651. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208264 by Mitchell Gilks on July 10, 2008 at 7:15 pm

34. Comment #208222 by Spinoza

Actually that is only Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 says "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

23. Comment #208103 by Bonzai

Those were my exact thoughts as well when I first read this. Somehow, the inequity of the situation becomes quite apparent when you consider such an analogy.

652. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208239 by Mitchell Gilks on July 10, 2008 at 6:40 pm

I lied. I sent an e-mail. It may not be up to snuff with all you fancy high school graduates, but I did my best. I see that I misspelled "campaign"... damn... I also put "license" instead of "silence". Damn it, I read this like six times before I sent it. Spell checkers don't pick the kind of mistakes I make up...sadly. I regret sending this now.

Hello,

I am writing on behave of a resident Professor at your university, one P.Z. Myers. It has come to my attention that there has been a malicious champaign waged against Professor Myers by a Mr. Bill Donohue, in conjunction with the American Catholic League, in the form of letters to you, President Bruininks. Letters calling for his dismissal from your university. As I understand it, this was prompted by Professor Myers' ridicule of a situation involving the "kiddnapping" of a communion wafer. I would not be so presumptuous to assume your opinion on the matter, however, I do hope that we agree on the front of academic freedom, and freedom of opinion, and expression. I am writing in support of both Professor Myers' freedom of expression, and because I have a great deal of respect for Professor Myers. I find his writing to be entertaining, and enlightening, and am I see those to be favorable qualities for an educator. I am unaware of the impack, if any, (beyond being an extreme annoyance to your person) these letter champaigns will have, but I hope that you will not be swayed by this effort to license, and stifle a religious dissident, for doing nothing more than dissenting.

I tried to keep this short, as I am sure that you will be receiving many letters and e-mails regarding this matter. Thank you for your time.

Mitchell Gilks. New Brunswich, Canada.

653. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208214 by Mitchell Gilks on July 10, 2008 at 5:58 pm

56. Comment #208146 by Cartomancer

Oh Cartomancer, you're so pleasent to read. If I could write like you, I'd be sending everyone letters.

654. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208211 by Mitchell Gilks on July 10, 2008 at 5:47 pm

...send him something that at least looks like a high school graduate wrote it...

655. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206874 by Mitchell Gilks on July 8, 2008 at 11:24 pm

99. Comment #206810 by hadrianushaereticus

I think you need to read my post again. I can be unintelligible at times, granted.

I never said anything remotely like "his use of that word is wrong". I think I quite accurately stated that his use of the word both doesn't change anything in actuality, and disagrees with how historically the word has been used. Though that was not very important in itself, language is dynamic, and words mean whatever we want them to. You still can't prove that God exists by redefining the word to mean a pile of dirt. As I said, this tactic is him "ducking and weaving, but his feet haven't moved" by which I meant his position hasn't changed, or is not different than those owning the defintion of faith as "believe in the abscence of evidence" his changing of the words doesn't change his state of affairs. My major point was that the types of arguments he, and his ilk employ, are impractical, and contradicted by their everyday actions.

I didn't at all mean my post to come off as "he's using words wrong, and he's not allowed doing that" and am frankly stunned that you took it like that. I meant it to come off as "their using words differently is an attempt to muddy and obfuscate, but doesn't actually change anything at all."

It doesn't matter how you refer to a state of affairs, as a result of your language, the state of affairs will not change.

656. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206752 by Mitchell Gilks on July 8, 2008 at 6:26 pm

94. Comment #206707 by robotaholic

Lennox whole obfuscation of the word "faith" is an attempt to have things a la carte. Because "faith" is considered virtuous in religiuos circles, Lennox wants to both claim to have faith, but to not be basing his beliefs on it. It really makes the term vacuous, and requires further question begging to even be applied. Clearly he is talking about trusting, in this case. Yet he is talking about trusting an entity he does not know exists. So it requires that he presupposes it's existence in order to have faith, and we has thus just taken us around in a circle. He still requires faith in the good'ol belief without sufficient evidence sence, to have faith in the trust sense, that he is pushing. So he has really down nothing but ducked and weaved. His feet haven't moved.

I think his attempt to muddy the word's meaning is rather disengenuous. I have had the severe displeasure of actually reading some of the more famous theologians. There is no question what they meant by the word, nor do I think has there been since Paul defined it as "things hoped for and not seen".

Any such discussion I've ever had with a religious person that claimed this, both about faith, and evidence, when followed and played along, they merely attempt to redefine, and eviscerate the words, until nothing remains that is recognizable of their former selves. Evidence for instance, if taken how Lennox must be defining is could be anything at all that you prop up to hold whatever you wanted to believe in the first place. There is no standards, no criterion to be met. And faith, how he uses it (as he said that RD had faith in science) is so abused that you would require faith to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. They attempt to make it appear that all beliefs require faith, and that evidence can be anything. What is the most irritating about this, is that their entire arguments are just huffed up hand-waving, with zero real world application or practicality. Their behaviour simply must contradict their arguments, or they couldn't properly operate in the world.

657. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206502 by Mitchell Gilks on July 8, 2008 at 12:24 pm

63. Comment #206457 by SniderD

He kept asserting that he had good evidence, but in actuality he was just assuming that it was all true.

I can tell you that I walked to the store till I'm blue in the face, but if you just saw me exit my car..well, then.

His quote was clearly purposefully a caricature, and I think an accurate one.

658. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #205951 by Mitchell Gilks on July 8, 2008 at 1:04 am

Also, this was neither a conversation, nor a debate. RD couldn't get a word in edgewise. Lennox just kept rambling on and on. He might have got to speak for maybe five or six minutes thoughout that 50 minutes.

659. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #205946 by Mitchell Gilks on July 8, 2008 at 12:57 am

Damn is this guy insane. He claims to have read and completely understood Hume, and then mockingly offers to give Dawkins some material. What a pompous ass. I've only read a little bit about Hume on miracles, but it was astondingly good, and amazingly brilliant. It really changed how I view concepts of miracles. From what Lennox has said about miracles, I really don't think that he understands what Humes view was. At least as I understood it, and since I'm pretty confident that I'm a lot smarter than Lennox, I'm betting on myself.

Lennox is all question begging, and ad hoc explanations, along with special pleading, where he expects you to accept christians claims on eqivolently weak evidence as every other religion. "Oh this all makes perfect sense if you believe A B and C." I'm sure that it does, now prove A B and C.

I would have liked to see him debate Sam Harris.

660. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #205714 by Mitchell Gilks on July 7, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Hahaha. Hilarious. What a waste of money. That is the sad part of this story. That money could have gone toward something useful, or helpful.

661. Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design

Comment #205688 by Mitchell Gilks on July 7, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Let up all remember the great words of the last prophet of the FSM: Ettore Boiardi. RAmen.

662. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205506 by Mitchell Gilks on July 7, 2008 at 11:41 am

47. Comment #205497 by Paula Kirby

Can you imagine the obnoxiousness of the filter through which they view the world?

663. Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design

Comment #205501 by Mitchell Gilks on July 7, 2008 at 11:29 am

Clearly the event is too unlikely without noodly-guidance.

664. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205489 by Mitchell Gilks on July 7, 2008 at 11:12 am

Does anyone else think that the fraze "gay surge" is extraordinarily funny? It's open to so many hilarious interpretations.

665. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205484 by Mitchell Gilks on July 7, 2008 at 11:04 am

What? Of course women can't become bishops! A woman in a dress and a funny hat talking nonsense? It's impossible to imagine.

Some of my favorite yuri anime take place at catholic girl's schools. Ah, naughty catholic school girls, where would my fantasies be without you?

These tools make me sick. Where is Integra when you need her? She needs to get Alucard to clean house.

666. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205241 by Mitchell Gilks on July 6, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Anyone ever see "idiocracy"? This reminds me off the part where the protangonist is attempting to explain that they can't be feeding their crops with power drinks, but instead water. He tries to outline it logically and coherently, but then eventually opts to tell them that he can speak to plants, and they have told him that they prefer water.

Since the science part hasn't gotten to people, religion wants its hand in bullshitting them into agreeing. Hey, it's the end result that matters right? What's a little bullshit sprinkled here and there if the desired results are acheived?

Unfortunately, I think that global warming is too big of an issue to get into an ethical huff about this. I'll pick my battles and keep my mouth shut when it comes to this, but I will not take part, I just won't interfere.

667. Harper says new mosque shows 'the true and benevolent face of Islam'

Comment #205239 by Mitchell Gilks on July 6, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Damn stupid Harper. How did he ever get voted in? Oh...right...all that liberal corruption. I'll still take the liberal's money corruption over the conservative's batshit crazy any day of the week.

Stupid Dion too...he is just a really bad politian, he'll never win. I'd vote green if they were more than a one issue party, and if they had any chance at all of winning. I heard that they won't even let them into the parliament building.

Anyone watch the Rick Mercer report? See the one where he went to Canadian Tire with Harper and bought weather strippings for the official residence of the prime minister at 24 sussex drive? That was hilarious. Imagine Jon Stewart doing something like that with Bush.

668. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #205201 by Mitchell Gilks on July 6, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Hilarious. I looked over Sam's results, it was to be expected. I think that atheists were a little more honest than theists, but there was very little difference. When the questions were personal, it appears to be that both groups gave and answer that was how they thought one ought to answer such a question. Not giving a truthful answer based on their actual dispositions.

669. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'

Comment #204834 by Mitchell Gilks on July 5, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Steve, I think that you are unfairly conflating Muslims with Islam. Islam is a religion, an evil brutal disgusting religion. Muslims are people that subscribe to this religion, and I would imagine that the spectrum of what muslims believe, the depths they would go, and what they cherry pick, and what they take seriously, how they interpret things and whatnot; is all impossible to quantify, or know. Muslims are individuals, like everyone else, and they get their views on life, how they should behave, and how society and the world should opporate though numerous different, and often conflicting sources. As do we all.

I don't that it is at all fair to say that saying the Islamic religion is bad, is equivolent to saying all Muslims are therefore bad. I don't share your faith in people, or your opinions about the majority of people, but that aside. I think you would agree with me that the best of us are capable of some pretty evil deeds, given the right motivation, the right opinions, and the right beliefs.

I don't see you disagreeing with any of the above. My only point, is that I think that one is perfectly capable of calling an idiology, religion, political movement, or any other set of dogmas, tenets, or subscriptions evil or dangerous without it having any necessary implication over their professed practitioners.

Agreed?

670. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'

Comment #204831 by Mitchell Gilks on July 5, 2008 at 9:50 pm

I remember attempting to pray when I was about 9-10 years old, alone in my room. I couldn't manage it, I felt like a lunatic, talking to myself. That was the first and last time I ever remember trying that. I was however coerced into bowing my head, and closing my eyes everyday for dinner, and at church every saturay until I was 14.

I can't remember ever being forced to do anything equivolent at school. I doubt I would have refused. Long story that I won't get into, but when I went to get my name changed a few years ago, they asked me to "swear on the bible". I laughed and said something to the effect of "are you serious? I'm not doing that." I think I then made a comparison with mobby dick, or peter pan or something. Needless to say that at this point the women at the federal office was pretty offended. I did manage to get around it though.

I really don't think that it is up to teaches to teach them to "respect religion". No on punishes them nutty creationists for "disrepecting" reality, science, evidence, reason, or empiricle investigation. No, they instead bend over backwards to accommodate their idiocy.

It's up to school to teach them information, it is up to their parents to teach them how to behave in society. I would think that schools would have had this point rammed home long ago. Parents tend to get really pissed off when teachers attempt to force children to behave in a way that is counter to how their parents would have them behave.

I would commend the kids for not praying, but in all likelihood they didn't do it because they thought that it might piss off Jesus.

In any case, I think that the whole "respect" thing bothers me more than attempting to get them to assume a muslim prayer position.

The article has to have puffed this up. I highly doubt that the teacher wanted them to get into a muslim prayer position, and then actually attempt to pray to Allah. For educational purposes, I'd happily partake in the former, but the latter is off the table.

671. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #204778 by Mitchell Gilks on July 5, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Very very interesting indeed. I'm looking forward to reading more about this.

672. When too much Rapture is barely enough

Comment #204767 by Mitchell Gilks on July 5, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Screw that guy. We all know that I'm getting raptured first and foremost, because me and Jesus are tight, son. Once I get in, I'm lockin' the golden gate.

Anyone remember that simpsons episode where homer predicts the time of the rapture, and just before the time is about to hit, Moe blerts out "I'm going to steal God's secrets and sell them to Satan!".

673. Group Asks for Divine Intervention to Ease Oil Prices

Comment #204222 by Mitchell Gilks on July 4, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Gah. Also, for the record, "god helps those who help themselves" is actually a greek saying. It originates from a story about a man whose cart has gotten stuck in the mud, and he prays for Hercules' and his great strength to pull his cart free. Hercules appears and tells the man to take hold of the cart, and push, he does and manages to free it. Hercules than tells the man not to ask for help so quickly, for the gods only help those that help themselves.

The Bible's message is quite the opposite.

674. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204215 by Mitchell Gilks on July 4, 2008 at 12:01 pm

I don't see anything particularly objectionable in this artical. There are a few things I don't like the sound of, and a few other things I think are stupid. Though I'm not confident that I could construct a convincing argument against them from this angle.

675. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #203627 by Mitchell Gilks on July 3, 2008 at 9:09 am

Wow, wish someone would give me 3,800 for free.

676. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203347 by Mitchell Gilks on July 2, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Well now. I think this looks acceptable on paper. I am however completely unconvinced of its effectiveness is practice. I am extremely skeptical of their ability to uphold the principles he outlined. It is clear that these religious groups are out to "save souls" not help people. There is a stark contrast of goals, that makes upholding such principles impossible in my opinion.

I'm not an American, I'm Canadian, so he doesn't have to worry about my disapproval. Interestingly enough though, the other day on the news they showed a poll that claimed that Canadians favored Mr Obama over all of our Canadian politians, even our Priminister. He came in second. It would seem to me that a hell of a lot of people like Obama, and I find his latest moves to be alienating him, and damaging his popularity among his already aquired supporters in favor of the possibility of support from groups that don't currently support him. Not only do I think this is a bad move for my views on religion, but I think that this is plainly a bad political move, that could easily do his campaign more harm than good.

677. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200913 by Mitchell Gilks on June 28, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I've learned to be intuitively suspicious of "facts" I can't remember the sourses of, because they have been the ones to let me down the most often. I guess there is good reason to do so. This makes a lot of sense to me.

678. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193271 by Mitchell Gilks on June 15, 2008 at 5:55 am

It is never justified to call anything a supernatural evident. I think that Hume demonstrated this beautifully, and clearly. It presupposes a knowledge of nature that no one possesses. Without omniscience no one knows what isn't possible to occure by natural processes.

The very best we could say is, "that contradicts what we know about nature." if something that fitted that description were to occure, but of course the best explanation would be that our understanding of nature was wrong. Which is quite possible, since such knowledge is merely probabolistic, and fallable.

679. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193270 by Mitchell Gilks on June 15, 2008 at 5:51 am

"Yes it is clear from the 'evidence' that the universe was intelligently designed. Which evidence is that exactly? Well, my intuition, my hopes and dreams, my ignorance, and most powerful of all, the fact that you can't prove that it wasn't!"

"Now look over there while I play the switch-a roo with 'intelligent designer' and 'the christian god'."

More amazing than the water to wine one.

damn do these people love to obfuscate and hide in ambiguity. Then switch stuff up when you aren't looking.

680. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #192844 by Mitchell Gilks on June 14, 2008 at 3:36 am

The big thing I notice, is that on one side, we have specific objections. Names, dates, checkable facts. Yet on the other side, we have vague arm-flailing, coupled with ambigious assertions about unspecific things. Lying for Jesus.

681. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189766 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 8:13 am

1406. Comment #189760 by Cartomancer

There is a term used among the yuri-fandom, "yuri-goggles". Which is used when people tend to see lesbianism where none is readily apparent.

Sounds as though this Boswell fellow had himself a pair of equivolent "goggles".

682. The day of judgment

Comment #189744 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 6:03 am

15. Comment #189597 by MelM

Looks like I'll be getting an extra-special birthday present! Metal Gear Solid 4's world release is also on the 12th...I'm not going to get to play it? Lame.

683. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189717 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 3:27 am

1400. Comment #189714 by Steve Zara

Sure, slap me across the face, Zara.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbibMzaM68c

684. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189711 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 3:16 am

1396. Comment #189709 by Appleby

That is the third time I've prompted such a response from you.

685. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189707 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 2:59 am

1390. Comment #189701 by Appleby

Why must such a society also permit homosexuality? A completely heterosexual society is still quite capable of zoophilia? How does that follow? It appears to be a complete non sequitur to me. X does not imply Y unless a direct relation is established between the two. You have said that there is none, which means what you are saying doesn't logically follow, and is thus a non sequitur.

686. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189699 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 2:33 am

1387. Comment #189697 by Appleby

You completely ignored my question. Why is there reason to prohibit zoophilia if homosexuality is prohibited?

I asked you how it is anymore related than heterosexuality. Please answer the question.

687. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189694 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 2:17 am

http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/animal_cruelty/bestiality.php

You should read this artical Appleby you will see the type of people that make your comparisons. Though by the way you've been going on in this thread, I wouldn't be surprized if it pleases you.

688. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189687 by Mitchell Gilks on June 7, 2008 at 1:35 am

1383. Comment #189674 by Appleby

(*cough*) (*cough*) Appeal to the people fallacy (*cough*) (*cough*).

More importantly though, your point is nonsensical. In a completely heterosexual society why is zoophilia impossible? Why is it even less possible exactly?

In what way is homosexuality more analogous to zoophilia than heterosexuality?

689. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189611 by Mitchell Gilks on June 6, 2008 at 5:03 pm

1374. Comment #189572 by al-rawandi

Thanks to PETA's official support of zoophilia I actually seriously get that sometimes.

690. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189571 by Mitchell Gilks on June 6, 2008 at 2:11 pm

1372. Comment #189566 by al-rawandi

I like that a lot, it was great.

691. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189552 by Mitchell Gilks on June 6, 2008 at 1:14 pm

I'm wondering what is suppose to be analogous to zoophilia about homosexuality? Is it sheerly the fact that it is a minority sexual behaviour?

Why is that relevant? Wouldn't that make people with green eyes analogous to pedophiles in that they are also both rare?

Besides that complete non sequitur how is it more analogous than heterosexuality is to having sex with other species of the opposite sex?

Say neanderthalensis, or homo florensiensis were still alive, and they were genetically different enough so that they we could not produce offspring. Examination of their brain structure (which is done by examining imprints left on the roof of the inner skull) suggests they were intellectually equivolent to homo sapiens. Would developing a mutually, and consentual sexual relationship with one of them, be it hetero or homo, be wrong? What is it about other species that makes it wrong other than the objections already raised? What is it, inherently, about interspecies relationships beyond the objections raised that makes it wrong?

I don't understand the parrellel you are drawing.

692. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189288 by Mitchell Gilks on June 6, 2008 at 12:25 am

1335. Comment #189287 by MaxD

I think that putting everything else aside, the inequality of the relationship would make a relationship with analogous power-distrabutions among human beings unethical.

Such relationships are also criminal. If you are a psychiatrist that takes advantage of your position and the people you have power over, legal action can be sought. In many other situations it would cost you your job at least. These situations are not even exactly analogous, as the power distrabution is still far more equal than a human and another animal. It would be more equivolent to looking for sexual prospects in a hospital for the mentally challenged.

Putting ideas of harm and consent aside, even if it wasn't harmful, and consent was given, it would still be unethical for this reason alone. As it is among human parties.

(*edit*) "Prolonged"? Had to add a notwithstanding claus in there, eh?

693. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189286 by Mitchell Gilks on June 6, 2008 at 12:06 am

1327. Comment #189279 by MaxD

I would be willing to bet that in bestieality the animals in question undergo similar ossilations in hormone outputs that we would call fear reactions

694. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189281 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 11:58 pm

All of these points are either complete red harrings or non sequiturs.

Even if all of the inflammatory and bullshit things homophobes said about homosexuality were true it wouldn't be an argument to outlaw it. From the arguments I've heard anyway. More promiscuous? When was the number of people you can legally have sex with set again? It is painful and hurts them? So does body building, or plenty of other crap we do. That's their business if they want to do it. It has dieases? Plenty of heterosexually transmitted diseases, and their are viable alternatives. It isn't natural, is rare, or is a choice? Your point being? It's like having sex with other species? I guess it's somewhat like having sex with other species of the same sex, but not more so than having sex with other species of the opposite sex is annalogous to heterosexuality. Someday science may prove it's wrong? Yeah...is/ought fallacy. Maybe someday science will prove that walking sideways during a full-moon is wrong too. I'll wait and see.

Have I missed any?

Even if all of these bullshit idiotic, fallacious claims were true, I still fail to see how it would be grounds to criminalise it or take any legislative action.

695. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189253 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Though it has been clear to me from the beginning that he is merely attempting to legislate reality with his unexamined personal preferences as the arbiter.

696. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189247 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 10:34 pm

1309. Comment #189243 by Cartomancer

He can say "these people" all he likes, he is the one arguing it.

Though if he really is playing an extremely long and incoherent game of advocatus diaboli, it may explain its nonsensical nature (I'm really bad at it myself). Though it wouldn't explain the tenacity with which he forwards the positions.

697. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189240 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 10:21 pm

1307. Comment #189238 by Cartomancer

What else could he mean? I also hope he meant something far more...sophisticated...but I fail to see what else he could have possibly meant by it.

698. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189237 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 10:16 pm

1304. Comment #189235 by Cartomancer

I assumed he meant that the one and only standard of legitimacy was the ability to produce offspring.

Which is only true if that is the one and only goal of have sex. If a baby factory were invented, with the sole purpose of producing children, then clearly a homosexual wing would not be a legitimate means of achieving this end.

My argument was that he vulgarly assumes this.

699. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189236 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 10:15 pm

twentyf..mumble...mumble birthday is coming up in a week's time

700. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189230 by Mitchell Gilks on June 5, 2008 at 9:46 pm

I've never in my life had sex with the purpose of generating offspring. In fact I've always quite consciously taken precautionary measures to avoid it.

Sexual relations serves three purposes to my knowledge (perhaps someone can think of another one) generating offspring, physical gratification, and emotional bonding. When you remove the first purpose (as I quite deliberately do) then only the latter two remain, and there is zero distinction between which gender I'm capable of satifying them with.

Where is the romance and the love in solely having sex for offspring? Who that has sex readily available to them (which I unfortunately haven't in some time) is thinking about all those kids they're going to have?

I think I finally understand that vulgar reductionism Bonzai was talking about. This sort of mind set strikes me as extremely vulgar.

I desire sex first and foremost because it is emotionally fulfilling. The physical gratification is a plus, but there is a lot more to intimacy than just having a chemical and muscle response.

The offspring aspect is a downside for me if anything.

Unless you are completely disregarding the emotional aspect of an intimate relationship (which I find to be horrifically tragic) then I don't see how a heterosexual relationship is more "legitimate" than a homosexual one.