that desire and nothing else.

I have the desire to own 3 Ferraris. That doesn't mean that I'm predisposed to do what it takes to get them. You don't see an issue with a gay person having to "go through the motions" to procreate? Not to mention that they'd be having sex with someone who isn't their partner. That doesn't seem a bit twisted to you?

You don't see an issue with a gay person having to "go through the motions" to procreate? Not to mention that they'd be having sex with someone who isn't their partner. That doesn't seem a bit twisted to you?

hartsickdiscipl

I don't think that's a bad thing as long as the other partner doesn't mind - it's not like there's any sexual or romantic attraction anyway. It's merely for the sake of procreation. And it's not like that's the only way for a gay person to reproduce.

Whether it's tricky for a gay person to have sex with a heterosexual one is irrelevant because, well, the desire to procreate still exists.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

It very well might prevent the arousal to procreate.

ghoklebutter

But how do they spread their genes? A person doesn't just inherently have the right to procreate because they want to. They have to be willing to do what it takes to procreate, and everything else that goes along with it. It shouldn't be forced, either. Sex isn't a going through the motions kind of thing.

But how do they spread their genes?

hartsickdiscipl

Entirely irrelevant. That concerns only gay people who wish to procreate.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You don't see an issue with a gay person having to "go through the motions" to procreate? Not to mention that they'd be having sex with someone who isn't their partner. That doesn't seem a bit twisted to you?

ghoklebutter

I don't think that's a bad thing as long as the other partner doesn't mind - it's not like there's any sexual or romantic attraction anyway. It's merely for the sake of procreation. And it's not like that's the only way for a gay person to reproduce.

Whether it's tricky for a gay person to have sex with a heterosexual one is irrelevant because, well, the desire to procreate still exists.

Without breaking out the test tubes, that pretty much is the only way for gay people to reproduce. I see a major issue with the scenario that you're describing. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. Not to mention that a gay man doesn't just magically switch from being attracted to men to wanting women just so he can procreate. In my view, the whole process turns sex into a calculated and impassionate act. That can't be good.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

But how do they spread their genes?

ghoklebutter

Entirely irrelevant. That concerns only gay people who wish to procreate.

Right.. I think you're ignoring the bigger issues here. Like I said earlier- the desire to do something doesn't give you the right or ability to do so. The desire is irrelevant if it violates bigger principles. I think it does. By choosing to be with a person with whom they can't procreate, they should give that up. It was a choice that they made.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

What happens when a gay man isn't aroused by the naked woman laying in front of him as he tries to reproduce? Would he not have difficulty being aroused? I should think so. If so, doesn't that indicate a disorder, since his reproductive system needs to be aroused for him to mate? Doesn't his erection (or lack thereof) really come from his mind being attracted to the imagery and sensations that he's being exposed to?

hartsickdiscipl

i just told you that his lack of attraction is irrelevant because he still has the desire to procreate. It's about that desire and nothing else.

I have the desire to own 3 Ferraris. That doesn't mean that I'm predisposed to do what it takes to get them. You don't see an issue with a gay person having to "go through the motions" to procreate? Not to mention that they'd be having sex with someone who isn't their partner. That doesn't seem a bit twisted to you?

you don't need to have sex to procreate.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

i just told you that his lack of attraction is irrelevant because he still has the desire to procreate. It's about that desire and nothing else.

toast_burner

I have the desire to own 3 Ferraris. That doesn't mean that I'm predisposed to do what it takes to get them. You don't see an issue with a gay person having to "go through the motions" to procreate? Not to mention that they'd be having sex with someone who isn't their partner. That doesn't seem a bit twisted to you?

you don't need to have sex to procreate.

You don't need a spoon to eat an ice cream sundae either.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.hartsickdiscipl

Looks like it, because your moral concerns have nothing to do with this argument. Later, hartsickdiscipl.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I have the desire to own 3 Ferraris. That doesn't mean that I'm predisposed to do what it takes to get them. You don't see an issue with a gay person having to "go through the motions" to procreate? Not to mention that they'd be having sex with someone who isn't their partner. That doesn't seem a bit twisted to you?

hartsickdiscipl

you don't need to have sex to procreate.

You don't need a spoon to eat an ice cream sundae either.