Whose values?

Temujin

Well-known member
Never said it was, try reading properly, I used the word 'also' for reproduction. There are two sexes for sexual intimacy because they have compatible anatomy.


Irrelevant since there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for it.


irrelevant since there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy.

irrelevant since there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy.


irrelevant since there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy whether you think its moral or not


still two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy. You seem to be denying that reality


It is easier to label the same sex act immoral on the basis there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy. Havent heard anything from you to support the idea that there is one sex for it, when there are two, let alone any moral arguments


No, you need to realise that when I said
"The reality is there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy, of course because that is the way the species also reproduces." The argument was primarily that there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy. YOU cant deny that so you chose not to address that but rather to address the reproduction which was ALSO there.

You either did that dishonestly on purpose, or you are too deceived to recognise the argument
Crazy, utterly bonkers. In what way does having two sexes mean that having sex with the same person is wrong? Look at all the choices of paint available in a hardware store. Is it immoral not to use all of them to paint your house? Is it immoral not to wear all your clothes at once? If you have two intimates that you occasionally have sex with, is it immoral not to do so with both at the same time? Having two of something does not mean it's immoral not to use both of them. I have two electric drills. What do you want me to do, use one in each hand?
 

BMS

Well-known member
Crazy, utterly bonkers. In what way does having two sexes mean that having sex with the same person is wrong? Look at all the choices of paint available in a hardware store. Is it immoral not to use all of them to paint your house? Is it immoral not to wear all your clothes at once? If you have two intimates that you occasionally have sex with, is it immoral not to do so with both at the same time? Having two of something does not mean it's immoral not to use both of them. I have two electric drills. What do you want me to do, use one in each hand?
If there are two sexes for it, which there are, then its bonkers for you to say there can be one.
The rest of your post falls apart on that reality.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
So two then, not one. Try counting to two
Good grief, it's like talking to a two-year old. If you have two cakes, do you have to eat both of them at once, or can you eat just one? Or a half? Or have a party and invite four friends? There are no rules about how you eat cake. There are no rules about how you have sex either. As long as everyone present is willing, you can do what you like when you like, how often you like, with whomsoever you like. Your invented puritanical nonsense is in your head alone. You have made up these restrictions because you like bondage presumably. That's fine for you, but don't imagine that everyone else on the planet has to follow your restrictions.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Good grief, it's like talking to a two-year old. If you have two cakes, do you have to eat both of them at once, or can you eat just one? Or a half? Or have a party and invite four friends? There are no rules about how you eat cake. There are no rules about how you have sex either. As long as everyone present is willing, you can do what you like when you like, how often you like, with whomsoever you like. Your invented puritanical nonsense is in your head alone. You have made up these restr
Says the guy who approves having sex with whatever, whenever.

Forget about how old you are, It is like you are a sex addicted maniac who thinks people "invent" ideas held for thousands of years.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Says the guy who approves having sex with whatever, whenever.

Forget about how old you are, It is like you are a sex addicted maniac who thinks people "invent" ideas held for thousands of years.
The poster I'm actually talking to believes that it is biology that impose rules on sexual behaviour, not religion. His idea that sex other than one man, one woman, lights off is "wrong" biologically, that it breaks biological "rules" and thus that sexual morality is determined by biology. Do you agree with this nonsense idea or would you agree that all morals arise from what people think rather than from the shape of their genitalia?
 

Furion

Well-known member
The poster I'm actually talking to believes that it is biology that impose rules on sexual behaviour, not religion. His idea that sex other than one man, one woman, lights off is "wrong" biologically, that it breaks biological "rules" and thus that sexual morality is determined by biology. Do you agree with this nonsense idea or would you agree that all morals arise from what people think rather than from the shape of their genitalia?
I agree that nature has made clear that humans are male-female.

Since propagation is the goal of evolution, I see no reason to deviate from what nature has given us. Anything else is just emotional garbage.

It is also clear humans were given a specific paradigm for relations, and ignoring it leads to dysfunction, disease and death.

For example mankind exists within a monogamous structure, mating for life. Other creatures have similar structures to humans, and many are radically different. A species should follow the paradigm they were 'designed' for, deviations are not sustainable and experience tells us this abundantly.

If a man tries to maintain multiple mates at one time, disaster will typically follow. If a man acts like some animals, having sex whenever, whomever, disaster will follow. Not just disaster personally, disaster for society.

So yes, I don't see a whole lot to disagree with from the poster.

Are there rules?

Does gravity have rules?

Lukely in the sense of following your own rules will fail.

For instance you can imagine you are a very light person and fall more like a feather than a brick. Experience will show you otherwise.

In the same way if you put into practice the whenever, wherever model of sexual and familia relationships, you'll end up diseased and alone.

This is not difficult stuff, but it is emotionally charged.
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Well-known member
I agree that nature has made clear that humans are male-female.

Since propagation is the goal of evolution, I see no reason to deviate from what nature has given us. Anything else is just emotional garbage.

It is also clear humans were given a specific paradigm for relations, and ignoring it leads to dysfunction, disease and death.

For example mankind exists within a monogamous structure, mating for life. Other creatures have similar structures to humans, and many are radically different. A species should follow the paradigm they were 'designed' for, deviations are not sustainable and experience tells us this abundantly.

If a man tries to maintain multiple mates at one time, disaster will typically follow. If a man acts like some animals, having sex whenever, whomever, disaster will follow. Not just disaster personally, disaster for society.

So yes, I don't see a whole lot to disagree with from the poster.

Are their rules?

Does gravity have rules?

Lukely in the sense of following your own rules will fail.

For instance you can imagine you are a very light person and fall more like a feather than a brick. Experience will show you otherwise.

In the same way if you put into practice the whenever, wherever model of sexual and familia relationships, you'll end up diseased and alone.

This is not difficult stuff, but it is emotionally charged.
Our understanding of what is natural is subject to change, and is changing. Evolution has no goal. It works through the mechanisms of DNA transfer from one generation to the next. Propagation is the most direct way of doing this, but there are others. In a species for which the bottleneck of reproduction is rearing children rather than pregnancy, a strategy of having non-reproducing relatives helping to raise children, makes excellent evolutionary sense.

The bulk of your post deals with what can go wrong of certain activities are followed. This is irrelevant to morality. Neither smoking nor mountain climbing is immoral. Nature doesn't care if we suffer, but it doesn't give us rules to follow either. Rules are a human concept, as is morality. This action is dangerous is not the same thing as this action is naughty.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Our understanding of what is natural is subject to change, and is changing. Evolution has no goal.
Funny how evolution is so elastic when talking to atheists. It stretches to meet your every point.
It works through the mechanisms of DNA transfer from one generation to the next. Propagation is the most direct way of doing this, but there are others. In a species for which the bottleneck of reproduction is rearing children rather than pregnancy, a strategy of having non-reproducing relatives helping to raise children, makes excellent evolutionary sense.
So now it's a pivot to morality.

You've added nothing to the conversation.
The bulk of your post deals with what can go wrong of certain activities are followed. This is irrelevant to morality. Neither smoking nor mountain climbing is immoral. Nature doesn't care if we suffer, but it doesn't give us rules to follow either. Rules are a human concept, as is morality. This action is dangerous is not the same thing as this action is naughty.
Nature also doesn't care when you, the great temu, has his wiener fall off because you decided you can do it your own way.

I don't see you as anyone to discuss evolution and species.

You seem too emotionally tied to your sexual "freedom."
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Funny how evolution is so elastic when talking to atheists. It stretches to meet your every point.

So now it's a pivot to morality.

You've added nothing to the conversation.

Nature also doesn't care when you, the great temu, has his wiener fall off because you decided you can do it your own way.

I don't see you as anyone to discuss evolution and species.

You seem too emotionally tied to your sexual "freedom."
If you want to talk about evolution, there's a whole section of the forum dedicated to it. Here moral values was always the subject. It's even in the OP. So no pivot to morality. That's what I asked about. Perhaps you have no moral views worth discussing, in which case, why barge into a conversation about morals? Perhaps you just wanted to complain when the conversation took a turn to discuss morals.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Good grief, it's like talking to a two-year old. If you have two cakes, do you have to eat both of them at once, or can you eat just one? Or a half? Or have a party and invite four friends? There are no rules about how you eat cake. There are no rules about how you have sex either. As long as everyone present is willing, you can do what you like when you like, how often you like, with whomsoever you like. Your invented puritanical nonsense is in your head alone. You have made up these restrictions because you like bondage presumably. That's fine for you, but don't imagine that everyone else on the planet has to follow your restrictions.
You dont have two cakes that fit together before you can eat them. Lol and before you make insults you might consider that a two year old also doesnt have the cognitive capacity to be able to formulate any analogy as bizarre as your cake one lol
There are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intercourse.
That is the reason there isnt the one.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Our understanding of what is natural is subject to change, and is changing. Evolution has no goal. It works through the mechanisms of DNA transfer from one generation to the next. Propagation is the most direct way of doing this, but there are others. In a species for which the bottleneck of reproduction is rearing children rather than pregnancy, a strategy of having non-reproducing relatives helping to raise children, makes excellent evolutionary sense.

The bulk of your post deals with what can go wrong of certain activities are followed. This is irrelevant to morality. Neither smoking nor mountain climbing is immoral. Nature doesn't care if we suffer, but it doesn't give us rules to follow either. Rules are a human concept, as is morality. This action is dangerous is not the same thing as this action is naughty.
But your human evolution has only occured with sexual reproduction by male and female
That was the point.
Thinking about evoution having no goal doesnt mean humans reproduced by male and female, it just mean you cant grasp reality
The point is we already knew the propagation you explained to us, but we still.havent seen evidence that you understand propogation only occured with male and female.. and of course we never will because you will learch off on some other misconception.
 

Furion

Well-known member
If you want to talk about evolution, there's a whole section of the forum dedicated to it. Here moral values was always the subject. It's even in the OP. So no pivot to morality. That's what I asked about. Perhaps you have no moral views worth discussing, in which case, why barge into a conversation about morals? Perhaps you just wanted to complain when the conversation took a turn to discuss morals.
Perhaps you are angry. I never want to talk about evolution, the internet evolutionists are pathetic trolls.

Evolution has no morality, provides no morality and states nothing about morality.

So when you bring up morality, it has no basis in evolution. It's good to get that settled.

Do you offer your personal morality as the value to follow? You know that's silly.

Secular Humanist morality?
 

vibise

Well-known member
I agree that nature has made clear that humans are male-female.

Since propagation is the goal of evolution, I see no reason to deviate from what nature has given us. Anything else is just emotional garbage.

It is also clear humans were given a specific paradigm for relations, and ignoring it leads to dysfunction, disease and death.

For example mankind exists within a monogamous structure, mating for life. Other creatures have similar structures to humans, and many are radically different. A species should follow the paradigm they were 'designed' for, deviations are not sustainable and experience tells us this abundantly.

If a man tries to maintain multiple mates at one time, disaster will typically follow. If a man acts like some animals, having sex whenever, whomever, disaster will follow. Not just disaster personally, disaster for society.

So yes, I don't see a whole lot to disagree with from the poster.

Are there rules?

Does gravity have rules?

Lukely in the sense of following your own rules will fail.

For instance you can imagine you are a very light person and fall more like a feather than a brick. Experience will show you otherwise.

In the same way if you put into practice the whenever, wherever model of sexual and familia relationships, you'll end up diseased and alone.

This is not difficult stuff, but it is emotionally charged.
It is clear that many mammalian species engage in homosexual behavior. Do you think they are making a moral choice, or do you think they are simply responding to biological urges?
 

BMS

Well-known member
It is clear that many mammalian species engage in homosexual behavior.
like what has just been said. Thanks for that
Do you think they are making a moral choice, or do you think they are simply responding to biological urges?
either way its male and female.
Are you suggesting it isnt?
 
Top