sunrise 0 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Here's another point of view: In this vastly overpopulated planet, perhaps Mother nature has brought gays into the world, with the intention of having an alternate way to enjoy sexuality and bonding which doesn't add to the population. Sure, Mother nature brought heterosexuals into the world to reproduce. I personally feel that there's definitely more than enough reproducing going on on this overcrowded planet. Link to post Share on other sites
oo 1 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Cool view there sunrise Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 barok, thanks for the reply. Any valuable discussion is likely to modify opinion (assuming that participants have an open mind). I've had mine modified through debate with complete strangers online, and it's not necessarily an easy process. Opinions that have nothing to support them need to be degraded by being exposed as empty. Of course, name calling and getting in a huff will never achieve that. I assumed your disclaimer might at least include me as I've gone to great lengths not to respect, and actively to degrade opinions that won't stand a simple sniff test. I haven't enjoyed being called a bigot, but I must say, I don't particularly care either as those who have called me that are simply confused. But if people want to say that, I'd rather they said it in public so I can refute it. But, like you, I sincerely hope that we can discuss stuff without more heat than is really necessary. sunrise, I can appreciate the sentiment there, but that's all it is - sentiment. Mother Nature isn't interested in alternate ways of enjoyment - that's a social thing that we've wrested for ourselves in spite of Mother Nature. It doesn't help determine whether gays should be allowed to get married or not by confusing the issue. Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: Mother Nature isn't interested in alternate ways of enjoyment - that's a social thing that we've wrested for ourselves in spite of Mother Nature. ahhh, but what is mother nature if not ourselves and the other plants and animals on this planet. Allow me to discuss a theory where mother nature and sexual pleasure are linked: It is proposed by some in science that human beings developed an enjoyment of sex for one reason. Enjoyment of sex promotes lying horizontally in bed after the act for some time. Women seem to enjoy a warm glow, men fall asleep. Either way, we are for the most, horizontal after intercourse. It is the pleasure of sex that keeps us horizontal. No other animal enjoys sex, for them it is purely administrative and after that act they are back to finding food and building a house, which they do in a non-vertical posture. This is where it gets a little crude, I will do my best to remain clean. Humans, and importantly, women, walk in a perfectly vertical position. If women were to get out of bed immediately after sex then gravity would act to reduce the probability of insemination. Hence, the theory states, as humans became more vertically postured in bipedal transportation, we also developed a pleasurable response to sex which was designed to keep us, or at least the female, horizontal so that one vital ingredient would not end up running down her leg. Now that is not my theory and not one that I have studied enough to support or otherwise. However, at the core of this theory is 'mother nature'. As was pointed out, this does not speak to the topic at hand - gays getting married (and having children). My opinion on those points: Married: I place no value in the institution as described by popular society opinion or tradition. I do not evaluate marriage in terms of child raising being the primary objective. Biology does not validate purpose of relationship and as such Steve and Mike have as much right to be wed as do I, plus they can enjoy all the legal trappings that it entails. Having said this, I think that wholesale gay marriages would lead to an odd world in the future. Children: I am sure there are many situations where a child would be just as happy or better under the care of a gay couple and I do not necessarily see the concept as a bad one either when ideal circumstances exist. BUT, offspring are the province of opposing sexes and until that and other natural laws change by way of evolution I think humankind would do well to stop changing our environment by force (and Legislated Law is force). If this is a yes or no question then I have to say that my broad answer has to be no children for gay couples. Please note that this conclusion is not an easy one for me to reach. BTW - there is a Chinese girl in the office and she runs circles around any Japanese girl I have ever seen. Stunning. Link to post Share on other sites
Antonio 0 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Dolphins. You forgot dolphins! Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Brain dump. It would be pedantic to pick through that lot and identify every bit of illogic, contradiction, falsehood, irrelevance, and simple self indulgent error. Link to post Share on other sites
mikazooki 0 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 i don't have a well formed opinion on homosexual couples and adoption. neither strongly support nor vehemently oppose it. but should i have kids, and then later die with my partner, i would happily entrust my best friend (who is gay) to raise my child, as would my partner, without fear of them undergoing any gay schooling. and if he was married then all the better. Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Yeah, well the party is over now. The Uniting Church appears set to allow practising homosexuals to be ordained as priests, amid warnings of a major split. In a heated debate at the church's national assembly today, members failed to reach consensus on a proposal that would allow individual presbyteries to decide ordinations case by case. The matter was adjourned for further debate tomorrow. If consensus can't be reached then, the proposal will be put to a vote, when it is expected to win majority support. The Uniting Church is Australia's third-largest denomination. Mary Hawkes, a spokeswoman for the conservative Evangelical Members within the Uniting Church group, predicted the church would face a mass exodus if the proposal was successful tomorrow. "It looks to me ... that there is a real risk that some elements of the church will just say, `Well, that's it', and pack their bags and go. And I'm not sure that the church is ready for that," Mrs Hawkes said. But retired priest and lesbian Reverend Dorothy McRae-McMahon predicted the change would unify the congregation. "This decision, which I believe will take place tomorrow, (will allow us) to walk together and see how we go, and to learn to know each other better and therefore find the truth." Mrs Hawkes said it was difficult to predict how many worshippers would leave the church. "It's hard to tell at this point in time, and it would vary from state to state, but it would be significant," she said. She predicted tomorrow's vote would go against her group, putting it in a difficult position. "I don't know that I'm afraid of that ... I'm going to have to go and pray." Ms McRae-McMahon said support for homosexuals to take leadership positions would not lead to a split in the church. "If people choose to leave, that is their decision and I would be very sad about that," she said. "But there are many times in the history of the church where decisions are made and people cannot live with them. When the church fought against slavery, people left the church. When the church fought for the ordination of women, people left the church." She dismissed claims that the move would be a stepping stone to moral decay in the church. "As a lesbian I am not in moral decay. I am in a loving and faithful relationship that brings me life and hope and that my family supports and that has enriched my life as a Christian." The Uniting Church, formed in 1977, already has some practicing homosexual clergy who did not declare their sexuality when they were ordained. But it will become the first mainstream church to allow declared homosexuals to be ordained if the proposal is passed. AAP Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 > I'm going to have to go and pray People actually say that? That's nearly a line from a very funny Tim Robbins film... Interesting procedure... Link to post Share on other sites
fukdane 2 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Procedure indeed. The world is falling apart. Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I heard a similiar thing was going on with the CoE and the Arch B of C. Quote: The Uniting Church today voted to allow practising homosexuals to be ordained as priests. After two days of intense debate at its national assembly in Melbourne, the church today voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing the ordination of active gays and lesbians. Mary Hawkes, a spokeswoman for the conservative evangelical members within the Uniting Church, said the church was now "horribly close" to a full-blown split. "I'm going to be doing my very best to persuade everybody to do absolutely nothing this year except pray and talk and find a way forward," she told reporters outside the meeting Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I can't see why homosexuals shouldn't be ordained. Sexual preference is no bar to spirituality. Odd isn't it how the results of prayer differ for each supplicant...? Link to post Share on other sites
Stefan 0 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Quote: No other animal enjoys sex, for them it is purely administrative and after that act they are back to finding food and building a house, which they do in a non-vertical posture db excuse my rather crude point, but Killer Whales enjoy sex. A large section of the male population have actually been caught masturbating...I saw it on a BBC nature programme...it was in the shallows of some rocky cove in Canada...they have no shame, doing it infront of the children and cameras. And I believe they're horizontal/ lateral, except when performing at Seaworld or starring in Free Willy. After pondering the same sex marraiges question for a while I've come to the conclusion that all this postering and arguing depends on your definition of nature or 'mother nature'. But surely scientists the who've managed to map the human gene ARE the "Mothers of Nature". So any previous point, including my own, relating to evolution or 'nature' etc can pretty much be disregarded. Link to post Share on other sites
TheOrange 0 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Don't monkeys enjoy sex too? What a thread this has become. Takes time to read the whole thing! Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Only if you can catch them orange. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 The whole thing about other animals not enjoying sex (and not feeling pain) is complete drivel, as anybody with half a brain can plainly see (to put it bluntly). All the stuff on here about evolution, genetics, and what is 'natural' is also woefully wrong, and betrays a lack of attention paid in biology class. There are plenty of good, readable books on the subject, so if you really want to bring those issues into discussions on gay marriage, I suggest you do some reading (and thinking) first. Now, lettuce pray... Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Ocean, your attitude when giving feedback on other people input is of its usual low quality, top marks for consistency. As for my post, you failed to adddress the fact that a respected scientific theory links human enjoyment of sex with our need to remain horizontal so as to aid insemination. This I discussed to demonstrate that mother nature and enjoyment of sex could very well be connected, a theory that you dismissed. Your only response thus far has been sound byte sarcasm and the zero value added response of stating the likes of 'that's rubbish'. Link to post Share on other sites
miteyak 0 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 A few more theories: 1:Studies of rats in high concentration densities indicated increased levels of homosexual behaviour, possibly indicating a 'natural' move in the sexuality continuum toward non-reproductive sexual activity to preserve the population and reduce demand on resources. 2:In our own move up our evolutionary ladder, the next stage is not random methods of insemination, but engineered reproduction. This would make the gender question rather redundant. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Respected? It's not even plausible on the face of it. Its basic premises are plainly wrong. But if you need me to do the full hammer and tongs job on it, I will. >It is proposed by some in science that human beings developed an enjoyment of sex for one reason. Humans are animals. All animals developed an enjoyment of sex so that they would reproduce, whether they want to or not. >Enjoyment of sex promotes lying horizontally in bed after the act for some time. Pure drivel. Beds and sex have no functional relationship whatsoever. While a good number of teenage pregnancies might result from shagging in bed, a good number will also result from shagging in alleyways. It's not the position that counts, it's the basic fecundity and the frequency that get the job done. (Try to remember that humans are supposed to reproduce in their teens. Teenagers, if left to their own devices, generally don't have much problem producing children for certain quite obvious reasons.) >Either way, we are for the most, horizontal after intercourse. Yeah yeah. >No other animal enjoys sex If that were the case, why do dogs take such an interest in people's legs? It's not because they're stupid you know. >If women were to get out of bed immediately after sex then gravity would act to reduce the probability of insemination. Oh really? Nature has more sophisticated means than that. Have you never seen the film of a man doing a handstand while drinking milk through a straw to demonstrate that the human digestive tract can work equally well upside down? >Hence, the theory states, as humans became more vertically postured in bipedal transportation, we also developed a pleasurable response to sex which was designed to keep us, or at least the female, horizontal so that one vital ingredient would not end up running down her leg. Hence we can have a good laugh at the drivel that gets peddled by people who are too lazy to think for themselves. Again, the vital ingredients are fecundity and frequency. Next you'll be making up some Just So Story explaining how 'evolution' prompts women to take their temperature before 'knock-up sex' to enhance their chances of pregnancy. db, you're clutching at straws to support an untenable position... Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Some more Just So Stories from miteyak there. I can think of several other possibilities for the homosexual sex of rats in close confinement. It argues equally well for the case that homosexuality can be a learned behaviour due to close proximity to other homosexuals. No need to invoke spurious population arguments there. As for the evolution and science crap, evolution is a natural process. We have effectively removed ourselves from it, so anything that we can achieve through science is not evolutionary. And the vast majority of people will continue to reproduce through making families because it is better than what science may want for us. Come at me with a test tube and I'll glass you with it... Link to post Share on other sites
miteyak 0 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Theories, Ocean, theories for discussion. Just can't refrain from a quip at the messenger first, can you Ocean... Well, bit busy now, but when I have time I'll try to dig up a few more research topics for our very own esteemed prof. of biology to grade Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 >>Humans are animals. All animals developed an enjoyment of sex so that they would reproduce, whether they want to or not. Oh, but I thought marriage was the cause and setting of reproduction, not the simple pleasure of dropping a load. >> It's not the position that counts, it's the basic fecundity and the frequency that get the job done. Yes, and greater frequency or luck is required for insemination in the non-horizontal position. Remember, we are animals and as we evolved we needed to be sure that we got the job done first time. Horizontally and stationary is more likely to work than vertical and running around looking for berries and what not. >> If that were the case, why do dogs take such an interest in people's legs? It's not because they're stupid you know. Yes, he is stupid, which is why he tries to hump things that are not dogs, including shoe boxes. >> Nature has more sophisticated means than that. Have you never seen the film of a man doing a handstand while drinking milk through a straw to demonstrate that the human digestive tract can work equally well upside down? No I have not. But that proves nothing. What is the most efficient and productive manner to drink milk? Upside down or stationary in the normal head-up position? >> Hence we can have a good laugh at the drivel that gets peddled by people who are too lazy to think for themselves. Again, the vital ingredients are fecundity and frequency. Next you'll be making up some Just So Story explaining how 'evolution' prompts women to take their temperature before 'knock-up sex' to enhance their chances of pregnancy. All I did was repeat a documented scientific theory. All you did was throw opinion at it and use words like drivel. Call people "to lazy to think'. And accuse them of making up stories, which is a ploy often used by people how strut the streets thinking they know better than every one else and hold any new information in contempt. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 db, go and get educated. I don't have the time now to keep doing the hammer and tongs on every single error you make. Needless to say, there are about six in your last post. And sorry ducks, but error in these things is not a matter of opinion, although it's convenient for you to pretend that it is. I suggest that before you go calling people bigots that you 1) learn to read more carefully and 2) check out the factual basis of these issues a little more thoroughly. Otherwise I might come to think that you hold old, true information in contempt. Oh, and why don't you try kicking your dog when you get home and watch carefully for signs of pain and hostility. You might learn something. miteyak, no I can't resist a dig at people who regularly have them at me. Why don't you have a look at Rudyard Kipling? I believe he made some well respected contributions to the field of 'alternative' evolution... Link to post Share on other sites
Stefan 0 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Quote: As for the evolution and science crap, evolution is a natural process. We have effectively removed ourselves from it, so anything that we can achieve through science is not evolutionary. Removed ourselves from a constant and unchangeable process.......? The evolution of human intelligence, is inseparable from science. Our scientific achievements (or should I say those of a few, highly evolved human brains) are only achievable due to the evolved state of humankind. Thus anything we achieve through this is part of evolution. Same sex couples having children, is therefore part of an evolutionary process. Ocean I understand you've a lot of posts to read and arguing to do, but please refrain from using naughty words, it upsets me. Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by Ocean11: db, go and get educated. I don't have the time now to keep doing the hammer and tongs on every single error you make. Needless to say, there are about six in your last post. a weak and gutless response to someone who gave back exactly what you give out, minus the insults. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts