What's wrong with "Brokeback Mountain?"

[SeattleUte]

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.

[Archaea]

Some writings of the Greeks had no problems with it.

I don't read classical Greek, although I once purchased a book to commence it, but time has never allowed for it. Bad excuse I know, but it's the truth.

To make a categorical statement that all portions of Greek society routinely accepted homosexuality is not something I believe to be true.

In some sections of Japanese culture, it was routinely acceptable for men to bed with boys. I admire much of Japanese intellectual rigor, society and culture, but I don't accept lock, stock and barrel.

As an eclecticist, one should choose the best of all past and present societies and not accept everything.

And no it's not because I say so, it's because the Reine Vernunft of it is illogical. The pure math of it is not valid. The premises and conclusions would not stand against the cold calculations of mathetical reasoning.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

[Robin]

r.f.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

Each time this topic comes up, you use this same line of reasoning ("there is no net benefit to society..."). Seems like an awfully weak argument to justify discrimination. What is the net benefit to society of being blind, having blue eyes, or being left-handed? You can do better than this.

Originally Posted by Archaea

And don't bore me with "love and harmony" crap. That can exist without sex. Platonic relationships exist the world round.

This one kills me. For a guy with such a long history of bemoaning the frigidity of LDS women, I find it highly ironic to see you suddenly become such a cheerleader for platonic relationships.

Originally Posted by Archaea

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."

You are oversimplifying things. There are lots of studies pointing to a biological cause.

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

Nor is your comparison of homosexuality to being a serial killer.

Originally Posted by Archaea

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."

This is where you really sound more like ExUte than Archea. You begrudge the cost of fighting AIDs? Aren't you aware that the vast majority of AIDS cases are spread by hetero sex (particularly in Africa)? This disease is causing unbelievable suffering in Africa and children are the hardest hit.

Originally Posted by Archaea

"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.

"dishonest, illogical arguments", indeed. Oh, the irony.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Each time this topic comes up, you use this same line of reasoning ("there is no net benefit to society..."). Seems like an awfully weak argument to justify discrimination. What is the net benefit to society of being blind, having blue eyes, or being left-handed? You can do better than this.

Oh this is a treasure, an awfully weak argument to justify, now trumpets please, "discrimination". To discriminate, now has certain legal connotations, but it's not necessarily bad. Wherein has my discussion centered on discrimination?

You're being dishonest. Do I want to throw extra money unless there is a net benefit to society?

That's exactly what society's money is for, for a return! IT's a very, very strong argument.

This one kills me. For a guy with such a long history of bemoaning the frigidity of LDS women, I find it highly ironic to see you suddenly become such a cheerleader for platonic relationships.

I'm not a cheerleader but I don't give a crap about a guy who wants to shove his unit up another man's anus. It's as simple as that.

You are oversimplifying things. There are lots of studies pointing to a biological cause.

Yes there are studies starting with the UCLA neurologist who is also gay. None of the studies solve the chicken or the egg dilemma. Don't overstate the case of the studies. All of the studies of which I'm aware are being conducted by persons who want to find a biological connection. So what? Of course there's some connection, but there's also a thing called volition. Will power has some role in it as well.

The problem with the gay agenda is no sense of concession on any points or any intellectual honesty.

Nor is your comparison of homosexuality to being a serial killer.

Why not?

Everybody accepts serial killing as socially unacceptable.

Not everybody accepts homosexual sex as socially unacceptable, but both claim their actions are impulse driven. All analogies are imperfect, a granted. You just don't like the association with something so distasteful. Neither would I if I were championing the gay agenda.

This is where you really sound more like ExUte than Archea. You begrudge the cost of fighting AIDs? Aren't you aware that the vast majority of AIDS cases are spread by hetero sex (particularly in Africa)? This disease is causing unbelievable suffering in Africa and children are the hardest hit.

I begrudge a habit related cost, yes. And this argument is priceless. It has me crying, poor defenseless children. Gee who's resorting to maudlin arguments now.

AIDS is spread by behavior.

Sex, unprotected, particularly gay sex. Prostitute sex.

Needles.

Infected mothers.

More money is spent on AIDS than cancer which strikes people often unrelated to behavior.

AIDS could stop in one generation.

Cancer will not.

I begrudge expenditures on wars, on behavioral related activities, but not on the future, knowledge and growth.

"dishonest, illogical arguments", indeed. Oh, the irony.

Nothing illogical at all.

Before AIDS, gay agenda had no voice to speak of.

Then through sympathy gay voice pandered to the sympathy of sick people.

Now gay agenda seeks money through marriage.

It's all about money and anuses. I won't buy it.

Then again, they can have theirs if they don't charge me for it.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Damn... I go to the gym and look what I miss...