Trade agreements...

[Alpaca]

In addition to the points that siblings Lambicus and Zono made regarding "nature's intentions," I'll offer a simple question (been doing quite a few of these lately!):

If nature did not intend homosexuality, then why does it exist? After all, unless you consider homosexuals to be inorganic, they are human, and therefore part of nature.

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

From what I observe from nature, nature intended man & woman to create offspring.

Humans are not the only beings that are involved in homosexuality. There have been cases of homosexual turtles, and other animals. Nature likes diversity, homosexuality is one of it. I don't think it's correct saying that nature intended something, when there are so many exceptions.

I didn't continue on this idea, because I abandoned it and instead wrote:
...an isolated island with say, two couples

And yet again you abandon the answer... I was curious about your insight of the situation, but once again you throw away my question...

Yes, I agree this 'fairytale' is too complicated.

Now you say it's a fairytale. Earlier you have put it like it has been a serious idea of yours, an experiment that would work if put into action. So what is it, a "fairytale" or a "serious project"?

right now! Sadly, in the present (nasty) ideological climate I still need to apply them as defense weapon or I'll be 'processed' by sordid capitalist monsters and the 40 robbers!

I'm curious. Who is that "capitalist monster and the 40 robbers"?

Since there is no help available to change this homosexuals are to be tolerated and respected, like anybody else.

And that is the only reason to respect them? Just because they are "handicapped"? Why not see them as normal human beings???

got there by my homemade philosophical concept. That's why I trust this method so much. I must have done something right, because this method worked!

Your philosophy worked for you. Great. But what makes you so sure it would work for everyone? Why push it so much, if other people prefer other ways?

Anyone grossly infringing the agreement or unable to live under these ideology has to return to capitalist rule.

You're different so you get excluded out of the society? That doesn't really sound like an accaptable agreement for me. I prefer how I live now...

[Alpaca]

Kiyo, in jjj's defence, I believe his switch to describing the vision as a "fairytale" was his way of acknowledging that the points you and others made in challenging it are correct, and that you have changed his mind on the subject.

Pardon me, jjj, if I am grossly misinterpreting that.

[Griffin NoName]

I came to that conclusion too, but it took me a while thinking about it.

[jjj]

...how you can claim that nature "intended" anything at all.

It's, because I observed that all of our actions have consequences and they are carried out by 'some power'. To me it's logic (or nature), which works according to certain laws and principles. To other people this power might be God or non-existing. Like it or not, our actions are being 'filmed' and dealt with! That' why I aim to play by its rules, because I experienced the consequences and prefer the pos to neg ones.

... if that is your position, fine, but hopefully you now recognize it as a personal belief that is not (and shouldn't necessarily be) shared by everyone else.

I never had a problem with recognizing, that we all are free to earn our insight the hard way.Yet, personally I preferred to learn the easier way (from others); don't you, too? Of course it has to 'work' or I have (had) to keep searching to find what's working for me.   

...the suggestion of homosexuality as an illness or 'handicap' is an oversimplification of a complex subject and at the same time a way to pass (negative) judgment over the circumstance it self.

Admittedly, I'm not an authority on this matter and merely expressed my personal insight. Its that what appears obvious. Or could it be that nature intends to curb population growth in that way?  It's often complicated to read nature... I do my best, invite your opinion and enrich mine; all depends.

I have no problem with goose-stepping sauerkraut-eaters."

I love it, please give me more of it! Also, I do enjoy fresh sauerkraut. It got lots Vit C...300mg in 100g fresh Sauerkraut. I also can tell you how to do it, but it won't make you speak like Hitler; rather like a 'Churchill-Hitler'! It helps me to define Germany's international image logically correct ...even though I'm over 35 years not German anymore. Please, don't feel offended by 'adding entertaining twists' to this other wise 'dry' discussion. Unless it gets in the way to differentiate the fun from the serious bits, I don't consider it offensive. I'm by nature a fun loving person and thus, the last one to get upset. That's why my looks cheat my age. IMHO In other words, being happy tells our bodies 'to live' and visa versa! So, may I suggest to join the fun and stick around longer on Earth, unless you have alternative/ macabre plans...

If nature did not intend homosexuality, then why does it exist? After all, unless you consider homosexuals to be inorganic, they are human, and therefore part of nature.

Observing nature, many things seem imperfect. Also it could be sequences brought on by neg (or illogical) action by members of previous generations. It could be induced by chemical interference etc. All we can do is to compare the state of the majority to off-norms and draw conclusions from there to amend them.

And yet again you abandon the answer... I was curious about your insight of the situation, but once again you throw away my question... Now you say it's a fairytale. Earlier you have put it like it has been a serious idea of yours, an experiment that would work if put into action.

Don't you get 'quick ideas', which soon are proven unworkable? Well, that's one of them! No point to stir it up... since it has got the mentioned disadvantages. If you still insist in having some of these weird question answered, please rephrase them in another context.

Kiyo, in jjj's defence, I believe his switch to describing the vision as a "fairytale" was his way of acknowledging that the points you and others made in challenging it are correct, and that you have changed his mind on the subject.

Thx. Alpaca... that it! You see, I don't stubbornly insist in unworkable theories. That's why we discuss and sort them out. Also we should  take no offense on personal views, but rather help each other to amend them for the better. Instead some of you prefer to judge and my expressed opinions and merely decry them as 'offensive'... This tactic ('tictac') isn't helpful; i.e. it doesn't help me changing opinion for the better. Allow me to speak out, dear, strict Moderators!

Who is that "capitalist monster and the 40 robbers"?'

It's our sordid, mean capitalist politicians and their ideology! Like communism, both are devils. Yet, if I have to choose, I still prefer to put up with the latter... until something better pops up!

Just because they are "handicapped"?

I view/ respect all people equally; what-/however they are, unless they prove themselves to be otherwise, such evil is able to create. ((Achtung: Please don't construct from that... that homosexuals are evil people!) I learnt a lesson, didn't I... Sauerkraut?

Your philosophy worked for you. Great.

I feel obliged to thank you... IMHO, IMHO
But what makes you so sure it would work for everyone?

Because it consists of universally transferable

patterns...IMHO

Why push it so much, if other people prefer other ways?

There's no pushing going on...down the throat, unless you refer back to...?  I just state my case and it's up to each of us to show interest or reject (take or leave) it. Considering the alternatives we are advised to establish some kinds of handy reasoning tools and criteria.

...prefer how I live now.

Yes, life in Africa iis worse, I heard... Yet, for the moment capitalism is still the best ideology there is, but we can/ should improve on that. Let's at least steadily amend our capitalist thing in an effort to improve it. The trouble is our highly evolved, neg traits hinder/ imped progress. Evil seems to gain the upper hand. We need more weapons, police, courts and jails to curb our growing, neg traits.
Thus, forget about getting rid of our beloved neg traits. Instead we just learn to tolerate and live with them!  How about that?
...See, I'm very adaptable, because this way we learn the hard way to recognize what should be done to curb our social problems. Beside, the truth is that I hate dictator or being dictated. That's why I would make a useless, ridiculous Hitler! Heil! 

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

Don't you get 'quick ideas', which soon are proven unworkable? Well, that's one of them! No point to stir it up... since it has got the mentioned disadvantages. If you still insist in having some of these weird question answered, please rephrase them in another context.

OK, sorry. I may have overreacted a little and didn't see wht you were trying to say.
And I don't think my question were weird, I was just trying to understand your "project" better...

[jjj]

OK, sorry. I may have overreacted a little and didn't see wht you were trying to say.
And I don't think my question were weird, I was just trying to understand your "project" better...

OK, sorry. I may have overreacted a little by calling you questions 'weird'...

[goat starer]

If nature did not intend homosexuality, then why does it exist? After all, unless you consider homosexuals to be inorganic, they are human, and therefore part of nature.

Observing nature, many things seem imperfect. Also it could be sequences brought on by neg (or illogical) action by members of previous generations. It could be induced by chemical interference etc. All we can do is to compare the state of the majority to off-norms and draw conclusions from there to amend them.

leaving aside the generally outrageous notion that you are the arbiter of what is perfect in nature.. 

Your argument here is about as illogical as it is possible to get. You are defining 'nature' in terms of what "seems@ imperfect/illogical to you. That is simply not what nature is. "imperfection" is a necessary part of the thoroughly logical proccesses of nature. It is the driving force of evoluntion. In a constantly changing natural environment seems perfect or usual now may be utterly inappropriate in future environmental or societal conditions. When the first mudskipper hopped onto the land it was not the norm, it was genetically "imperfect" in your definition but it was as natural as they get and look where it led.

You are so short of necessary scientific information that your whole argument boils down to a rather ill informed set of opinions. If homosexuality is genetic (and this is a hotly contested issue) and arose through one off "imperfect" mutation (rather than the longer process of natural selection - evidently as this tends to rely on procreation) then is quite astoundingly common. We dont see 1 in 10 people walking round with ANY other one off non hereditary mutation so why you would assume that homosexuality is different?

Opinions are all well and good but when you start to substitute them into an argument as facts I start to get rather annoyed....

... and you dont want the resident Big Billy Goat Gruff mistaking you for a troll 

[jjj]

 

...aside the generally outrageous notion that you are the

arbiter of what is perfect in nature.. 

Sorry, wrong notion... for I'm just trying to interpret natures creation, just like you.

Your argument here is about as illogical as it is possible to get. 
"imperfection" is a necessary part of the thoroughly logical proccesses of nature. It is the driving force of evoluntion.

So, you reckon, people born with crippled limbs or mental handicap are part of the necessary driving force of evolution?  This is even harder to understand and believe... than my troll. IMHO
You are so short of necessary scientific information that your whole argument boils down to a rather ill informed set of opinions.

Yes, that's how I would describe scientists, too. They know everything and nothing. Thus, I just settle for what is accessible to me: observation of nature and trial & error and when it works I'm quite happy. What more I want? Waiting for scientific advice kills 10 000 cancer and AIDS ridden patients, daily.

We dont see 1 in 10 people walking round with ANY other one off non hereditary mutation so why you would assume that homosexuality is different?

Yes, 10 % is right, but I don't understand the rest you are on about... Please rephrase .

Opinions are all well and good but when you start to substitute them into an argument as facts I start to get rather annoyed...

Please don't brother scientist, because we are here to learn... from misconceptions. Example: Try to upset me; you won't succeed! 
.

.. and you dont want the resident Big Billy Goat Gruff mistaking you for a troll

Hey... don't forget I'm supposed to resurrect Hitler... Heil!     

[ivor]

Well said Goat. 

Perfection in nature simply doesn't exist.  Perfect copies of "perfect" genes would lead to a lack of diversity and stagnation.  Perfection in nature is just perfectly illogical.

[goat starer]

We dont see 1 in 10 people walking round with ANY other one off non hereditary mutation so why you would assume that homosexuality is different?

Yes, 10 % is right, but I don't understand the rest you are on about... Please rephrase .

you have asserted that homosexuality is genetic.
If it is genetic it is one of two things:
a) a genetic mutation or
b) a hereditary genetic trait

if it is a heredity genetic trait then it is completely natural and must confer some advantage (leaving aside the principle that it is hard to see how a genetic trait that actively discourages procreation could have become so prevalent.

If it is a genetic mutation that it is still a natural process but an incredibly unusual one as there are no other mutations i can think of where the same mutation occurs spontaniously in 10% of the population in every generation and is also found in everything from birds to beetles, sheep to fruit bats, dolphins to orangutans.

Yes I do belive that whatever people are born with be it a handicap or a sexual orientation then thay are part of the natural cycle of things. Because i dont distinguish some things as perfect and some as imperfect and i dont accept that there is a 'natural' state which would bring about overall happiness. The trials and diversity of life are what makes it interesting, extraordinary and fun. Your philosophy seems to me to desire the creation of a rather stagnant and moribund world and I cant imagine myself being content to live in it!

[jjj]

 genetic it is one of two things: a) a genetic mutation or b) a hereditary genetic trait
Aren't genes consistently mutating? Why then the need to subdivide them into these two categories?  Or do you mean genetically related specie?
...i dont accept that there is a 'natural' state which would bring about overall happiness. The trials and diversity of life are what makes it interesting, extraordinary and fun. Your philosophy seems to me to desire the creation of a rather stagnant and moribund world and I cant imagine myself being content to live in it!
That's not  quite, how my idea of contentment (not happiness!) is founded.
I reiterate: It rather depends on the discovery of all our mental, emotional, physical true needs, unique abilities, talents (its development) and the fulfillment of the lot then lands us in highest possible, lasting contentment. (See contentment string) Of course this also includes diversity. Yet, again, (Hitler!  ) neg traits aren't welcome here, unless we confuse the gratifications derived from aggressive, selfish, addictive etc. action to produce 'contentment'. Hence, I suppose your idea of diversity is mixing neg & pos traits and that explains why it fails to work with contetment.

[goat starer]

Aren't genes consistently mutating? Why then the need to subdivide them into these two categories?  Or do you mean genetically related specie?

I am simply saying that there are two ways a genetic trait can be introduced. one is by a one off mutation. the other by a process of natural selection through heredity. Neither seems to fit your argument.

Either way the process of both mutation at a genetic level and inherited genetic traits are natural proccesses. The only way you can argue that homosexuality is 'unnatural' is to posit something outside of nature, some supernatural power (the devil perhaps) who is out there interfering in the natural way of things and making all those 'poor' homosexuals. This to my mind is nothing but a patent nonsense.

When people start inventing supernatural interventions or postulating objective ethics I see it as little more than attempting to excuse their own underlying hang ups and prejudices. 

[jjj]

As mention, the only means I have to interpret nature's implications is by way of observation and comparison to the nature's rule/ norms. Example: The majority of us have two legs and two arms.  Thus, if I observe that 1 in 10 has a limb missing, I assume that the norm is 2 legs and 2 arms. I wouldn't go thus far as to call this kind of conclusion 'patent nonsense'.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But the problem is that it is patent nonsense.

What Goat tried (unsuccessfully) to explain to you is that you don't get a 10% of a population with a trait if that trait is a handicap (and I am using the word here with its strict meaning) to the species in question, otherwise it wouldn't be as prevalent (ie: the members of the species that have the trait would die out).

IMHO it would do you good to study some basic evolutionary biology before using terms like 'genetic trait' in such a broad and grossly inaccurate way.