@Warlord_Irochi "from my point of view seems like people wants every reference to homosexuality removed from any media like they want to deny it's existence." Policing its exposure isn't denying its existence. Quite the contrary: it's a very relevant acknowledgement of it to be sure. I'm going to inform my child of the sexual preference debate's cultural relevance--including my view of it--when I feel she's ready to hear it. In the mean time, I don't need public schools or pop culture trying to co-opt my role in raising my kids by exposing them to material I don't approve of. "You can't tolerate something without accepting that its part of the reality." You've missed the point. I've stated that detractors acknowledge the existence of homosexuals. That doesn't mean they must accept their behavior--especially if it may encroach on their own lifestyles. That's why "tolerance" is distinguished from "acceptance." In telling me that I must accept others and their morality solely on the virtues that they're people with their OWN moralities, you are demanding that I violate mine. If I honestly believe that their morality is inherently unhealthy and physically/culturally destructive, why on earth would you find it reasonable that my children and I extend a hand of acceptance towards their behavior? Why exactly are you favoring their morality over mine? "Worthiness: Merit or value" Merit of value of people is not what's being debated. It's the behavior involved.
@Warlord_Irochi "That is exactly what some of you should do; gay people are out there, like it or not, they are not going to disappear no mater how strong you wish it, how offensive it is for you or how much hate you keep for em. You are not forced to like it nor to think it's something awesome, but you have to accept that it's there. hell! it has been there for at least two millenniums." Accepting the fact that something exists is not the same as accepting its morality. Yours is, yet another, statement that tries to conflate "tolerance" with "acceptance." One is obliged to tolerate a behavior (assuming it's not encroaching upon you). Not to accept that behavior. "Whoever someone shares it's bed with says nothing about his worthiness." What exactly does "worthiness" mean?
"Again incorrect a stable environment does not guarantee a greater quality of life at all." Nothing is ever guaranteed. That wasn't the wording I used. Providing a stable environment for breeding and family improves quality of life. This is opposed to your preferred scenario of mass rape and chattel slavery. "Please do explain." I just did: "It creates a stable venue for a reproductive lifestyle." I already explained reproduction's nature as a process. The institution of marriage works in concert with this process. "That is what sex is." "Sex" and "rape" are not synonymous. Nice try though. "The etiquette of treating women with respect is a cultural thing." ...Which has nothing to do with the discussion. Or my point.
"Rape is anatomically correct" You have yet to actually prove such a thing. Further, you're implementation of the word "rape" is too broad. Raping someone means to violate another person in general. It doesn't mean to force breeding habits. And you also ignored where I pointed out that rape is physically and mentally damaging to a given agent. Consider for a moment the fact that consensual arousal allows for ease of access according to our anatomies. Rape doesn't stipulate such a thing. - - In reality, you're distinguishing rape and marriage erroneously since they're both codes of behavior. While the urge to mate may or may not be inherent (depends on the person really), the act of rape is not intuitive according to our bodies. Marriage, likewise, is not intuitive. But they both require higher modes of thinking to be applied. - - The real difference between the two is that marriage is specifically designed to accommodate both conjugal acts and the procreative process in a stable environment. Rape does not do that. - "Our human body is fine after murder." That all depends on the murder now doesn't it? The act of murder is abstract in relation to our anatomy. It's inappropriate to claim it has an inherent propriety according to our bodies when there's nothing about our forms that are intuitive to the act.
@Jtg473 "Wow! Now you are trivializing slavery. " No. I'm informing you of your misconceptions of the history of slavery and how it has interacted with the family unit. You argue that slavery is natural and benign in a society, and therefore anatomically correct. Except there's nothing about our physiology that suggests we have to enslave others. Our individuality says otherwise. "We are not discussing how to build a society. " We were discussing how society ideally accommodates our anatomy. "Exactly you are talking about things that may/may not complement what is natural." We artificially design social and objective constructs according to the natural design we're given. That doesn't contradict the tenements of anatomical correctness. "Please show evidence to support your claims... That the human race is doomed under one overlord..." "Doomed" was never the argument. That's a parameter you tried to insert into the principle disagreement. I've been arguing that the behavior is inherently self-destructive and unhealthy while you've been attempting to build up a diatribe about 'survival'--the logic of which attempts to sustain the idea that a single survivor amidst a particular lifestyle means that said lifestyle fits our nature. "This isn't about what is moral/ethical/etc. it is about what is anatomically correct. " I didn't bring up morality or ethics. I pointed out that we craft societies according to the anatomy of our bodies, which alludes to importance of living an anatomically correct lifestyle.
"How is it not in our nature to kill people? Please demonstrate anatomically how this is incorrect." Because the human body ceases to function...It's really self-explanatory. "No it isn't. It's crafted to increase the quality of life" That's a faux distinction. They're one in the same. "Also it still isn't a scientific process and anatomically incorrect." It houses a scientific process. It creates a stable venue for a reproductive lifestyle. "Exactly, if nature intended for women to be able to defend against men's advances they would be as strong as men." That's ridiculous. You'd first have to assume that the nature of animals was to rape each other. Something you really can't prove. It just seems to trail back to your original idea that simply because something could be done, that it's not detrimental to do it. "There is no etiquette in nature. Theses acts come about from popular culture. As you can see different cultures approach women differently." ...What does that have to do with anything?
@Jtg473 "How did they have a family unit when they were separated from their families and women had children from multiple partners?" But they weren't actually separated from their family. I'm not sure what kind of mental image you're keeping, but not all slaves were kept in stables or restricted from having families. Most became slaves because they needed to support their families. "Societies didn't but the human race did.... Do not confuse the two." Society is the entire point behind the discussion. If society breaks down and there's only a fraction of the original population left, then whatever policy that was enforced obviously didn't mesh with the natural habits of humanity. "No we can survive as a human race if I was some overlord ruling all." Unless of course, it's discovered that a dictatorship is detrimental to the human condition... "Exactly societies increase the quality of life... Nature has nothing to do with this." Societies are structured to accommodate our nature. That's how quality of life is improved.
@Jtg473 "Slavery existed during roman times/in America/etc. " Which does nothing to address the point. There is a wide birth between chattel slavery and other forms of slavery. Even slaves maintained the family unit. "Yes you can. There were many unstable societies that reproduced." And they didn't really last. They were unstable. Their attempt at extra-marital expansion failed. "Stable is not the same as survival." Uh, yeah it is. Stability is established for the sake of surviving. That's exactly why the general aim of societies is to increase the quality of life. "Anatomically speaking how is it not in our nature to not kill people?" You can't establish a negative using a negative. Nice try though. The burden of proof is on you to establish that life is intuitively drawn to death. "It is not a scientific process and it goes against our nature." It's crafted specifically for the allowance of breeding in a stable environment. If anything, it endorses our nature as creatures that breed. "Anatomically if we weren't meant to rape we wouldn't be made stronger than women and we wouldn't get sexually excited so quickly." ....That makes absolutely no sense whatsover. Difference in physical structures between the sexes is dictated by chemicals. Not a natural law of etiquette with regards to conduct in the process of sex. You're attempt to spin my words fails again.
@Jtg473 "Have you never heard of slavery?" The nature of chattel slavery is not the same as sexual slavery. Even slaves kept their own families 200 years ago. "Thanks for ignoring the question... Marraige slows down reproduction. Doesn't matter about society. Anatomically speaking it is incorrect." It stabilizes procreation. You can't continue reproducing with an unstable society. "We have survived fine without the family unit in the past." Actually we haven't. Societies that didn't employ the family unit have been less than stable. "That doesn't mean we aren't meant to be killed off..." Uh. Actually it does; we live, and therefore we go on living UNTIL we die. That is the nature of life. "So your basis that Homosexuality is wrong because it is not in our nature... The same could be said of Marraige. Raping is in our nature. Therefore to your logic it is right." Marriage is a civil construct designed to aid our reproductive nature. Rape is an example of a lack of moderation when trying to exact the sexual process. Not an instinct.
Ryouga001's comments