Originally Posted by tbomachines

Anderson Cooper just came out as gay. I'm not quite sure what the point of this thread is but just thought I'd throw that in.

Originally Posted by Botnst

Didn't Cooper out himself several years ago?

Originally Posted by Volvo Diesel

Then don't come to that conclusion. Personally, I find the suggestion that there is some ratio of 'predisposition' : 'learned adaptation' to be pulled from the ether absurd, and I am curious as to why you insist upon a theory of sexuality that "values" (second definition again) "learned adaptation." Would you entertain the argument that there is no "predisposed attitude" toward either heterosexuality or homosexuality (or pedophilia, etc., etc.), but that a person's "sexuality" is determined solely by the social construct in which they exist, and that the "validity" of their sexual identity is determined by the sexual paradigm of that society, which deems certain behaviors "acceptable" and others "deviant" for the sole purpose of maintianing that society's power structure?



But isn't "your sexuality is a choice" also a cultural meme, as in "homosexuals should choose to not be homosexuals because a homosexual cannot reporduce, and sexual gratification for purposes other than reproduction is sinful, and any disagreement will subject you to eternal damnation!"? And to whom do you think one should be "responsible for feeling" that they were "born gay?" Again, I'm curious of your reaction to the argument that one's sexual preferences are beyond one's control, not because a person is "born that way (or the other)," but because sexual behavior (gay, straight, pediophile, etc.) is one way that our society has traditionally classified individuals and thereby reinforced what is "good" and what is "bad" for the purpose of protecting the dominance of a particular social paradigm or set of beliefs.



I would ask for whom did those laws help create a "strong" society. And what do you mean by "strong?"

Originally Posted by Botnst

Laws are (or should be) based on morality and morals are (or should be) utilitarian. [That should get the peasants lighting fires and grabbing pitchforks!]

Take for instance, our current laws concerning men having sex with young teenaged boys. In our culture we view this as horribly immoral but through history and up to the present day pederasty has been tolerated by various cultures and even extolled by some highly regarded philosophers. Laws against that behavior work in our society because we believe it interferes with the emotional development of youngsters and thus, find the relationship immoral. Those same laws would not work in a country that did not find pederasty and impediment to full adulthood and thus, not immoral.

Safe birth control has (in my opinion) completely undermined the utilitarian reason behind the increasingly antiquated moral codes prohibiting sexual relations between unmarried adults (in any sexual combination and in any number). The utilitarian reason behind the moral code was for the protection and nurturing of offspring and the proper support of the mothers. Before birth control, sex outside of marriage had a high probability of reproduction. Thus, there was a good reason for society insist that the prospective parents be considerate of possible outcomes. I think the prohibition in our culture concerning homosexuality is an outcome of our previous inability to offer sex as a recreation activity with no procreation. Thus, pleasure in sex was inseparable from procreation. Since homosexuals don't procreate, they don't get to have the pleasure of sex and to do so goes against the natural order.

Enter safe and reliable birth control.

All of a sudden we can have sex with no concern about procreation. This separates sex-for-pleasure from sex-for-procreation. This is not Darwin's plan. He, like God, decreed that pleasure and procreation were coupled (so to speak). But Man has (thus far) fooled God and Darwin.

It has also created a huge problem for antiquated morals -- what is the social value of a moral that has no social consequence?

Anyway, that's kind of what I think.

Originally Posted by Killer

No, but a lot of guys have in-ed him over the years!

Originally Posted by Jorn

Did you get off on that?

Originally Posted by Killer

Back yourself up over this way and I'll whisper the answer in your ear!

Originally Posted by davidmash

Does anyone know what the point of this thread was? I re-read it and still cannot figure it out. I know what I think it's about but I'll be damned if I can figure out what the OP thought it was about.

Originally Posted by Killer

Are you implying that that homosexual and pedophilic sexual impulses are not equally valid manifestations of human sexuality?

Gay men and their advocates claim the desire to engage in homosexual anal sex and oral sex are the result of impulses which are inherent and immutable, how is a gay man who claims the desire to engage in homosexual anal sex and oral sex with an infant are the result of impulses which are inherent and immutable, any less valid?

Or for that matter, any man whose inherent and immutable impulses manifest as a desire to engage in sexual contact with any animal, is less vaild how?

Because we know that the "Born this way!" human right argument is that the inherent and immutable homosexual impulse is in no way any less valid than the inherent and immutable heterosexual impulse to fufill the human species' biological imperative to produce progenial recombinant mutations, right?

That's is the basis for the demand for unequivical equality of every human right, correct? Homosexuals and their advocates decry any real or imagined inequality based on inherent and immutable impulse as a violation of their human rights.

With regard to the original question, was Brinkin born a homosexual pedophile with an inherent and immutable impulse to rape male infants?

Based on numerous past arguments I'll assume that homosexuals and their advocates will argue that the racist aspect of Brinkin's impulse is the result of nurturing, because if racism is the result of nature it would be an inherent and immutable impulses that people can't choose because they are "Born this way!", right?

PS any evidence the Pope raped any male babies of African descent or has any interest in the same? In the absence of any looks like nothing more than anti-religious bigotry on your part?

Originally Posted by tonkovich

wow. talk about making assumptions.

a) there is a "god". (really? do tell. )
b) you know what "he" (god) has decreed? (again, really? do tell.)
c) your assumptions are, well, unproven. to extrapolate from them is, well, trying to use reason and logic based on faith. FAIL