Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Segep]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable....

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable....

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was boozy beggar who could drink you under the table...

 

[Segep]

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel and...

Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel...

 

[Segep]

lol now I have to keep going even if it derails the thread...



There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates himself was permanently pissed....

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

lol now I have to keep going even if it derails the thread...

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was boozy beggar who could drink you under the table...
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel and...
Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates himself was permanently pissed....
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, Hobbes was fond of his dram, and Renee Descartes was a drunken fart, I drink therefore I am.
John Stuart Mill of his own free will...

(Talk about intellectual intercourse!)

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This was taken from Monty Python's Completely Useless Website
http://www.google.com/custom?domain...:http://www.intriguing.com/mp/;FORID:1;&hl=en


http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_scripts/mpsings.asp

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table,

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist,
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart,
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.

========================================
Composer: Eric Idle
Author: Eric Idle

Virgin Records 1989
MONT D1

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think my favorite Monty Python skit was the one with Michaelangelo and the Pope arguing about the painting of the Last Supper. The Mariachi Band, the three Christs--the two skinny ones balance out the fat one--and the kangaroo who got painted over and made into another disciple. Classic!

 

[ilikeboobs]

Choice.

You can choose whether or not to have sex with someone/something.

Unlike skin color, you can change your mind and have a differnt view everyday of your life if you want.

And come on - who really wants to be defined by what they stick their weener into? I'd rather you put a "Morally Wholesome" pride sticker on your car. It tells me more about you that who you screw in your bedroom.

 

[r0beph]

so? Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic? Or, feel free to start a philosophy thread. It is starting to sound like: "How many angles can dance on the head of a pin?"

So...we gunna beat up dem homos or not?

it's not choice per se. Choice refers to the actions performed given a set of situationals/drives/variables, ie choosing to turn left because your destination is in that direction as opposed to turning right which leads away.

As for genetic yes I'll say it is, most often times. However there is data to support that homosexuality can be imbued environmentally (however NOT because two males raise a young boy in a homosexual adoptive case) but rather due to rewirings caused by traumas be it mental/physical abuses. On that, I can show the inverse, where society and the family of a homosexual can force heterosexuality upon him via mental hardships and external pressures. Although these cases tend to be for the worse rather than the happy homosexuals who exist simply as they are.

 

[Segep]

Choice.

You can choose whether or not to have sex with someone/something.

Unlike skin color, you can change your mind and have a differnt view everyday of your life if you want.

And come on - who really wants to be defined by what they stick their weener into? I'd rather you put a "Morally Wholesome" pride sticker on your car. It tells me more about you that who you screw in your bedroom.

YES you can choose whether or not to have sex with someone

NO you cannot choose who you are attracted to and fall in love with.

YES you can choose to be yourself and be happy

NO you cannot purge homosexuality from someone any more than you can purge heterosexuality from someone.


Come on, people, how damned simple can it be?

 

[numinus]

Sooo....what the heck was God doing when all that evil filled the Universe? Was he off in some other Universe fishing? If Nothingness is Evil, is Anything good?

Only good has existence.

Evil is merely an absence of good.

So, one really can't concieve of a universe 'filled' with evil in the same way it is absurd to think of the universe as full of nothing.

 

[numinus]

Well, maybe. I am coming to think that you have a lot of these IMMUTABLE ABSOLUTES inside your head and you believe that everyone else does too, and if you can just wake people up to these things in their heads then the world will sort itself out more neatly. Is that close?

No.

There aren't many absolute dictates of morality. And if they seem many to you, its because they are corollaries of each other.

Without some proof and several examples I don't think I would sign up with this one either. It has a superficial appeal, but things often do, however in practice they rarely work out like that.

Sigh

Its called infinite regression.

Why is something good? Because of so and so. And why is so and so good? Because of more so and so.

At some point, there must be an end to because - when something is viewed as GOOD IN ITSELF.

Proof enough for you?

I keep trying to make sense of the absolutes you post. No, I don't consider the state of mutual annihilation as man's natural end.

Neither do I.

Is this and either/or situaltion? It doesn't seem like it to me.

Finally!

If mutual annihilation is NOT man's natural end, then you can very well see the objective necessity of the imperative 'thou shall not kill'.

I can't see the point you are trying to make. And who says the environment is finite? You make statements and want me to take them as being true, but you never say where they come from or give any proof of them. Just because something looks "self-evident" to you doesn't mean that anyone else sees it that way.

What the hell are you saying!

We live in an EXPANDING universe. Of course it's FINITE.

Or do you need proof of that as well?

Self evident, intuitive, a priori - whatever you wish to call it, the operation of reason alone will lead to the same conclusion.

No amount of subjective inclination can deny something that is reasonably true.

I don't know what you mean with this, don't be so cryptic, if you are going to make a statement like the one above then explain what it is that you are talking about. I can't read your mind--the print is way too small.

You are saying that there is no imperative against killing another human being for the simple reason that there exist some form of social or legal consent to it.

And what is a government or social consent if not merely a practical necessity of convenience?

If one contemplates the natural ends of man, it would instantly become evident (when applied equally to everyone) that killing your fellow man have no place in the social order.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No.
There aren't many absolute dictates of morality. And if they seem many to you, its because they are corollaries of each other.
Sigh
Its called infinite regression.
Why is something good? Because of so and so. And why is so and so good? Because of more so and so.
At some point, there must be an end to because - when something is viewed as GOOD IN ITSELF.
Proof enough for you?
Neither do I.
Finally!
If mutual annihilation is NOT man's natural end, then you can very well see the objective necessity of the imperative 'thou shall not kill'.
What the hell are you saying!
We live in an EXPANDING universe. Of course it's FINITE.
Or do you need proof of that as well?
Self evident, intuitive, a priori - whatever you wish to call it, the operation of reason alone will lead to the same conclusion.
No amount of subjective inclination can deny something that is reasonably true.
You are saying that there is no imperative against killing another human being for the simple reason that there exist some form of social or legal consent to it.
And what is a government or social consent if not merely a practical necessity of convenience?
If one contemplates the natural ends of man, it would instantly become evident (when applied equally to everyone) that killing your fellow man have no place in the social order.

We live in an EXPANDING universe. Of course it's FINITE.
This one statement is a perfect example of why I'm not going to continue trying to discuss with you. Absolutes coupled to non sequiturs embedded in axioms described in ambiguous terms punctuated with "sigh"s.

I've had more cogent discussions with people on weed! I don't know if it's me or you, but we have no communication taking place here. If someone else wants to try to decipher your maelstrom of prose then they are welcome to it. Have a philosophically nice day.

 

[Coyote]

This was taken from Monty Python's Completely Useless Website
http://www.google.com/custom?domain...:http://www.intriguing.com/mp/;FORID:1;&hl=en


http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_scripts/mpsings.asp

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table,

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist,
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart,
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.

========================================
Composer: Eric Idle
Author: Eric Idle

Virgin Records 1989
MONT D1

That is a good one! Oh...good times