Philosophical Vegan Forum

Insert name here wrote:

jimgees wrote:Do what you want to do with your penis or vagina. If you are not creating insulin with your pancreas your pancreas is wrong. If something is preventing your PENIS or VAGINA from making babies 9 times out of ten something is wrong with what you are doing. I find that the most simplist of statements is becoming the hardest explain.

If you can choose what you want to do with your penis/vagina then why do you say that using them in a way that does not result in a newborn is not acceptable? It's like saying " Here's a map that shows different routes to a destination, you can choose, but you can only choose path A." Like it or not, you are not the final authority on human sexual behavior, if you want to argue from nature, Bonobos in the wild are known to engage in many types of sex to relieve stress and settle disputes. Is this incorrect for Bonobos to do? In the end, no one today is obligated to reproduce, and how they use their reproductive organs is up to them.

I never said homosexuality was unacceptable. It is acceptable by many people around the world. I never stated my authority. I am stating that homsexuality is wrong, not right, incorrect, can be caused by many different things. Your reproductive organs can even be used with the opposite sex the wrong way. I say just cal it what it actually is........ improper use of sexual reprductive organs.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: Onto this discussion. Are you religious? Science is about discovering the world. It does not state what is the right use of sexual organs. Science can tell us how the organs work, how they work together with other organs, but it is about to go around telling which genitals may touch which and by whom.

This.

Also: Using things "incorrectly" is how evolution works. The "right™" use for fins was not to crawl around in the mud, but to swim. Because some brave proverbial fish ignored that 'moral wisdom' (which is just an appeal to nature fallacy) of the conservative asshole fishes in this story, the tetrapod lineage was established.
Fins became what we now call legs.
A thing is not morally locked into what it was once used for.

This whole argument against homosexuality as wrong is just a big appeal to nature fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
What is "natural" is not what is right or correct in any regard. And neither can that be extended to form or function by any interpretation.

Must I only use a "chair" to sit on? A chair as you see it does not have to be a chair; it can also serve to stand on as a stool, be used as fuel, become a short table when I sit on the floor. None of these are inherently wrong; they are also perfectly useful.
It just stops being a chair when it's no longer used as one.

Just as genitalia are not exclusively reproductive organs.

Even the appeal to nature itself is incorrect, since homosexuality is widespread in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... in_animals

Look at bonobos, in particular, one of our closest relatives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Se ... l_behavior

Their genitals are not exclusively used for reproduction, but exchange of sexual pleasure is also an important bonding ritual. Through production of oxytocin, and resolution of conflict, the once sexual organ has become a social one too. This goes back many millions of years.

jimgees wrote: Homosexual sex is wrong scientifically. That is improper use of reproductive organs.

jimgees, are you walking on the mutated fins you call "legs"? If you are, you're a big fat hypocrite. That is improper use of fins! Fins are for swimming! No exceptions! Anything else is just wrong!

Think about it.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

TheVeganAtheist wrote: Onto this discussion. Are you religious? Science is about discovering the world. It does not state what is the right use of sexual organs. Science can tell us how the organs work, how they work together with other organs, but it is about to go around telling which genitals may touch which and by whom.

This.

Also: Using things "incorrectly" is how evolution works. The "right™" use for fins was not to crawl around in the mud, but to swim. Because some brave proverbial fish ignored that 'moral wisdom' (which is just an appeal to nature fallacy) of the conservative asshole fishes in this story, the tetrapod lineage was established.
Fins became what we now call legs.
A thing is not morally locked into what it was once used for. Off topic i said nothing about morals. Why do people keep making that statement for me? Is that how you convince people that homosexuality is the correct practice for our reproductive organs. DNA memory is counter productive to your argument. It proves mine.

This whole argument against homosexuality as wrong is just a big appeal to nature fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature
What is "natural" is not what is right or correct in any regard. And neither can that be extended to form or function by any interpretation. you use your heart to pump blood through your body. We also use the heart to pump bad drugs and alcohol through are bodies which is the incorrect use of the heart. You act like the sexual organs are the only organs we use incorrectly.

Must I only use a "chair" to sit on? A chair as you see it does not have to be a chair; it can also serve to stand on as a stool, be used as fuel, become a short table when I sit on the floor. None of these are inherently wrong; they are also perfectly useful.
It just stops being a chair when it's no longer used as one. You are supposed to sit in chairs or run risk a risk of falling. You are supposed to use your sexual organs for reproducing and pissing or run the risk of not reproducing or getting a bladder infection (smart ass ) lol

Just as genitalia are not exclusively reproductive organs. yes you are right you pis with them.
Even the appeal to nature itself is incorrect, since homosexuality is widespread in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... in_animals



Look at bonobos, in particular, one of our closest relatives:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Se ... l_behavior

Their genitals are not exclusively used for reproduction, but exchange of sexual pleasure is also an important bonding ritual. Through production of oxytocin, and resolution of conflict, the once sexual organ has become a social one too. This goes back many millions of years. Evolution had to create a psychological dependency for sex so people can reproduce accidentally. It is a safe measure to ensure our survival as a species. psychological sexual disorder can lead to homosexuality. It is actually one of the biggest causes. Hermaphrodites are usually 90 percent of the dominant gender so when they are made a boy or a girl through surgery the psychological side follows suit.

jimgees wrote: Homosexual sex is wrong scientifically. That is improper use of reproductive organs.

jimgees, are you walking on the mutated fins you call "legs"? If you are, you're a big fat hypocrite. That is improper use of fins! Fins are for swimming! No exceptions! Anything else is just wrong!

Think about it.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Dna memory is the essence of evolution. We kept using our fins in the mud out f necessity until we evolved. what will come of repeatedly using our sexual organs incorrectly. What happens when you use other organs incorrectly? They mutate (cancer) then you die. Maybe our lungs will overtime develop a resistance to carcinogens. Maybe our livers will become effective in processing alcohol. Speaking of evolution. In theory how will homosexuals pass on their DNA memory? Mixing the topic of homosexuality and evolution is counterproductive to your argument because we are not asexual beings. If you do pass on homosexuality through dna memory by heterosexual sex (which is still proving my point) I doubt DNA will read it as being attracted to the same sex and make more homosexuals. It wil be read as there is no use for reproductive organs. History tells us that evolution does not work that was. We evolved to survive so we would most likely become asexual.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:jimgees,
when responding to comments please do not quote the entire comment left by another. Please quote only the parts you are specifically responding to. Otherwise we will have only a couple of comments per page (mostly filled with old comments being quoted).

Onto this discussion. Are you religious? Science is about discovering the world. It does not state what is the right use of sexual organs. Science can tell us how the organs work, how they work together with other organs, but it is about to go around telling which genitals may touch which and by whom.

Please follow the above advice.

bobo0100 wrote:

TheVeganAtheist wrote:jimgees,
when responding to comments please do not quote the entire comment left by another. Please quote only the parts you are specifically responding to. Otherwise we will have only a couple of comments per page (mostly filled with old comments being quoted).

Onto this discussion. Are you religious? Science is about discovering the world. It does not state what is the right use of sexual organs. Science can tell us how the organs work, how they work together with other organs, but it is about to go around telling which genitals may touch which and by whom.

Please follow the above advice.[/quoI

I am trying to figure this software out. I was talking about homosexuality and not religion. Im glad you know how your organs work. Why desnt everybdy>

Its not hard, you clearly know how to quote a comment. You just delete the section you don't need with the backspace or delete keys on your keyboard.

This is what I should have done with the latter part of the TVA quote.

Im glad you know how your organs work. Why desnt everybdy[y]

Would you call it wrong to use a shovel as a plate? You seem to be implying purpose to things with an improper understanding of purpose.

I am still completely misunderstanding how gay sex is causing genocide or I guess on a small scale deaths of individuals. Would you kindly enlighten me?

jimgees wrote:Dna memory is the essence of evolution. We kept using our fins in the mud out f necessity until we evolved.

This is not how evolution works. What you are describing is something like Lamarckian inheritance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
Learn some basic biology before you go making absurd claims like this. There's no meaningful "DNA memory" that watches and learns from what we do in our lives.

There's epigenetics, which is gene expression, and can affect offspring, but not in an information content sense in terms of the DNA itself. Nothing is gained or lost in the long term due to life behavior.

Either you reproduce, or you don't. If you don't reproduce, your genes are lost. If you do, your genes are carried on.
If there were a "gay gene", then the only thing we would expect by people expressing that and being homosexual is that the "gay gene" would be lost if they didn't reproduce.

That's it.

jimgees wrote:what will come of repeatedly using our sexual organs incorrectly.

Did you read my post? You need to respond to the arguments being made, and I already addressed this.

1. They are not exclusively reproductive organs. Genitalia are both reproductive and social organs. Homosexuals are using them for the latter purpose, but not the former. In that sense, they are using them more appropriately than a nun.

2. Nothing will come of not using them for reproduction (or finding another mechanism), aside from not producing offspring, thus not carrying on their DNA to the next generation. That's it.

jimgees wrote:You have What happens when you use other organs incorrectly? They mutate (cancer) then you die.

No, that is not what happens. When you use your fingers to type on a computer instead of climb trees and pick insects out of your mate's hair, they don't become cancer and kill you.

jimgees wrote:Maybe our lungs will overtime develop a resistance to carcinogens. Maybe our livers will become effective in processing alcohol.

These are exposures to environmental toxicants. Homosexuality is not a toxin. Most homosexual intercourse is no more dangerous than heterosexual intercourse.

jimgees wrote:Speaking of evolution. In theory how will homosexuals pass on their DNA memory?

They won't, and neither will you, because there is no DNA memory. There's just DNA.

Homosexuals can pass on their DNA using surrogates, or pairing with a complementary couple (e.g. a gay couple, and a lesbian one, and swapping sperm).
Gays and lesbians quite often still procreate. And it makes absolutely no difference that they performed gay sex acts before or after the fact, because DNA is not watching and recording everything they do like santaclause and deciding how to mutate. That's one of the most flabbergastingly ignorant views on evolution I have ever encountered, and I have spent a large portion of my argumentative career debating creationists.

jimgees wrote:If you do pass on homosexuality through dna memory by heterosexual sex (which is still proving my point) I doubt DNA will read it as being attracted to the same sex and make more homosexuals. It wil be read as there is no use for reproductive organs. History tells us that evolution does not work that was. We evolved to survive so we would most likely become asexual.

This... this may actually be the stupidest thing I have ever read. I'm rather in awe.

If you are trolling: Bravo.
Where's an Orson Welles slow clap gif when you need it?

Somebody else may have to explain the basics of evolution to you. Your combination of ignorance of science and arrogance that you are right is hard to correct, and I haven't the patience.

I am not asking you for patience or for your reply. I also think you are an idiot to think genitalia is a social organ and that we did not evolve through using DNA memory. That is the stupidest thing I heard all day. Two women sitting around ovulating and menstruating monthly is not a social event.
Two men creating sperm and ejaculating with each other is not a social event in the context that I am speaking of. Stay on topic. I think some one needs t sit down and explain the basics of biology to you. How in the hell can you evolve without reproduction. Why don't you give yourself an Orson well slow hand clap. How the hell am I going to troll my own post if anything you would be the troll Mr. scientifically backward. Sperm to EGG to Reproduction to evolution. Homosexuality does not aid in evolution. I am done here. If you think gay is normal why would you bring up evolution when we did evolve to be asexual creatures. You are proving your self wrong and in theory you lost this debate. We evolved to be heterosexual being so homosexuality is wrong for creature that evolved to reproduce heterosexually. Thanks for proving my point, If you are a male good luck with your sperm finding its way t the egg. I was thinking about dazzling you with scientific facts to prove my point but it is so obvious how homosexuality is scientifically wrong I am not going to waste my time.

If it makes you feel better I could say cell memory if yu think dna memory has nothing to do ith or did not aid in evolution which is another topic I might post.