Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archaea
See you just ignored the analysis and changed it.
There are times when dealing with the female kind when I wish I had no sexual desire. It would be much easier to be unconcerned with sex and to work on projects, exercise, travel and to ignore all sexual urges. If I had done that, I'd be retired now sojourning throughout the world, but I wouldn't have my wonderful kids. So a fair trade.
|
This seems only to support an argument that gays don't choose their sexual preference. You acknowledge yours is involuntay, and on top of the problems you identify gays have to deal with society's, even their families', condemnation and revulsion. |
I've not acknowledged mine being involuntary, but as far as I can remember I didn't have to consciously learn to like the female form. When I found out it was encouraged to enjoy, I went with the flow.
How does that prove anything?
I don't really know if it is involuntary or not. However, I see nothing positive arising from the relationship, at least nothing net positive. And don't bore me with "love and harmony" crap. That can exist without sex. Platonic relationships exist the world round.
Sex is about where you stick your unit, how you make another feel emotionally and physically, but if we believe the evolutionists, the drive is implanted to procreate.
So what are we to believe if that drive is not given for procreation, those want to use it where it's physiologically impossible to procreate by design? I really don't have the answers, but just cuz somebody else claims "it's involuntary, it's natural doesn't make it so."
And even if it is a natural impulse, Dahmer claimed it to be a natural impulse. The naked argument of "natural impulse" with no net social benefit is not a winner of an argument.
Now the pragmatist in me says, let them go do their thing, just don't charge me for it. Yet they do. They want additional insurance benefits and the costs of fighting AIDS and other social costs of their risky behavior. And intellectually, their argument is bereft of logic, other than this: "look if it feels good do it, and if it feels real good, do it some more."
"To hell with social consequences, we should be able to hump and hump and make everybody pay for our health consequences even though our bodies are not designed to do what we do."
I would respect this argument.
Hey, we don't know why it occurs, we don't know if it's involuntary, something psychological, something physiological in the womb, but hey we don't care. We like getting our rocks off that way and to hell with the rest of you.
That would be honest and direct. But to make it some social cause with dishonest, illogical arguments torques me.