Islamic conference says homosexuality is -- okay?!?!?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Uhhh, I'm all for homosexual rights, but.......what?

What they probable meant was that because society viewed heterosexuality as the only norm for so long, that's where the resentment against homosexuality came from.

Heterosexuality is the norm, how is that even debatable? I don't believe there's anything wrong with being abnormal in this case, but saying heterosexuality is a social construction is ridiculous. It's the method for procreation...

Ever heard of cell division? It's the method of procreation for the vast majority of living organisms. Clearly species that developped a male gender and heterosexuality are deeply abnorm - disturbed, even.

Humans as a species are abnormal, you won't get an argument out of me there. People didn't get together and decide that women and men would be able to have babies together and men and other men wouldn't though. Saying homosexuality is something that should invoke punishment or scorn is a social construction, procreation isn't.

Homosexuality isn't about procreation, by the fact.

Exactly, which is why it isn't normal. Biologically the purpose of sex is procreation....

Oh, this is a purely arbitrary statement. Facts, proves that for homosexuals sex has an other purpose than procreation, otherwise they wouldn't practice it, while I wouldn't be able to witness about that since I never had homosexual relationship, it's just a 'biological' way to give love to one another, like every straight couples do, and that's not always to make kids otherwise each couple would be with its hundred of kids.

[useful idiot]

Uhhh, I'm all for homosexual rights, but.......what?

What they probable meant was that because society viewed heterosexuality as the only norm for so long, that's where the resentment against homosexuality came from.

Heterosexuality is the norm, how is that even debatable? I don't believe there's anything wrong with being abnormal in this case, but saying heterosexuality is a social construction is ridiculous. It's the method for procreation...

Ever heard of cell division? It's the method of procreation for the vast majority of living organisms. Clearly species that developped a male gender and heterosexuality are deeply abnorm - disturbed, even.

Humans as a species are abnormal, you won't get an argument out of me there. People didn't get together and decide that women and men would be able to have babies together and men and other men wouldn't though. Saying homosexuality is something that should invoke punishment or scorn is a social construction, procreation isn't.

Homosexuality isn't about procreation, by the fact.

Exactly, which is why it isn't normal. Biologically the purpose of sex is procreation....

Oh, this is a purely arbitrary statement. Facts, proves that for homosexuals sex has an other purpose than procreation, otherwise they wouldn't practice it, while I wouldn't be able to witness about that since I never had homosexual relationship, it's just a 'biological' way to give love to one another, like every straight couples do, and that's not always to make kids otherwise each couple would be with its hundred of kids.

Gays have sex because it feels good; doing cocaine feels good but that doesn't mean your nose was specifically meant for snorting cocaine. From an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is procreation, to further one's species. If you don't understand that then you're too stupid for me to continue this exchange.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Haha...euh...

Well, I'll sum my position up:

In my mind sex isn't only about procreation but can also be about love, both straight and gays can do that. It can be in both cases to 'feel good', but also to give love. The point being that straight sex can permit procreation and that gay one can't. That's all. There is no 'normal' or 'abnormal' notions which have to stand in that.

Then, you make arbitrary statement as if you were in the secret of the creation to decreee what was purposed to, well, feel free, because of all what i said i don't share this point of view, neither that i pretend knowing that such or such thing have been purposed to something, if ever the one can say that such or such thing have been done in purpose to something.

Plus, note that if you strongly hold this point of view, it's rather shut to any biological evolution.

[Alcon]

Gays have sex because it feels good; doing cocaine feels good but that doesn't mean your nose was specifically meant for snorting cocaine. From an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is procreation, to further one's species. If you don't understand that then you're too stupid for me to continue this exchange.

Biology doesn't have intentions.  Biology has ends to actions.  Having heterosexual sex has the ends of reproduction.  Biology wires us to desire reproduction, at base, but not everybody does, and we don't at other opportunity.  Biology also wires us to seek pleasure (like as an incentive to have sex) but that doesn't mean we are "intended" to do cocaine.  You can't grant intentions to biology.  It often correlates to things that encourage reproduction (as you'd expect, since if you reproduce, you're more likely to pass on your traits) but the concept of "biology" couldn't give less of a crap whether we all died out.

None of this has anything to do with "normal," by the way, and if you think it does, you're anthropomorphizing biology.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Why is gay "sex" even considered sex?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Well, now that the Islamic conference say it's okay, I might have to reconsider.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Why is gay "sex" even considered sex?

Yeah! Tell us what it should be and what would you consider as sex.

*if had popcorn would grab some*

[useful idiot]

Gays have sex because it feels good; doing cocaine feels good but that doesn't mean your nose was specifically meant for snorting cocaine. From an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is procreation, to further one's species. If you don't understand that then you're too stupid for me to continue this exchange.

Biology doesn't have intentions.  Biology has ends to actions.  Having heterosexual sex has the ends of reproduction.  Biology wires us to desire reproduction, at base, but not everybody does, and we don't at other opportunity.  Biology also wires us to seek pleasure (like as an incentive to have sex) but that doesn't mean we are "intended" to do cocaine.  You can't grant intentions to biology.  It often correlates to things that encourage reproduction (as you'd expect, since if you reproduce, you're more likely to pass on your traits) but the concept of "biology" couldn't give less of a crap whether we all died out.

None of this has anything to do with "normal," by the way, and if you think it does, you're anthropomorphizing biology.

No one said anything about intentions. Our bodies have evolved with each part performing a certain function. For some reason or another, there are two genders, and that's been the case since before we could even have complex social constructions. Since sex is the way children are made, and sex is required between a man and a woman to procreate our species, then that's the default setting. To stray from that isn't wrong, and I can't begin to know, as I doubt anybody can, how the brain is wired or why we do the things we do. That's just the way it is.

[useful idiot]

Why is gay "sex" even considered sex?

Because society has for whatever reason deemed sodomy between heterosexuals to be sex as well.

[JohnFKennedy]

Gays have sex because it feels good; doing cocaine feels good but that doesn't mean your nose was specifically meant for snorting cocaine. From an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is procreation, to further one's species. If you don't understand that then you're too stupid for me to continue this exchange.

Biology doesn't have intentions.  Biology has ends to actions.  Having heterosexual sex has the ends of reproduction.  Biology wires us to desire reproduction, at base, but not everybody does, and we don't at other opportunity.  Biology also wires us to seek pleasure (like as an incentive to have sex) but that doesn't mean we are "intended" to do cocaine.  You can't grant intentions to biology.  It often correlates to things that encourage reproduction (as you'd expect, since if you reproduce, you're more likely to pass on your traits) but the concept of "biology" couldn't give less of a crap whether we all died out.

None of this has anything to do with "normal," by the way, and if you think it does, you're anthropomorphizing biology.

No one said anything about intentions. Our bodies have evolved with each part performing a certain function. For some reason or another, there are two genders, and that's been the case since before we could even have complex social constructions. Since sex is the way children are made, and sex is required between a man and a woman to procreate our species, then that's the default setting. To stray from that isn't wrong, and I can't begin to know, as I doubt anybody can, how the brain is wired or why we do the things we do. That's just the way it is.

Two sexes - sex and gender are not coterminous. For normality and heterosexuality/homosexuality see my previous post in this thread - what is referred to as a social construct is not the process of sex for reproduction but the idea of being attracted to only members of the opposite sex.

[minionofmidas]

Why is gay "sex" even considered sex?

Good question. What about heterosexual anal "sex"? Or "sex" with a condom on? Or "sex" with an old woman after menopause?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Why is gay "sex" even considered sex?

Good question. What about heterosexual anal "sex"? Or "sex" with a condom on? Or "sex" with an old woman after menopause?

The anus isn't a sexual organ, so why isn't anal sex just considered masturbation using another guy's anus instead of a hand?

[minionofmidas]

Why is gay "sex" even considered sex?

Good question. What about heterosexual anal "sex"? Or "sex" with a condom on? Or "sex" with an old woman after menopause?

The anus isn't a sexual organ, so why isn't anal sex just considered masturbation using another guy's anus instead of a hand?

Again, why just another guy's?

I think the reason is obvious unless you purposefully try to believe that sex is about procreation. Which is a charade nonvirgins will find difficult to pull off, so...

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Why is gay "sex" even considered sex?

Good question. What about heterosexual anal "sex"? Or "sex" with a condom on? Or "sex" with an old woman after menopause?

The anus isn't a sexual organ, so why isn't anal sex just considered masturbation using another guy's anus instead of a hand?

Again, why just another guy's?

I think the reason is obvious unless you purposefully try to believe that sex is about procreation. Which is a charade nonvirgins will find difficult to pull off, so...

Fine, guy or girl. What makes anal "sex" sex?

[minionofmidas]

Because it feels like sex (triggers much the same emotions / chemical reactions in your brain), duh.

Obviously, there's no big black and white divide of what is sex and what isn't - Bill Clinton's impeachment should have made that clear to anybody. I wouldn't exactly call some guys masturbating in the same room "having sex"... masturbating each other though? That's in that gray area already.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Maybe we could go with the fact that since one sexual organ is engaged in something, we can call it 'sex' (I let you then imagine all the possibilities it concerns, and free to you not to call all of this sex). Though, yes, maybe that might not be that simple and I would challenge someone to make a clear definition of 'sex', since it doesn't only concern procreation. That's surely possible, but I haven't the mind to try to go in such subtleties.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Just saw again the film last night and that fits into this conversation I think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L3JMk7C1A

[Alcon]

Gays have sex because it feels good; doing cocaine feels good but that doesn't mean your nose was specifically meant for snorting cocaine. From an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is procreation, to further one's species. If you don't understand that then you're too stupid for me to continue this exchange.

Biology doesn't have intentions.  Biology has ends to actions.  Having heterosexual sex has the ends of reproduction.  Biology wires us to desire reproduction, at base, but not everybody does, and we don't at other opportunity.  Biology also wires us to seek pleasure (like as an incentive to have sex) but that doesn't mean we are "intended" to do cocaine.  You can't grant intentions to biology.  It often correlates to things that encourage reproduction (as you'd expect, since if you reproduce, you're more likely to pass on your traits) but the concept of "biology" couldn't give less of a crap whether we all died out.

None of this has anything to do with "normal," by the way, and if you think it does, you're anthropomorphizing biology.

No one said anything about intentions. Our bodies have evolved with each part performing a certain function. For some reason or another, there are two genders, and that's been the case since before we could even have complex social constructions. Since sex is the way children are made, and sex is required between a man and a woman to procreate our species, then that's the default setting. To stray from that isn't wrong, and I can't begin to know, as I doubt anybody can, how the brain is wired or why we do the things we do. That's just the way it is.

You said "meant."  Meant by whom?  Most of us are wired to have a drive to heterosexual sex.  Why?  Because that biological urge is useful in procreation, and those who procreate pass their genes on, and secondarily behaviors.  Your statement that "biologically the purpose of sex is procreation" also implies intention.  Biologically, sex is the means to the ends of procreation, and sex (and arguably procreation) are drives that are normal among humans.  Unless "biologically" is redefined to mean "the purpose of procreating," biology doesn't much dictate purposes of actions -- it just happens that this one can result in the biological function of reproduction, or not.

This isn't a claim that was contradicted by the poster you were arguing with, anyway, since he was talking about sexual orientation as a social construct.

[useful idiot]

Gays have sex because it feels good; doing cocaine feels good but that doesn't mean your nose was specifically meant for snorting cocaine. From an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is procreation, to further one's species. If you don't understand that then you're too stupid for me to continue this exchange.

Biology doesn't have intentions.  Biology has ends to actions.  Having heterosexual sex has the ends of reproduction.  Biology wires us to desire reproduction, at base, but not everybody does, and we don't at other opportunity.  Biology also wires us to seek pleasure (like as an incentive to have sex) but that doesn't mean we are "intended" to do cocaine.  You can't grant intentions to biology.  It often correlates to things that encourage reproduction (as you'd expect, since if you reproduce, you're more likely to pass on your traits) but the concept of "biology" couldn't give less of a crap whether we all died out.

None of this has anything to do with "normal," by the way, and if you think it does, you're anthropomorphizing biology.

No one said anything about intentions. Our bodies have evolved with each part performing a certain function. For some reason or another, there are two genders, and that's been the case since before we could even have complex social constructions. Since sex is the way children are made, and sex is required between a man and a woman to procreate our species, then that's the default setting. To stray from that isn't wrong, and I can't begin to know, as I doubt anybody can, how the brain is wired or why we do the things we do. That's just the way it is.

You said "meant."  Meant by whom?  Most of us are wired to have a drive to heterosexual sex.  Why?  Because that biological urge is useful in procreation, and those who procreate pass their genes on, and secondarily behaviors.  Your statement that "biologically the purpose of sex is procreation" also implies intention.  Biologically, sex is the means to the ends of procreation, and sex (and arguably procreation) are drives that are normal among humans.  Unless "biologically" is redefined to mean "the purpose of procreating," biology doesn't much dictate purposes of actions -- it just happens that this one can result in the biological function of reproduction, or not.

This isn't a claim that was contradicted by the poster you were arguing with, anyway, since he was talking about sexual orientation as a social construct.

I never used the word "Biology". All I said was that speaking in terms of evolution, we have evolved to reproduce through heterosexual sex. To further our evolution as a species heterosexual sex is required.

[JohnFKennedy]

I never used the word "Biology". All I said was that speaking in terms of evolution, we have evolved to reproduce through heterosexual sex. To further our evolution as a species heterosexual sex is required.

How does that have any relevance to the section of the article you originally queried then? Nobody was questioning the necessity of reproduction for furthering the species; the point made was that heterosexuality as a sexual orientation is a social construct.

[Alcon]

Gays have sex because it feels good; doing cocaine feels good but that doesn't mean your nose was specifically meant for snorting cocaine. From an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is procreation, to further one's species. If you don't understand that then you're too stupid for me to continue this exchange.

Biology doesn't have intentions.  Biology has ends to actions.  Having heterosexual sex has the ends of reproduction.  Biology wires us to desire reproduction, at base, but not everybody does, and we don't at other opportunity.  Biology also wires us to seek pleasure (like as an incentive to have sex) but that doesn't mean we are "intended" to do cocaine.  You can't grant intentions to biology.  It often correlates to things that encourage reproduction (as you'd expect, since if you reproduce, you're more likely to pass on your traits) but the concept of "biology" couldn't give less of a crap whether we all died out.

None of this has anything to do with "normal," by the way, and if you think it does, you're anthropomorphizing biology.

No one said anything about intentions. Our bodies have evolved with each part performing a certain function. For some reason or another, there are two genders, and that's been the case since before we could even have complex social constructions. Since sex is the way children are made, and sex is required between a man and a woman to procreate our species, then that's the default setting. To stray from that isn't wrong, and I can't begin to know, as I doubt anybody can, how the brain is wired or why we do the things we do. That's just the way it is.

You said "meant."  Meant by whom?  Most of us are wired to have a drive to heterosexual sex.  Why?  Because that biological urge is useful in procreation, and those who procreate pass their genes on, and secondarily behaviors.  Your statement that "biologically the purpose of sex is procreation" also implies intention.  Biologically, sex is the means to the ends of procreation, and sex (and arguably procreation) are drives that are normal among humans.  Unless "biologically" is redefined to mean "the purpose of procreating," biology doesn't much dictate purposes of actions -- it just happens that this one can result in the biological function of reproduction, or not.

This isn't a claim that was contradicted by the poster you were arguing with, anyway, since he was talking about sexual orientation as a social construct.

I never used the word "Biology". All I said was that speaking in terms of evolution, we have evolved to reproduce through heterosexual sex. To further our evolution as a species heterosexual sex is required.

err...

Biologically sexual activity is meant for procreation, and that certainly isn't a social construction.

Technically you didn't use "biology," but unless you're being really pedantic here.

[useful idiot]

Gays have sex because it feels good; doing cocaine feels good but that doesn't mean your nose was specifically meant for snorting cocaine. From an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is procreation, to further one's species. If you don't understand that then you're too stupid for me to continue this exchange.

Biology doesn't have intentions.  Biology has ends to actions.  Having heterosexual sex has the ends of reproduction.  Biology wires us to desire reproduction, at base, but not everybody does, and we don't at other opportunity.  Biology also wires us to seek pleasure (like as an incentive to have sex) but that doesn't mean we are "intended" to do cocaine.  You can't grant intentions to biology.  It often correlates to things that encourage reproduction (as you'd expect, since if you reproduce, you're more likely to pass on your traits) but the concept of "biology" couldn't give less of a crap whether we all died out.

None of this has anything to do with "normal," by the way, and if you think it does, you're anthropomorphizing biology.

No one said anything about intentions. Our bodies have evolved with each part performing a certain function. For some reason or another, there are two genders, and that's been the case since before we could even have complex social constructions. Since sex is the way children are made, and sex is required between a man and a woman to procreate our species, then that's the default setting. To stray from that isn't wrong, and I can't begin to know, as I doubt anybody can, how the brain is wired or why we do the things we do. That's just the way it is.

You said "meant."  Meant by whom?  Most of us are wired to have a drive to heterosexual sex.  Why?  Because that biological urge is useful in procreation, and those who procreate pass their genes on, and secondarily behaviors.  Your statement that "biologically the purpose of sex is procreation" also implies intention.  Biologically, sex is the means to the ends of procreation, and sex (and arguably procreation) are drives that are normal among humans.  Unless "biologically" is redefined to mean "the purpose of procreating," biology doesn't much dictate purposes of actions -- it just happens that this one can result in the biological function of reproduction, or not.

This isn't a claim that was contradicted by the poster you were arguing with, anyway, since he was talking about sexual orientation as a social construct.

I never used the word "Biology". All I said was that speaking in terms of evolution, we have evolved to reproduce through heterosexual sex. To further our evolution as a species heterosexual sex is required.

err...

Biologically sexual activity is meant for procreation, and that certainly isn't a social construction.

Technically you didn't use "biology," but unless you're being really pedantic here.

Ah you got me. I hadn't said it in the parts you quoted and responded to so I'd forgotten I'd wrote it. Oh well...