₦airaland Forum

Ourtruth247:
Tidal Lock

The concept of tidal lock is that the moon's rotation exactly matches its orbit. This means against all natural laws the same side of the moon always faces our planet. And we are always prevented from seeing the back half of the moon, also know as the dark side of the moon.

Explore the universe, with very few exceptions, EVERYTHING SPINS, including Earth whose rotation should be throwing the moon into a furious counter-spin. Instead, somehow our moon is literally like an all watching eye that never ceases surveillance of the planet to which its bound.

Tidal locking is not a violation of natural laws. I don't know where you learnt that from. It's the consequence of the gravitational interaction between the Earth and the Moon. The Moon's rotation is slowed by the Earth's gravitational pull, causing it to become tidally locked. And this isn't even unique to the Earth-Moon system and is observed in other planetary bodies, such as Pluto-Charon and Jupiter-Io. I wonder why you'd just open a topic to make hard assertions about things you clearly don't have a proper understanding of.

Exceptional300:
I really appreciate your comment, however I don’t like how you are somewhat trying to relegate the importance of being able to reproduce in a marriage. It’s so funny how y’all female folks try to turn the narrative to favor your gender. I am definitely 💯 100 percent sure if the tables were turn, and God forbid I was in a place I am unable to perform my obligations as a potential husband, y’all will advise your gender to exit the relationship. So please spare me that!
I have read every comment regarding this post and I kind of know my next line of action

You sound melodramatic here. Relationships aren't transactional contracts where we tally up reproductive points like some twisted fertility scoreboard. No, no. They're about mutual respect, emotional connection, and shared dreams. If your swimmers decide to take a vacation, it's unfortunate, but it doesn't diminish your worth as a human being. You think I'm relegating the importance of reproductive health in a marriage, and you couldn't be more wrong. I'm simply suggesting that a woman's worth extends beyond her uterus.

olola4:
Madam we are talking real life issues.

So grab a chair and learn.

Fine, let's talk about "real life issues". Is it not a "real life issue" that people with snoring problems often suffer from sleep apnea, a serious health condition? Or that they may have tried various solutions, including uncomfortable devices, without success?

1Sharon:
That's only if they're aware of it. Most people don't know they snore until someone tells them.

I agree. I was just confirming that measures could be taken after the fact.

olola4:
It’s enough reason, all this people shouting he should buy something to block the nose or stuff so that she won’t snore…lol…u think it’s easy, those things makes someone feel so uncomfortable, even a lot of us to put on ordinary cloth on when we want to sleep sef we find it’s uncomfortable not to talk of attaching something to our body.

The best thing is for a snoring guy to find a snoring lady, case closed😀

Ignorance and insensitivity is a lethal juxtaposition. Do better.

1Sharon:
How the hell is someone meant to change snoring ? 😂

Well to be fair, snoring can be controlled using certain techniques.

AreaFada2:
People will call you immature, mummy's pet and what not. Nor mind them. Only you will face any fertility issues should they occur. None of the most Naira land ladies here will be there with you. In fact, the will be the ones to also blame you later for not checking well. Or even tell you it is not a must to have kids, that the love you and the lady share is the most important. Love that has no meaning anymore these days.

Reach an agreement with her to get preggy before anything.

With one ovary, assume that fertility is reduced by 50%. Because some women may only have a viable egg from one ovary every month. From 2 ovaries would increase chances that at least one ovary will produce a good egg per cycle/month. 2 ovaries will also increase chances of non-identical twins slightly too. Assuming there are a no other hidden fertility/hormonal issues.

It is not her fault but chances of PCOS affecting the other ovary is increased having had one before. So no delay with having babies if you both are serious.

Also, some ladies can lie for Africa. Ensure that all the problem is solved as she claims. Don't assume it is the whole truth. They can divulge 10% of the truth, so that later you can't accuse them of not telling you before marriage. Check it out with O & G.
Some of us have been there and don't say nobody warned you. I really don't want you to have such a sad experience.

I hope this doesn't come across as combative but I feel there's a lot of fear-mongering and disrespectful ideas being tossed around in this comment. For starters, I'm wondering how assuming the worst of your partner can ever be a backdrop to a healthy relationship. It's okay to be suspicious... when there's actual reasons to be suspicious!

You're also wrong to suggest that love must entail procreation rites. That's a common misconception I observe in this kind of topics. Love can absolutely include wanting a family, but I don't see why it has to be defined by that alone. Children, as wonderful as they are, cannot be taken as a replacement for a solid relationship between you and your partner. OP and his girl should engage and try to understand each other, and then they can approach parenthood (or not), hand in hand, on their own terms.

Exceptional300:
There’s this girl I have been dating for a couple of months now, we are planning on settling down soon. She was diagnosed with PCOS couple of years ago before I met her, had a surgery and one of her ovaries were removed. Though she still ovulates and sees her period, I am kind of worried if there will be any issues in the future.
My parents doesn’t know about her surgery yet. Should I tell them about it?

I just have one question: do you believe your lady's reproductive health defines her worth as a potential partner?

As for sharing this information with your parents, I'd personally advise against it, at least not without her consent. Her health history is her personal information, and you have to respect that.

I hope Austin also remembers to keep a few reality-checkers around. I mean the ones who'll be eager to celebrate your wins but also call you out on your B.S. Some of his previous critics might have been well-intentioned, while he saw their criticisms as nothing more than mere ridicule.

This is very wholesome.

Namaster:
Not one but TWO leg chains and a GIANT nosering.

That is a HOOKUP girl.

The restaurant did the right thing. You can't advertise your business inside another person's business.

Hustle for your own customers and stop trying to steal the customers of another business.

If her outfit isn't constituting a safety hazard, then it's a non-issue. Let the woman enjoy her meal, outside or in, and maybe the restaurant can worry about, you know, actual service. People go to restaurants to eat, not get judged by the fashion police.

This is ridiculous. No customer is more deserving of respect and service than others, on the basis of clothing alone!

pansophist:
Chess are for amateur, go and play GO, then chess will be like tinko tinko, ti ko nko tin ko.

GO is way more advanced, and older than chess, and you will catch a headache trying to make your next move and be ten steps ahead of your opponent.

Ironically, that's were the beauty of chess lies: simplicity, even in depth. GO is an excellent game, emphasizing long term strategy and planning, but realistically, it's not a replacement for chess because its' complexity and steep learning curve make it inaccessible to many, whereas chess is a more inclusive game that can be enjoyed by people from all walks of life.

Jashub:
Playing 32 pieces on 64 squares is a game meant for the super intelligent . Not the commoners you'd find in Ludo or other ridiculous games like ayo and checkers

The fact that OP thinks Chess and Ludo can even be remotely compared is beyond hilarious.

Proudman1:
Honestly, I keep wondering why people hype people who play chess?

Like exactly what's the point of the hype?

In Nigeria today we have chess tournament in the streets and all sorts of chess geniuses and protege

But What really is the benefits of the game or what makes it special compared to our local ludo, ten-ten, suwé or drafts?

I understand that people tend to feel chess is some kind of brain work or brain boosting stuff.

But most chess world best players that we know never go on to become someone remarkable in their career fields. Instead, they will only go on to play the chess game.

So, what's so special about chess exactly because I'm lost here

Chess may not be for you, and that's alright. But calling it pointless because some champions don't become doctors or lawyers is really just a nonsensical point to make. It's like dismissing the entire world of professional sports because athletes aren't all CEOs. Chess is a sport for the mind, one that demands dedication and rewards strategic brilliance. Ludo and the other games you mentioned can't offer you that level of mental focus.

ThothHermes:
I'm tired of this merry-go-round. So, this will be my last take on this matter

By "last take", do you mean you've finally figured out something relevant to say, or are you just taking your ball and going home? Well, since you've decided to tap out anyway, I'll make this final response a rush job, as I have more important things to do as well. However, I may return if I see something interesting to talk about.

Once again, sexual desire is biological. A castrated man will retain all other aspects of his identity. Is a castrated gay man still gay? I think not.

This is a particularly stupid rebuttal, even by your pathetic standards. Castration may eliminate physical sexual function, but it doesn't erase a person's emotional, romantic, and psychological attractions.

Now you're sounding like a broken record. Once again, you can have a rich human experience sans sexual desire. There are asexual individuals. Would you say they experience a "less rich" human experience than other people?

Asexual individuals are actually a perfect example of the complexity I'm talking about. Their experiences are not less rich, just different, and that's the point. You really do lack self-awareness.

Like I said, yes. For homosexuality and heterosexual relationships, sexual desire is the driving factor.

Why do straight couples hold hands in public then? Is that purely sexual too?

All of these can be detached from the desire for sex. Do asexual individuals yearn for these same things or not? If your answer is yes, what does that tell you?

Once again, you're proving my point. Love, companionship, shared dreams -- they all exist independent of sexual attraction. You’re welcome.

Okay. You are a social justice warrior. That's cool.

Do you find that term edgy because it originated in alt-right circles, or ironic because it implies fighting for justice is a bad thing? Perhaps you just struggle with the concept of empathy entirely. In any case, I'd rather be a warrior for a just society than a keyboard crusader for the status quo.

Cosmic CEO? Let me get straight. You are trying to explain that your last comment was not a red herring by introducing another red herring? Alright.😁

You want a binary world, good versus evil, creator versus created. I'm offering reality: messy, magnificent, and utterly indifferent to your infantile fantasies. Next question?

That's what you got from that? I meant we are looking for justifications (reasons, explanations) for the phenomena we observe. I didn't mean that the universe had to justify itself to us. How would it even accomplish that?

Glad we're on the same page here then.

Again, evolution is not purposeless in the sense that you speak of. It seeks to pass on beneficial traits.

You keep anthropomorphizing evolution, attributing human-like intentions and goals to a natural process. Evolution doesn't seek anything; it simply acts on the variation present in a population, favoring traits that confer advantage. Purpose is a human construct, not a driving force behind evolution.

How do you explain people who only want to have sex without commitment in the light of what you've just written?

Easy. Same way we explain straight folks who have one-night stands -- we call it adult recreation. Doesn't negate the desire for lasting love and family for others, does it?

And she says the same thing again and again. My tired is tired 😩.

Sorry to hear about that. May I suggest conserving your energy for comprehending the points I'm actually making?

Again I ask. Do asexual people experience the who spectrum of human experience in your opinion?

Asked and answered.

Very well.
If combining words like a mentally ill person in a bid to come off as more intelligent than you actually are is your modus operandi, by all means, continue.
Wounded pride? Pfft

So insecure, you can't even help it. I'm assuming you're still upset because your cute efforts to exert the little cognitive energy you have in rational discourse have so far been as fickle as a balloon in a hurricane?

No one is backtracking. Homosexual relationships do not exist without sexual behavior. Period. It's on you to show otherwise. You haven't.

Define sexual behavior please? Holding hands? Sharing a meal? Raising a child together? By your narrow definition, even friendships shouldn't exist.

Overwhelming evidence? Overwhelming?

Yes, overwhelming. Like, enough-to-bury-your-ridiculous-nonsense-in-a-collapsed-tunnel-of-flawed-logic overwhelming.

What you call human flourishing is not possible without propagation. I'm tired of repeating myself.

We're not hamsters on a wheel, my friend. You should focus on flourishing yourself, before attempting to define flourishing for others.

Part of the human experience, yes. Fundamental, no.

We literally built civilizations around storytelling and music. Sounds pretty darn fundamental to me, unless you prefer grunting in caves. Your definition of "fundamental" could use a reality check.

Stop masking your inability to answer the question with false empathy. Is a pica diagnosis dehumanizing?

Pica harms your health. Being gay harms... your toxic and outdated worldview?

Shadow boxing as usual. No one has implied a grand design. However, the universe is not as random as you've tried to make it out to be throughout this discussion. However, that's a topic for another thread.

Then I'm sure you can tell me what cosmic rulebook dictates what is natural in our messy, contingent universe?

Another disingenuous thing you've done throughout this thread is to use diversity and sexual desire like they're synonyms. Dealing with that kind of dishonesty is tiring really. The rest of the comment is just woke speaking. Sorry, had to use "woke" again.😁

Well, here's what I really find synonymous: your bigotry and an inability to grasp basic concepts.

You should work on your tendency to stray off topic. This thread is not about marginalization or discrimination.

Don't try to redefine the terms of the debate to avoid accountability. You made a claim, I called you out on it. Simple as that. It's either you address the argument or concede the point. Given your most recent submission, I'll assume it's the latter.

You can't resist the urge to be a social justice crusader, can you?

Actually, I can resist many things. Like this painfully unoriginal attempt to shut down genuine concerns with a tired right-wing buzzword.

We're going round in circles. Is that not exhausting for you? You have refused to confront the meat of the matter. Instead, you insist on tying homosexuality to things like creativity and emotional connection.

You started this tap dance, not me. And here's the "meat" for your feeble mind: I demolish bad arguments, not redefine basic human connection to appease your insecurities.

Trust, intimacy, and shared experiences may enrich the process but are not absolutely required. If they were, things like transactional sex, hookup, and one-night stands would not be so commonplace.

For what it's worth, your desperate reduction of love to mere physical gratification has only been a bleak reflection of your own values, not an argument. Think about that.

Tyler, the Creator - Runnin' Out Of Time


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uyf_lImpdRw&pp=ygUldHlsZXIgdGhlIGNyZWF0b3IgcnVubmluZyBvdXQgb2YgdGltZQ%3D%3D

Two Door Cinema Club - Sun


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKyK1Mme9Sc&pp=ygUTVHdvIGRvb3IgY2luZW1hIHN1bg%3D%3D

Tems (feat. J Cole) - Free Fall


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjKKOqHyD34&pp=ygULdGVtcyBqIGNvbGU%3D

The real is back, the ville is back!

ThothHermes:
We are starting to go round in circles. The many aspects of what you call the human experience are mutually exclusive. How many times will I say this? I can walk and chew gum, it doesn't mean I need to walk to chew gum or vice versa.

The example with gum is a false equivalence. Human identity and expression aren't so neatly compartmentalized. What constitutes human identity is a combination of various threads of sexuality, gender, creativity, culture, and experience. Unlike neatly labeled folders on a computer desktop, these aspects of our humanity don't exist in isolation. They intersect, influence, and inform one another in beautiful and complex ways.

Declaring that LGBTQ+ couples build loving families or individuals display creativity is really non sequitur. Your arguments about nuance do not follow at all and sound desperate.

When I mentioned LGBTQ+ individuals and families, I wasn't trying to convince you of their existence (though, I'm happy to provide you with a crash course in reality if needed). I was merely highlighting the fact that the human experience is rich in complexity and multifaceted in nature. There's no desperation needed to point out simple truths.

Now you are playing the ostrich. The core of being gay is about sexual attraction or desire. It does not have to be linked to emotional, social, or relational contexts even though it can be be. To argue otherwise is plain dishonest.

You're only just projecting here. Sexual attraction is absolutely a component for many LGBTQ+ folks. I've never denied that, and that's the difference between you and me. Where I acknowledge that there are many factors at play, you continue to assert that there's only one involved, and then you shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ear like a bitter toddler, and think repeating yourself over and over will make the truth go away. If you had any self-awareness at all, you'd easily see the double standards you've set here. Is heterosexuality just about being attracted to the opposite sex? Isn't it also about the desire for emotional connection, building a life with someone, sharing dreams and vulnerabilities? Sexuality, for everyone, is a complex layer of emotional threads, social connections, and a yearning for intimacy. Refusing to acknowledge this only demonstrates that you lack any shred of intellectual integrity and/or honesty in this discussion. For LGBTQ+ people in particular, navigating that layer can be even more challenging. Coming to terms with your identity, facing societal pressures, and finding a community that accepts you -- these are all part of the experience, not to mention the courage it takes to live authentically in the face of prejudice. That is something to be admired, not dismissed.

We are speaking biologically. You insist on red herrings.

A mudslide wiping out a village isn't a herring at all, red or otherwise. It's a brutal reminder that nature's a force far grander than our puny attempts to impose meaning on it. We can study ecosystems, sure, but claiming perfect understanding is like trying to tame a hurricane with a fly swatter. Mutations happen, sometimes good, sometimes bad, and sometimes just plain weird. There's no grand plan, no cosmic CEO dictating which creature gets the gold star.

No need to get testy. Science is an attempt to find justification for everything we see in the universe no? So, technically speaking, the universe has to "justify" itself to me...and to you by extension.

Don't be silly. Our universe's existence is not contingent upon our approval or understanding. It simply is. So your conflation of scientific inquiry with existential justification is a perfect example of a category error. The universe doesn't owe us an explanation for its existence; we're just fortunate enough to be a part of it, trying to make sense of our place within it. The onus is on us to understand, not on the universe to justify.

Irrelevant. The forces of evolution might appear purposeless but they tend to go in a direction. That path doesn't lead to homosexual behavior.

As I've pointed out ad nauseum, evolution is a blind process, devoid of purpose or direction. It's a meandering path shaped by chance, adaptation, and environmental pressures. And guess what? Human sexuality, in all its diverse and complex forms, is a natural outcome of that process. To imply that heterosexuality is the "direction" evolution intended is nothing short of intellectual hubris. The beauty of evolution lies in its ability to create complexity, diversity, and yes, even purposelessness.

And we are back to virtue signalling. Also, you are all over the place. No one is denying the impulses of gay people. The "naturalness" and purpose of those impulses is what the discourse is about. Love, commitment, and family are not the same across "sexual orientations." How can they be when the foundations are as different as night and day?

I don't know if you think human empathy is a political performance. There's a world of difference between understanding the "naturalness" of an impulse and using that as a weapon to deny people their humanity. Let's be frank, straight folks don't exactly have their procreation instincts surgically removed when they commit to a life partnership, do they? We accept the spectrum of human experience, the biological and social factors that weave together to make us who we are. Your point about love, commitment, and family being different across sexual orientations is a blatant red herring. The bedrock of these isn't some preordained biological script. It's about building a life with someone you love and cherish, about raising healthy and happy children. These desires transcend the mechanics of reproduction, and frankly, LGBTQ+ couples have a long and storied history of building beautiful, fulfilling families.

I'll define tangible as "not abstract".
You're shadow boxing. No one has said they are not real.

Recall that the question was about reducing human desires and attractions to a single "biological process". You're the one who asked for examples of intangible desires, and I gave you a plethora of possibilities -- emotions, experiences, shared values -- all of which are very real, yet can't be held in one's hand. Now, you say no one has denied their reality, but your initial stance implied that these complexities could be simplified, even dismissed, in favor of a more... let's say, "concrete" explanation. So, I'm not shadow boxing, just simply highlighting the limitations of your perspective. The beauty of human connection lies in its messiness, its unpredictability, its refusal to be reduced to a single, tangible (or should I say, observable?) explanation.

So many words. You're obviously cerebral, but comments like these take the shine off your brilliance. Do better.

No one asked for your opinion. And I'm not going to modify my tone to cater to your feelz. It would do you good if you devoted less energy to wounded pride and stick to trying to construct an actual argument.

Exactly. However, I don't say it is the sole foundation. I'll say it is the core one.

I'm appalled that you believe, for some odd reason, that you can slip this dishonest move past me, and I won't notice. This is a shameless backtracking from your original position. You've obviously retreated from your initial assertion that homosexual relationships do NOT exist without sex, and now you're attempting to rebrand your bigotry as a nuanced perspective.

Actually, empirical means that there is observable, practical evidence for a position. An example of an empirical inquiring into gay behavior will be the search for a gay gene. What empirical evidence do you base your "scientific consensus" on?

I'm guessing you've truly got a case of sheer cluelessness, or perhaps you just enjoy playing dumb. This "no gay gene" rhetoric you keep submitting is a classic example of misunderstanding the complexity of human sexuality. Sexual orientation is not determined by a single gene, but by a multifaceted interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors, which the scientific community has extensively documented. The APA's position is based on a comprehensive review of decades-long research, including studies on twin cohorts, brain structure, and hormone levels, all pointing to the same conclusion: sexual orientation is not a choice, but a natural part of human diversity. So, when you're done chasing fishes in the sky, please provide your empirical evidence to counter this consensus. Don't rely on outdated notions of a single "gay gene"; instead, engage with the wealth of scientific research that's been done. The burden of proof is on you to disprove the overwhelming evidence, not on me to defend it.

Empathy, trust, and personal growth no doubt enrich the human experience, but they are not required for a population to thrive, biologically speaking. Rat populations have been thriving for millenia (I presume) without any of these qualities. And this is despite man's attempts to wipe them out.

But that's precisely the point -- these rat populations are merely surviving, not truly living. Human flourishing is not just about mere existence or propagation, but about experiencing life in all its richness and depth. Given your antecedents, I'm guessing you'd probably prefer it if we settled for a mere rat-like existence, devoid of meaningful connections and personal growth.

They may not be tied to reproduction, but they are tied to dopamine and associated neurotransmitters.

Dopamine doesn't dictate morality or what's natural. Humans are complex creatures driven by a multitude of factors, both biological and social. Art and music also trigger dopamine release. Are you going to tell me those aren't fundamental aspects of the human experience?

No one has dehumanized anyone. Highlighting an aspect of one's behavior that doesn't appear natural is not dehumanization. That would be like calling a pica diagnosis dehumanizing.

People aren't disorders to be diagnosed, they're human beings to be respected. Stop masking your ignorant judgments with a veneer of medical jargon.

Biological evolution is not without direction.

Again, it's pointless to imbue a natural process with a sense of purpose or conscious intent. Evolution may tend towards complexity and adaptation, but that doesn't imply a grand design or inherent value judgment.

Argument for another day then. 😁

By all means, take your time.

I'm tired of repeating myself.

I know. It must be exhausting being so utterly out of your depth in this discussion. Meanwhile, I'll grab a snack while you try again. Seventh time's the charm? 😁

Diverse populations, yes. Sexually diverse, not necessary at all. We don't need "sexual diversity" to thrive. For God's sake!🤨

Diversity is not a one-dimensional concept. A diverse talent pool in all its forms -- racial, ethnic, sexual orientation -- brings a wider range of perspectives to the table. Scientific breakthroughs often come from challenging existing paradigms, seeing the world from a different angle, and LGBTQ+ people inherently understand that. They've had to navigate a world that wasn't built for them, and that often leads to unique perspectives and lots of innovation. This isn't about some abstract ideal of "sexual diversity". It's all about building a society that works for everyone, where everyone has the chance to contribute their talents and reach their full potential. That's the kind of society that thrives, not just some narrow, exclusionary definition of what it means to be a productive member. Economics aside, don't you want to live in a society where everyone has the freedom to be themselves? To contribute their full potential, not just a part dictated by some arbitrary social norm? Inclusion isn't charity, you know.

Right back at you. Like most UN resolutions or commitments, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also the result of a popular vote no? At no point have I advocated for discrimination of any kind. You're fighting an imaginary enemy.

Imaginary enemy indeed. The initial statement you made, rooted in the idea that the majority's discomfort with homosexuality justifies discrimination, is the very definition of advocacy for discrimination. You keep throwing up smokes and mirrors to desperately deflect from the absolute poverty of your position. Don't try to hide behind a veil of semantics. Surely, you knew that your words WILL have consequences. Yes, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was indeed adopted by a vote, but one that represented a global consensus on the fundamental principles of human dignity, not a popularity contest. The Declaration sets a universal standard, not a subjective opinion poll. Now, please justify why the rights of a marginalized group should be subject to the whims of the majority. I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: how do you propose we reconcile your discriminatory beliefs with the principles of equality and human rights?

Discrimination, homophobia, transphobia, etc are terms people on your side of the aisle bandy about to prevent your weird views from being challenged. I owe you no receipts.

The ease with which you dismiss the struggles of marginalized communities is a testament to your privilege. Your refusal to acknowledge the harm caused by your words is not a sign of intellectual superiority, but rather a display of emotional immaturity. If you really wish to engage in any meaningful discussion, I would suggest you delve deeper into the complexities of human experience and the impact of your words on real people's lives. Otherwise, your comments remain mere platitudes, devoid of empathy and substance.

You have no arguments. You willfully ignore the crux of the discourse and insist on arguing against a strawman you introduced. It's an unwinnable battle. I'm tired.

Sorry, but I don't do strawmen. I simply highlight the glaring lack of substance in your rejoinders and watch you flail about trying to understand your own ignorance. Claiming I always introduce strawmen is just a pathetic lie you've manufactured to make yourself feel better about the fact that you're empty as far as this discussion is concerned. And now that you're being confronted with the emptiness of your own arguments, you're resorting to declarations of exhaustion, a clever tactic to avoid the discomfort of being exposed. You may do as you wish, but just know that I'll be here to rip apart any more nonsense you post on this topic. I already told you before that we can keep going for as long as you wish.

Where does it state the bold. The point is that what you have been calling the human experience of love is founded upon a complex chemical interplay. As usual, you chose to see something else.

Tunnel vision at its finest. You're correct that the article talks about the biological underpinnings of love, about the chemicals that makes our hearts race and palms sweat. But it also talked about how these hormones are triggered by social interaction. There's also the whole concept of attachment and bonding. Notice how these aren't purely physical responses, but involve building trust, intimacy, and shared experiences. It's the difference between ogling a stranger and feeling a deep connection with someone you care about. You should probably read your own article, one more time.

Kenn55:
What did I just read? You support incest. I'm not surprised, it will be hypocritical of you not to support it. The same logic you used to support homo applies to every unnatural nonsense out there. I hope you will be very proud when your own brothers marry each other or when your father and sister have sexual relationship after all they are not harming anyone. In your world, there is no boundary to human morality, everything goes as long as you are not hurting anyone

It used to be LGB, before you know it they added T and then Q then 2S etc. In fact, the community is growing at alarming pace. In the next 20 years man and animal relationships etc will be officially added and recognized and you will have to support it because there is no boundary to morality anymore.

Btw, I'm not advocating for harming or discriminating against them after all, it may not be their fault that they are that way. However, we all need to acknowledge that this is unnatural and wrong and people in that category need help instead of supporting nonsense. Now, see how you ended up supporting incest. Deep down in your mind, you know it's wrong but you have to support it in other to justify support for homosexuality. You can't accept one and not accept another

How can I unread what I just read? I feel like vomiting right now.

This post is a perfect illustration of how prejudice masquerades as concern, and I'll demonstrate how shortly. But first, I'll address your little rant about my stance on incest.

While I couldn't care less about your opinions about my personal beliefs, and find them to be ultimately inconsequential, I'll simply point out the fact that it's well known that many/most people find incest to be intuitively morally wrong, rather than deducing it from careful thought. This is studied by presenting an incest scenario where none of the rational objections, like inbreeding issues, apply. Participants will still say that it is wrong, even though they have no argument for why. This, along with the trolley problem, is often used as evidence that people's intuitive moral judgments are flawed. But if you really want to go down that rabbit hole, then we can discuss it on another thread. But for now, let's stick to the main topic.

Now, you lot casually throw around the word "unnatural", but you don't realize that you are using a loaded term that has been used throughout history to justify discrimination against marginalized groups, including racial and religious minorities. It's a vague, subjective judgment that has no basis in fact or reason. Also, by framing sexual orientation and gender identity as "unnatural," you're implying that they're somehow less than human, less deserving of dignity and respect. This is the very essence of dehumanization. The notion that individuals need "help" because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is a harmful trope that has led to countless attempts at conversion therapy, a practice widely discredited by medical professionals and deemed inhumane by human rights organizations. Minimizing the harm caused by discriminatory beliefs doesn't make them any less harmful.

So please, spare me the false pretense. It's okay if you feel disgusted by LGBTQ+, but at least be honest: accept and embrace your bigotry for what it really is.

ThothHermes:
This is so dishonest. Of course I guess if you tell yourself a lie long enough, you begin to believe it.

It would do you a whole lot of good to face the harsh reality, no matter how unpalatable it is for you. I can't help the fact that you're stuck in a binary thinking pattern, unable to comprehend that sexuality is a spectrum and human identity is complex. I also haven't failed to notice however, that you've mastered the art of evasion, dodging the actual point like a fencer dodges a riposte. Personal attacks and insults don't constitute a counterargument, and if you think you can rely on that to help your case, you're only going to wear yourself out digging a deeper grave for yourself. As for me, I can do this for as long as you want. If you wish to engage in a battle of wits, I suggest you bring your A-game, not your kindergarten playbook. Of course, if I were you, I'd just focus on the topic at hand. The clock is ticking, and so far, it's been a dismal display of intellectual acrobatics on your part.

ThothHermes:
And I say they are not no matter how much you try to conflate them. There is no interconnection between homosexuality and creativity or love. They can be and are mutually exclusive. How did you even come to this "understanding"?

Maybe you can try typing it again in all caps, but it won't change a thing. Sexuality is just one aspect of human nature. Creativity is another. Love is another. However, they CAN all coexist within a beautiful, messy thing called the human experience. You're confusing your own subjective, limited worldview with the vast spectrum of human existence. There are countless LGBTQ+ artists who have poured their hearts and souls into their work, and countless LGBTQ+ couples who have built loving families, but if you'd prefer to live in a black and white world devoid of nuance, that's entirely your prerogative.

Give me a "non-sterile" definition of homosexuality that does not include sex or sexual behavior. I don't understand how the possible intersection of sexual attraction with other aspects of human behavior is an argument for homosexuality. Help me understand please.

Sure. Being a homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or any other sexual minority is about deep emotional connections, sharing experiences, and supporting each other, which may or may not include sexual intimacy. The core of being gay is about feeling comfortable in your own skin, having strong relationships, and being brave enough to be yourself without apology. Human sexuality is inherently linked to emotional, social, and relational contexts, and cannot be fully understood or demonstrated in isolation from these factors.

Nature is complex but we understand quite a lot about it. There's nothing prejudicial about stating the obvious. If anything, it's you who is exhibiting prejudice with your assumptions of prejudice and dogma.

Understanding a lot about nature doesn't mean you get to cherry-pick the bits that fit your narrative. Science is about inquiry, not confirmation bias. And like I said before, nature doesn't write mission statements. Lightning strikes, mountains erode, ecosystems teeter on a knife-edge of delicate balance. Is there a purpose to a mudslide wiping out a village?

The sunset, mountains, and rivers, are the result of processes. They are not processes. Keep up.

Obviously you weren't paying attention, else you'd notice that I already acknowledged that natural wonders are the result of processes. Your desperate (but failed) attempt to redefine terms was a laughable attempt to save face. No amount of semantic somersaults can conceal your bigotry. More importantly, you've somehow managed to outdo yourself in the art of missing the point. The universe doesn't need to justify its existence to you. The sun will keep setting, mountains will keep towering, and rivers will keep flowing, regardless of your approval. And, likewise, people will continue to love who they love, regardless of your outdated notions of "purpose".

Life as we know it won't be possible without gravity. Are you serious right now?

Life as we know it would also be impossible without the very purposeless forces of evolution that led to the diversity of human sexuality. Your argument is as shallow as it is predictable.

That's a bold claim. Mind showing how they're the same?

Are you really asking how love, commitment, and family are the same across sexual orientations? Have you actually never encountered a happy couple besides the ones you see in movies?

I wanted the discourse to be about sexuality. It's you who kept introducing intangibles like love and creativity as excuses for queer sexual appetites.

That's because sexuality, for most people, is a fundamental part of who they are. It's not some impulse you can just turn on and off for convenience. It's about identity, about love, about intimacy. You wouldn't understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics by focusing solely on its '"practical applications", would you? There's depth and complexity here, and erasing that with such crass language is frankly disrespectful.

It would help if you gave examples of those desires that can't be "reduced to a pharmaceutical fix". Intangibles don't count.

Tangible? Was the EndSARS protest tangible? It would never happen without the shared passion or the inspiration ignited by human connection, so would you agree that it was a tangible result of intangible connections? My point is: how do you define "tangible"? Are you defining it as something that has a real and undeniable impact, or you're taking it very literally, like something you can physically touch?

I think a better word would be "observable". We can observe the changes in behavior, the creation of art, the social movements born from these intangible connections. These are real, impactful results, even if the initial spark itself isn't a physical thing. Human connection goes far beyond simple biological processes. It's a mixture of emotions, experiences, and shared values. These may not be things you can hold in your hand, but their impact on our lives is undeniably tangible.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'll take it as a compliment.

It wasn't a compliment, sorry. I meant to say that you're an anomaly, a deviation from the norm of thoughtful and compassionate discourse. A shining example of intellectual bankruptcy and emotional numbness. Your ability to spew forth thoughtless, insensitive drivel is truly a wonder to behold. It's almost like you're a black hole of critical thinking and emotional intelligence, sucking the life out of every conversation you touch.

No one doubts this. However, homosexual relationships do not exist without sex. This is the point.

So you are practically implying that sex is the sole foundation of gay relationships, while heterosexual relationships get to enjoy the luxury of multifaceted connections? Ignoring the fact that it's a bald faced lie, it's also a refreshing example of heteronormative hypocrisy. Unbelievable. And you have the unmerited gall to preach about honesty?

The validity of the "spectrum" you speak of is the crux of our discourse. The naturalness and purposefulness of that activity that is the core marker of same-sex relationships.
More likely?
Conjecture?

It's interesting to see you getting quite desperate here, trying to discredit the scientific consensus on human sexuality by nitpicking a single phrase, "more likely". Unfortunately for you, "more likely" in scientific parlance, means backed by empirical evidence and research, not conjecture. The American Psychological Association relies on the scientific method, as all reputable scientific organizations do, so your critique is dead on arrival. Provide empirical evidence to counter the scientific consensus, or toss in the sponge and accept the fact that science is not on your side here. I won't be holding my breath though, as your response will probably be more bluster and dogma.

The sexual aspect of those relationships is basically dopamine-seeking. It's nature's way of ensuring procreation and species continuation. Ergo: Purpose.

And I'm assuming that your love life is strictly focused on the dopamine-driven aspects, totally neglecting the values of empathy, trust, and personal growth that are essential to human flourishing. Because, you know, purpose and procreation.

What experimental processes did your "experts" utilize to arrive at this conclusion? I'm aware that the search for a gay gene has proven futile so far. That's how science works. It looks for hard evidence. None found so far.

Even if we granted that homosexuality wasn't influenced by biology, it still wouldn't make it unnatural by necessity. Many things humans do are not directly tied to reproduction, but are considered natural aspects of human behavior.

Yes. Those feelings can be stimulated. There is a science to attraction.

Science is merely a tool to understand the mechanisms behind something, not the meaning. After all, the science of nutrition can explain how a meal is digested, but it can't capture the warmth of a family dinner or the comfort of eating your favorite food.

Disagreeing with your worldview is not hate.

When disagreement morphs into dehumanization, it's not a worldview that's being challenged, but a human being that's being erased.

Wrong again. Evolution or natural selection has a purpose -- speaking generally, it's survival of the fittest and elimination of the unfit. Evolution seeks to confer attributes that make future generations survive and thrive. I'm not talking about anyone's life. We're talking about homosexual behavior in humans.

That's a descriptive mechanism, not a prescriptive purpose. Evolution doesn't "seek" or "aim" to achieve anything; it's a blind process without intention or direction. Moreover, even if we grant that evolution has a "purpose" in this limited sense, it doesn't follow that individual humans must conform to a predetermined purpose or value. As I said earlier, human autonomy and self-determination are essential aspects of our existence. We get to choose our own values, goals, and purposes, regardless of our sexual orientation or any other characteristic.

Straw man 😁

It's not, sorry. I simply pointed out the beautiful absurdity of your narrow definition of love and family. Do keep up. 😉

We're talking about unnatural sexual appetites. You insist on diversions -- red herrings and what not.

The scientific consensus is clear: gender identity is a complex, personal aspect of a person's identity that is not a choice, but an intrinsic part of who they are. Don't try to disguise your prejudice as rational argument -- it reeks of desperation and hate. Get educated, or get left behind. Love and identity are human rights, not tools for your petty moral grandstanding.

True. But quantity is important. In fact, I would argue that it's the most important factor. More important than diversity at least.

...and your argument would be flat out wrong. You're making it sound as if society is a beehive, focused solely on cranking out drones. We're humans, not fungible worker bees. Population decline is not an apocalyptic countdown. There are economic adjustments that can be made. Look at Japan, for instance. They're innovating in robotics and automation to address their shrinking workforce. The bigger picture here is about progress, about a society that thrives, not just survives. Diverse populations with a range of skills and backgrounds are the engine of innovation.

Strongly disagree. The burden of proof lies with those who want us to accept something that the vast majority of the population finds repulsive.

I'm not surprised that you managed to pull out the ad populum card -- probably one of the most antiquated logical fallacies -- from your dusty shelf of poor arguments. The fact that you can even make such a pathetic point speaks to your shallow intellectual depth. Going by your logic, slavery was right, and should've never been abolished. Apartheid was right. Denying women's suffrage was right. After all, they were all widely accepted once upon a time, right? Human rights are not subject to popular vote or opinion polls. They are inherent and inalienable, regardless of cultural or personal beliefs. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, sets a clear standard for the protection of human dignity and well-being. It's not a matter of "accepting something repulsive," but rather recognizing the fundamental humanity and worth of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. So, I will ask you again: how do you propose we reconcile discriminatory beliefs with the principles of equality and human rights?

No one is denying anyone any rights.

If you truly believe that all individuals deserve equal rights and dignity, then show me the receipts. Show me how your constant attempts on this thread to label homosexual acts as "unnatural", doesn't reinforce the systems of oppression. Until then, your words are plain gaslighting -- nothing more than hollow, vacuous platitudes.

No substance here. You get points for style though. 🆒

Style without substance, he cries, while offering all the depth of a kiddie pool. Thanks for the compliments all the same. I'll be sure to polish my style while you, uh...work on refuting arguments that are actually, you know, there. Maybe with a bit more effort, your next rejoinder will have both substance and the sting of a wet napkin.

By the way, here's a Harvard article on the science of attraction. It's basically biochemistry 😜

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/

Having consumed it from start to finish (at great pains too!), I'm particularly curious as to what you hoped this article you cited was supposed to accomplish for you, because it actually argues against the idea that sexuality is devoid of romantic, social or relational context, a point I've been yammering on for quite some time now. I'll share my reasons in bullet points below:

- First, the article dives deep into the role of hormones like dopamine and oxytocin in attraction, attachment, and bonding. These hormones cannot be triggered without any forms of social interaction and/or emotional connection.

- It then talks about lust, attraction, and attachment as distinct aspects of love, implying a complexity that goes beyond just physical desire. Attraction, for instance, involves reward pathways which are triggered by spending time with someone you care about.

- There's also talks about jealousy, erratic behavior, and unhealthy emotional dependence, all of which are social and relational aspects of love.

- It mentions how oxytocin can influence ethnocentrism, highlighting the social and cultural factors that shape love.

- Funnily enough, the article even acknowledges that everyone defines love for themselves, implying a role for personal experiences and emotions beyond just hormones. No matter how you choose to look at it, that's +1 for my position in this debate!

For what it's worth, I appreciate this vigorous defense of my position, even if it was purely unintentional. 😂

AlbertNewton:
For what it's worth, my questions were simply to help me understand the rationale and reason for your support of homosexuality clearly. And in particular, the questions you posited as the three most important to ask to determine when a behaviour crosses the line really helped me understand your position thoroughly and properly. Your answers to my other questions could be predicted easily based on these.

However, while I find your defence of homosexuality very rational and reasonable, it's still a bit hard for me to empathize with homosexuals (and I will say that I'm very empathetic normally). Even though I am irreligious, I still feel there's something wrong (maybe not harmful) about two people of the same sex fücking. I see homosexuals as probably suffering from some sort of sexual/psychological disorder.

The World Health Organization, as well as numerous psychological and medical professionals have all acknowledged that homosexuality is not a mental disorder or illness. I understand your concerns, but you clearly still have a lot to learn about the difference between personal discomfort and objective harm. You obviously feel some type of way about same-sex relationships, and that's fine. But what you need to realize is that they do not cause any harm to others. Conversely, discrimination and prejudice against homosexuals can lead to significant harm, both mentally and physically. Like I said, empathy is about understanding and sharing the feelings of others, even if we don't fully comprehend their experiences.

AlbertNewton:
What would you say should be the yardstick(s) for judging what behaviours should be accepted and tolerated in a civilised human society? How do we know when a behaviour crosses the line ?

It's quite simple, actually. All you need is empathy and reason. The only way we can truly promote inclusivity is by understanding the experiences and perspectives of other people, as well as critically evaluating the impact of actions and behaviors, separating the harmful from the harmless. As for how I determine when a behavior crosses the line, I posit that these are the most important questions to answer: (1) Does the behavior cause significant harm to individuals or groups, either physically, emotionally, or psychologically? (2) Are all the parties involved in the behavior consenting adults, capable of making informed decisions about their own lives and bodies?, and (3) Is there any way in which this behavior violates the unwritten rules of social cooperation, undermining trust, respect, and the common good?

Granted that homosexuality is a natural variation, but does this necessarily make it okay or good ? I don't think there's need for me to give you examples of natural variations that are obviously bad. So how do we tell that homosexuality is a good natural variation rather than a defect, a disorder that needs to be cured.

Do you propose that we must condemn every natural phenomenon that doesn't fit our narrow moral mold? Should we start "curing" people of their tendency towards anger or greed, since those are natural human emotions that can lead to harmful behavior? The only defect that exists here is the one in our understanding and acceptance of human diversity. Homosexuality has been a natural part of human experience since forever, so I don't see how it's reasonable to term it as a defect.

If the sexual relationship between two close relatives is consensual, would that be fine ? On what basis really should incest be condemned ?

You've only just come out to repeat the same question the other guy asked, so I will invite you to go back and read my previous post more carefully. But for what it is worth, I support whatever consenting adults choose to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others. Ultimately, it's none of my business. Although, incest is one of those situations where there can be complications, both emotionally and genetically if there is a child.

Does it surprise you that many people find homosexuality detestable ?

Detestable is a telling choice of words, and it implies a moral judgment, or a value statement. And that's exactly the issue here. While individuals are free to hold their own personal beliefs and values, we must distinguish between personal opinions and objective human rights. The fact that many people may find homosexuality detestable does not justify discrimination, prejudice, or denial of fundamental rights. We've been down this road before, and history has shown us that moral condemnation and persecution of minority groups is a dangerous and harmful path.

EmperorCaesar:
Stoicism is the answer to every emotional problems humans can potential have and so I'd approve your article

It's almost impossible to be 100% stoic tho but even 50% of it is enough to make u glide through life's baggages unscathed

But Jessica.Rabbit thinks Epicureanism is the best....her thoughs tho, her opinion

I'm quite puzzled. Have you read anything in my posts that made you arrive at this bizarre conclusion? Or were you just hoping to get a reaction from me?

Tyler, the Creator (feat. Steve Lacy & Frank Ocean) - 911 / Mr. Lonely


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5a3jC5dkXk&pp=ygUVdHlsZXIgdGhlIGNyZWF0b3IgOTEx

Kenn55:
@Jessica.Rabbit,

I don't like discussing this topic, it's very disgusting to me. However, I want to ask you a question.

Since you are vigorously defending homosexuality, will you also defend incest? Will you defend a man and his adult daughter having a consensual sexual relationship openly and telling us to accept it? after all, all the argument you are making for homosexuality can also apply to them too. It is the same "human experience" and they deserve to be accepted too according to your argument. Mind you if you don't accept and celebrate these ones you are also a hater too.

At what point are we going to draw the line on moral decency? If you accept one unnatural nonsense in the name of human experience and human right, you also have to accept everything no matter how ridiculous it is. So where does that leave the society?

Thanks for letting us know what makes you squirm. Disgust is an interesting human emotion, but it shouldn't be the sole compass for morality.

Believe it or not, I've pondered these questions you just asked, way back then. If you've been reading my posts on this topic, you'd have picked up on something very important. But just in case you haven't, I don't mind spelling it out again: Love is messy. Attraction is unpredictable. There are always going to be curve balls involved, and you can't dodge all of them. Homosexuality is a natural variation in human sexuality, not some "unnatural nonsense". It's like having brown eyes instead of blue. It just is.

As for incest? That's entirely different. Family relationships have power differentials baked in: parent/child, older sibling/younger sibling -- bonds of trust and mutual care and support that can be exploited in the context of a sexual relationship. This significantly complicates consent, and makes incestuous relationships far more likely to be abusive than relationships between unrelated partners. The presence of an instinctive sexual aversion to close relatives (see the Westermarck effect) also suggests that incest often involves coercion and abuse.

None of these issues apply to same-sex relationships; objectively, same-sex relationships have no more in common with incest than opposite-sex ones. You might as well have asked why allowing German couples to have sex doesn't justify incest. It's a non-sequitur, and, I believe, really just an excuse to express revulsion for gay people -- thinly-veiled as an ethical question.

ThothHermes:
A straw man is an attempt to introduce and refute a weaker or non-existent argument while ignoring the main issue of concern. In this case, your trying to connect homosexuality with creativity, consciousness, and love, as if they are not all mutually exclusive concepts.
Actually, sexuality exists in a vacuum. It doesn't have to be connected to anything. That's why sex for money is possible. Some animals only have sex during specific mating periods. No connection whatsoever with love or any other emotion. Just a standalone event.

I'm starting to wonder if you're even qualified to have this discussion, because you've built your entire case on a thorough misunderstanding of basic human biology. I never said homosexuality causes creativity or love. I said they're all interconnected aspects of the human experience.

Remember you started by claiming homosexuality is just "sexual behavior," a dry, sterile definition. Then you conveniently switched just now to "sexuality exists in a vacuum." Sexuality isn't some light switch you can turn on and off for transactional purposes or solely for procreation. Animals exist who exhibit courtship behaviors, hinting at a bit more complexity. A vacuum is the complete, 180 degrees opposite of a vast range of human experience. Is sex always about love, creativity, or some grand existential exploration? Of course not. However, it would be naive and preposterous for us to therefore conclude that it never intersects with other aspects of being human. Ordinary meals can constitute social experiences, shared with loved ones, sparking conversation and connection. Sustenance isn't inherently social, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum either. Or don't you know there's a reason why candlelit dinners, while looking seemingly mundane, are considered romantic?

Once again, nature is purposeful.

Nature is incredibly complex and still largely unknown, and our understanding of it should be guided by science and empathy, not prejudice and dogma.

Homosexuality serves no purpose. Hence, not natural. I would stop calling it unnatural if you can explain what purpose it serves. Other than our collective degradation, that is.

You are just appealing to utility here, which is a type of logical fallacy. You seem to think that something is only natural or valid if it serves a purpose that aligns with your personal beliefs. But what about the countless natural phenomena that don't fit into your narrow definition of "purpose"? The sunset in the evenings, mountains, rivers - they came about through natural processes, but do these have inherent value simply because they exist? What is their preordained goal? Can you tell me?

Dinosaurs thrived for millions of years but ultimately became extinct. Their existence wasn't inherently purposeful for the future. The laws of physics that govern our universe seem arbitrary. There's no specific reason why gravity works the way it does, for instance.

Sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of human identity, and the love, relationships, and families that LGBTQ+ individuals form are just as valuable and meaningful as yours, but please go on and keep repackaging harmful prejudices as rational discourse.

Na wa o. Are love and creativity not abstract concepts? Even though we know they are real, they are intangible, no?

Convenience is your specialty, isn't it? You cherry-pick the abstractness of love and creativity to dismiss the complexity of human sexuality, while ignoring the very real, tangible experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals. That's not how proper discourse work, my dear.

Yes. Sexual attraction is a simple biological process. We understand the biochemical interplay of pheromones and neurotransmitters that mediate sexual attraction. It can be hacked. Surely you know this.

You're essentially suggesting that the intricacies of human desire can be reduced to a pharmaceutical fix or gadget, right? And what about the vast range of human desires and attractions that can't be reduced to a single "biological process"? Are you going to dismiss those as "deviant outliers" too?

Now you're getting it.

The only thing I'm getting so far is that you are clearly an outlier in the realm of intellectual curiosity and empathy.

I'm not sure how you were able to draw that out from my comments.
I am saying that any relationship can have all these (companionship, love, emotional support) without sex. However, a homosexual relationship does not exist without sex. See where I'm going?

I see where you're going, and I'm not impressed. You're still making a flawed and discriminatory assumption. The presence or absence of sexual attraction doesn't dictate the validity or worth of a relationship. Heterosexual relationships involve more than just sex too.

What spectrum? LGBTQIA+? I laugh. Or is there something backed by real science that you want to share?

Of course you don't have a clue. That's pretty much been the pattern for you so far in this conversation. The spectrum I refer to is the natural variation in human sexuality, which has been extensively researched and documented by scientists and experts in the field. It's not even about fanciful acronyms or political ideologies. Sexual orientation, in particular, is understood to exist on a continuum, with some people identifying as exclusively straight, others as exclusively gay, and many others falling somewhere in between. This is backed by real science, including studies on human behavior, psychology, and biology. In this link for example, under the "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? subtopic, the American Psychological Association recognizes that sexual orientation is not a choice, but more likely a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors.

The human experience is nuanced I agree. But sexual desire is not. It's the pursuit of dopamine. Even rats have the same experience. Go figure.

If we follow your logic, then any relationship, regardless of sexual orientation, can be reduced to mere dopamine-seeking behavior. So, what's the point of even having a conversation about love, relationships, or morality if it all boils down to "rat-like" pursuits?

I don't have prejudices. I follow science, logic, and common sense. It's you who wants to be woke.

I'm going to guess that in your case, "science, logic, and common sense" are really just euphemisms for "I'm not aware of the last 50 years of research on human sexuality". Well then, thanks for playing, but I think I'll stick with the experts on this one.

Again. The origins of our sexual instincts are biological. Even animal experience these same instincts. Portions of the human brain can be stimulated with electrodes to achieve orgasm, the endpoint of sexual congress. No need to romanticize anything. It's not my definition, it's science.

Nope. That's not science. It's scientism. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum. It informs our understanding of the world, but it doesn't dictate the richness of human experience. We, as complex individuals, can build upon those biological drives and create things far more meaningful to our respective selves. So go ahead and make my day by demonstrating how achieving a physical response through technology suddenly invalidates emotional intimacy and shared vulnerability, together with the desire that leads to a truly fulfilling sexual connection? Can an electrode replicate the butterflies in your stomach before a date, or the quiet comfort of holding someone close? If we're strictly talking biology, then why hold back from advocating for polyamory or even zoophilia? After all, some animals do engage in non-monogamous and non-species-specific sexual behavior. But I suspect you might not be ready to go there, because suddenly, your "biological imperatives" argument becomes inconvenient.

If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

And if you put hate in your heart, it's still hatred, no matter how you dress it up in the language of morality.

All of these prove that homosexual relationships are of no value to the human race. Innovative solutions that would make two people of the same gender give birth? Yeah sure.

You underestimate human adaptability. But more importantly, humans are social creatures, not just baby-making machines. Yes, people have kids, and then those kids have kids, and this is true in some form or another for every known species, but this is mostly just a process, not necessarily a value, or a purpose. Evolution/natural selection/reproduction does not act with a purpose. We can say that an individual's genes have been tailored over billions of years to be able to replicate themselves, but again, there is no purpose here, because purpose implies some sort of reasoning or planning. What you're doing here is blatantly disregarding individual autonomy. Moving past biology, there isn't any reason to assume that the value of humans as a species is some singular universal constant waiting to be discovered by everyone. Your value as a human is whatever you choose it to be, for better or for worse. There's no reason to talk about people's lives as if they have some sort of externally enforced purpose, and you seem to be assuming that there is one.

Sorry. Love and family do not come in many forms. At the basic level, it's father, mother, and children.

Love and family aren't confined to a rigid script. They're about devotion and support.

I'm not intolerant. I go where the science goes.

Does the science also lead you to dismiss the very real experiences and struggles of transgender individuals? Or do you only follow the science that confirms your pre-existing beliefs? If you follow science objectively, then you know that it seeks to understand and enlighten, not justify discrimination.

Actually it does. The human race is already in real danger of population collapse. Birth rates are falling in the developed world. Homosexuality doesn't help at all.

Well, that's just a dramatic oversimplification. Factors like delayed parenthood, economic pressures etc. also play a role in the falling birth rates in developed countries. People of all orientations contribute to society in diverse ways: through art, science, technology, caregiving, and more. Our collective advancement isn't solely tied to procreation, I've explained this already. Our survival as a species also has to do with diversity, not just quantity, because different perspectives, talents, and abilities enhance our collective resilience. By focusing solely on population numbers, you're ignoring the quality of life for individuals. A thriving society considers well-being, education, healthcare, and happines, not just sheer numbers.

No, it's virtue signalling unless you show the superiority of your view, or the inferiority of their own, which you haven't.

I don't need to "prove" the superiority of my view, as the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is a fundamental human rights principle. The burden of proof lies with those who seek to justify discrimination and marginalization. So go ahead and tell us how you can justify the harm caused by discriminatory beliefs, and how you propose we reconcile your beliefs with the principles of equality and human rights?

I know. However, human rights are debated all the time in parliaments across the world. Don't know what you are talking about.

Many of those debates are about how to best uphold and protect human rights, not whether they exist or matter. Just because they are debated in parliaments doesn't mean they're up for negotiation. The universality of human rights is a fundamental principle, and their protection is a duty, not a choice.

You really love big words. It's not an ideology. It's a view founded on science, logic, common sense, and a healthy sense of human decency.

You see, I'm really not impressed by your attempts to cloak your close-mindedness in a veneer of rationality. It's like - how did you put it again? - oh yeah.... putting lipstick on a pig. And trust me, your brand of logic and common sense is about as convincing as a toddler trying to negotiate a hostage situation. I will say though, that I'm enjoying the spectacle of you trying to outsmart your own cognitive biases.

Your virtue signalling is showing. It's probably a good look in this woke generation.

This constant reliance on pejoratives like "woke" only serves to expose the hollowness of your argument. If you can't engage with the ideas, at least try to engage with the people. Otherwise, you're just a relic shouting into the void, wondering why nobody is listening.

AlbertNewton:
I actually didn't attempt to address the existential questions the thought experiment poses yet. My reply was solely to point out what I felt was wrong with conclusion C1 and then offer what I think is a better premise upon which we can base our discussion on the thought experiment.

Fair enough.

I'm afraid that the answer to the questions you have directly raised here might be YES for a lot of people. As it turns out, the hypothetical pleasure machine in the thought experiment actually already exists in real life in some lesser, inferior forms. Drugs, pornography and masturbation, as well as social media addictions are some forms of this pleasure machine in my opinion. Based on what we can observe about how a lot of people are responding to these lesser sources of pleasure (lesser compared to the pleasure machine), it's easy to imagine that the vast majority of them wouldn't want to unplug from the ultimate pleasure-giving machine once they got plugged.
I think the issue is that the lofty human aspirations you have highlighted here are not so valuable to every human. Perhaps it takes attaining a certain level of awareness or some sort of "intellectual state" to be capable of seeing the richness of life beyond ordinary pleasures. The residual animal instinct in many people, which gives no fück about personal growth and meaningful experiences, still seems to be very potent .

The residual animal instinct you've just mentioned can be tempered through education, reflection, and exposure to diverse perspectives. Any inclination towards instant gratification mostly stems from a lack of self-awareness and critical thinking, rather than an inherent flaw in human nature. I think it's also crucial to recognize that the pleasure machine, in its various forms, can serve as a coping mechanism for deeper existential anxieties and unfulfilled desires. Instead of addressing the root causes of our discontent, we might find temporary solace in these lesser pleasures. As you've hinted though, there's a certain "intellectual state" or level of awareness that allows us to transcend this hedonistic trap. By cultivating our capacity for critical thinking, empathy, and self-reflection, we can come to value the richness of human experience and strive for a more authentic, meaningful existence. So, I don't think I accept the idea that we should resign ourselves to the notion that the majority of people are doomed to succumb to the pleasure machine's allure.