Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69379 Dec 31, 2012
One of those sexual organs is the human brain, which determines whether we're attracted to members of the same sex or members of the opposite sex.
Cybele wrote:
Are you referring to intellectual intercourse?
No.
Cybele wrote:
So you think the brain is a sexual organ?
I do indeed.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69380 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
I think marriage is an oath that is best enforced by the religious community, not the state.
Even atheists marry.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69381 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a different matter entirely. The wiki gives a pretty good description so I won't repeat that part.
Let's take something we all know on here well enough, I will refrain from referencing specific persons or posts though:
Take someone who is overly sexual, either because that's how they are or because they have been brainwashed into thinking that's how they should be. The brainwashing version is actually quite typical of women in the US, they like to fill our heads with this "women should be sensual" bull and give us "baby" dolls as young girls to enforce it.
So they become overly sexual and deep down feel shame for that as well, a side effect of religious doctrine. Thus they over sexualize everything, to them everything has to be about sex because that's all they believe they should think about, but they struggle with the "teaching" that it's wrong to think about it so they feel guilty in some way.
Along comes someone who shows no sexual urges, no drive at all, so they try to find anything they can to call sexual, even when there is nothing sexual about it, as a way to say, in their mind, "that person likes sex a lot so I must be 'normal'." Even though outwardly they'll say things like "that's a sin and you should be ashamed of it." I also call it "forced common ground," because they are trying to bridge a gap that's not even there by using their own traits completely ignoring any possibility that the other person has different traits.
I hope I explained it well and didn't ramble too much. Psychology is a fascinating subject, and seeing such a strong case of any psychological trait in a single person spikes my interest in them.
Well, I'll be honest, I think the sexual aspect you're describing is overly presumptive. People want to "belong" more than anything. If sexuality gets them attention, that's good enough for most people. Losing control of the subject causes them to reject sexuality as quickly as they embraced it.

Personally, I think you'll have different permutations of sexuality and evolutionary strategy, kind of like the Vulcan story where the logic of the species only increases the actual sexuality, which is kept suppressed as much as possible. The only real tangible variable is whether or not a species requires long term parental involvement in raising their young. That would limit the individual's will to keep procreating beyond their means to care for the young.

I tend to think that bible types are usually non-sexual people, but under stress, they can be forced to focus on sex, then kind of erupt in bizarre ways. Others can so easily achieve gratification that they have almost no interest in the idea of fantasy. All they really need is a lack of distraction and a quiet moment of privacy.

The Freudian idea of projection is muddled, as is most of Freud's work. There's something to be derived from it, but sexuality in his world is far more about accumulated experience than it is biology. I resist all of the Timothy Leerys and others who think drug use is part of a self-healing process. That's the mindset of aristocrats who just decide to change their "attitude" but have ABSOLUTELY no fear of the consequences.

The problem is that our current world is full of experimental drug users who either screwed themselves up worse, or cleared their minds through drugs, but most of us have no idea how they get from point A to point B. Heck, they barely remember!

We don't know how close to our own hard-wiring is to media-friendly know-it-alls to begin with. We don't know if they've experienced the same fears or were rewarded for their efforts in any way close to we were in our own efforts. For our own sakes, it's largely healthy to maintain a self-help point of view but we like to use someone else's feedback to assure ourselves that we aren't off course.
<cont>
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69382 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a different matter entirely. The wiki gives a pretty good description so I won't repeat that part.
Let's take something we all know on here well enough, I will refrain from referencing specific persons or posts though:
Take someone who is overly sexual, either because that's how they are or because they have been brainwashed into thinking that's how they should be. The brainwashing version is actually quite typical of women in the US, they like to fill our heads with this "women should be sensual" bull and give us "baby" dolls as young girls to enforce it.
So they become overly sexual and deep down feel shame for that as well, a side effect of religious doctrine. Thus they over sexualize everything, to them everything has to be about sex because that's all they believe they should think about, but they struggle with the "teaching" that it's wrong to think about it so they feel guilty in some way.
Along comes someone who shows no sexual urges, no drive at all, so they try to find anything they can to call sexual, even when there is nothing sexual about it, as a way to say, in their mind, "that person likes sex a lot so I must be 'normal'." Even though outwardly they'll say things like "that's a sin and you should be ashamed of it." I also call it "forced common ground," because they are trying to bridge a gap that's not even there by using their own traits completely ignoring any possibility that the other person has different traits.
I hope I explained it well and didn't ramble too much. Psychology is a fascinating subject, and seeing such a strong case of any psychological trait in a single person spikes my interest in them.
Well, I'll be honest, I think the sexual aspect you're describing is overly presumptive. People want to "belong" more than anything. If sexuality gets them attention, that's good enough for most people. Losing control of the subject causes them to reject sexuality as quickly as they embraced it.

Personally, I think you'll have different permutations of sexuality and evolutionary strategy, kind of like the Vulcan story where the logic of the species only increases the actual sexuality, which is kept suppressed as much as possible. The only real tangible variable is whether or not a species requires long term parental involvement in raising their young. That would limit the individual's will to keep procreating beyond their means to care for the young.

I tend to think that bible types are usually non-sexual people, but under stress, they can be forced to focus on sex, then kind of erupt in bizarre ways. Others can so easily achieve gratification that they have almost no interest in the idea of fantasy. All they really need is a lack of distraction and a quiet moment of privacy.

The Freudian idea of projection is muddled, as is most of Freud's work. There's something to be derived from it, but sexuality in his world is far more about accumulated experience than it is biology. I resist all of the Timothy Leerys and others who think drug use is part of a self-healing process. That's the mindset of aristocrats who just decide to change their "attitude" but have ABSOLUTELY no fear of the consequences.

The problem is that our current world is full of experimental drug users who either screwed themselves up worse, or cleared their minds through drugs, but most of us have no idea how they get from point A to point B. Heck, they barely remember!

We don't know how close to our own hard-wiring is to media-friendly know-it-alls to begin with. We don't know if they've experienced the same fears or were rewarded for their efforts in any way close to we were in our own efforts. For our own sakes, it's largely healthy to maintain a self-help point of view but we like to use someone else's feedback to assure ourselves that we aren't off course.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69383 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Even atheists marry.
Or they can have a civil union.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69384 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in marriage. period. I don't know why women fantasize about this fairy tale of meeting their prince charles. I'm not into that thing.
Me neither, but some people seem to think marriage is part of the American dream. Whatever!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69385 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a different matter entirely. The wiki gives a pretty good description so I won't repeat that part.
Let's take something we all know on here well enough, I will refrain from referencing specific persons or posts though:
Take someone who is overly sexual, either because that's how they are or because they have been brainwashed into thinking that's how they should be. The brainwashing version is actually quite typical of women in the US, they like to fill our heads with this "women should be sensual" bull and give us "baby" dolls as young girls to enforce it.
So they become overly sexual and deep down feel shame for that as well, a side effect of religious doctrine. Thus they over sexualize everything, to them everything has to be about sex because that's all they believe they should think about, but they struggle with the "teaching" that it's wrong to think about it so they feel guilty in some way.
Along comes someone who shows no sexual urges, no drive at all, so they try to find anything they can to call sexual, even when there is nothing sexual about it, as a way to say, in their mind, "that person likes sex a lot so I must be 'normal'." Even though outwardly they'll say things like "that's a sin and you should be ashamed of it." I also call it "forced common ground," because they are trying to bridge a gap that's not even there by using their own traits completely ignoring any possibility that the other person has different traits.
I hope I explained it well and didn't ramble too much. Psychology is a fascinating subject, and seeing such a strong case of any psychological trait in a single person spikes my interest in them.
<cont>

I think it's characteristically Caucasian to respond defensively in complex social conditions. That doesn't mean they are paranoid. They just find everything to be an intuitive problem that will work itself out in the end. Well, at least in the U.S., that creates enough negative feedback over time that it creates more problems than it solves.

Personally, I think most people are riding a metaphorical horse that they fear will throw them. It really doesn't matter what they say or do. It's just the fear of the moment. I can't claim to have a solution other than to say what most therapists would say: "First, you have to WANT to get better."
Dozerman

Danville, WV

#69386 Dec 31, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Natural processes, of course.
No need at all for magic ones.
ok so what started the natural process were did it come from i mean if humans evolved from chimps or whatever were did the the chimp come from and why are they not still evolving
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69387 Dec 31, 2012
Time and Space wrote:
'God' simply being used as a generic term for higher beings...for the sake of this discussion...
Still don't care about them freekin aliens.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69388 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in marriage. period. I don't know why women fantasize about this fairy tale of meeting their prince charles. I'm not into that thing.
Don't blame ya. I mean Prince Charles, come on...

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69389 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Queen Victoria might have said:
"We are not amused!"
Ah, well...

:-/
Dozerman

Danville, WV

#69390 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
It started on Earth once Earth had life.
<quoted text>
The chemicals present on Earth were the result of Earth's formation from the proto-planetary disk, plus anything that hit the Earth later on, such as asteroids or comets.
if you say so. the question remains where did the chemicals,asteroids,comets come from. let me guess another form of chemical or dust. it all started somewhere everything comes from something they don't just appear
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69391 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Well, that escalated quickly!
I think marriage is an oath that is best enforced by the religious community, not the state. Let the state deal with the legal complications, whether in a civil union or a marriage. Let the state stay out of the morality issue and the religious endorsement of the conditions of a marriage.
The gays can't tell the church to marry them. The state can't wave a wand, demanding that churches recognize state marriages. Nobody gets tax breaks or inheritance breaks for marriage and no legal segue for turning gay marriage into affirmative action or hate crime laws. Makes sense yet?
Churches aren't necessary for marriage. State doesn't have to give a fig about any morality issue, it just needs to legally recognise the marriage and whatever legal benefits/detriments that go with them. Religion only enters in to play if those who are getting married give a fig about religion. Then they can work out all the religious details to their hearts content.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69392 Dec 31, 2012
Dozerman wrote:
<quoted text> ok so what started the natural process were did it come from i mean if humans evolved from chimps or whatever were did the the chimp come from and why are they not still evolving
(sigh)

:-/

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#69393 Dec 31, 2012
Dozerman wrote:
<quoted text> ok so what started the natural process were did it come from i mean if humans evolved from chimps or whatever were did the the chimp come from and why are they not still evolving
A long time ago our DNA threw out an anomalous gene that had two parts joined and we ended up with 46 chromosomes instead of 48 like the chimps and great apes. That along with our hox p2 gene and hyiod bone that is necessary for speech and here we are.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69394 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Churches aren't necessary for marriage. State doesn't have to give a fig about any morality issue, it just needs to legally recognise the marriage and whatever legal benefits/detriments that go with them. Religion only enters in to play if those who are getting married give a fig about religion. Then they can work out all the religious details to their hearts content.
That's a stealth tactic to begin with. Recognizing gay marriage implies that you recognize homosexuality as normal behavior. That leads to the hate crime laws, the Affirmative Action agenda, and all of the silly things that the state doesn't want to get tied up with, like dealing with like unwanted advances, and so on.

The state should provide civil unions that have no bearing on sexual relationships. That's it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69395 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a stealth tactic to begin with.
Nope, just a recognition of equal rights without religious interference. Of course those who WANT religious interference still have that choice.
anonymous wrote:
Recognizing gay marriage implies that you recognize homosexuality as normal behavior.
It occurs in human communities, it occurs in animal communities. Hence, normal.
anonymous wrote:
That leads to the hate crime laws, the Affirmative Action agenda, and all of the silly things that the state doesn't want to get tied up with, like dealing with like unwanted advances, and so on.
If you don't wanna be hit on by a gay man just tell him. If you don't wanna be hit on by a black person just tell them. If you don't wanna be hit on by a woman just tell her. Any potentially illegal responses from either party are dealt with in the normal way.

Note how your concerns are just as equally addressed whether we're talking about homosexuals, blacks or women.
anonymous wrote:
The state should provide civil unions that have no bearing on sexual relationships. That's it.
And marriages that have no bearing on sexual relationships. Girl/guy? Same marriage laws. Guy/guy? Same marriage laws. Girl/girl? Same marriage laws. Black/white? Same marriage laws. Simples. The only reason NOT to allow this to happen is a desire to impose unequal restrictions on a particular group. This is very potentially unConstitutional.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69396 Dec 31, 2012
Even atheists marry.
anonymous wrote:
Or they can have a civil union.
Not and still be assured of being treated legally the same as married couples.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69397 Dec 31, 2012
Dozerman wrote:
it all started somewhere everything comes from something they don't just appear
At this point, the evidence allows us to push back the history of the Universe to the hot dense state that preceded the Big Bang. More than that, we can say only "We don't yet know". It certainly doesn't allow us to conclude "It was poofed into existence magically by a god".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69398 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
Recognizing gay marriage implies that you recognize homosexuality as normal behavior.
It *is* normal behavior, for gay individuals.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 4 min Crazy Beautiful 8,218
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 12 min Trouser Cough 31,546
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 15 min Trouser Cough 41,393
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 17 min Trouser Cough 56,354
Thinking Out Loud....Feel Free To Say What's On... 25 min Sharlene45 20
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 41 min honeymylove 139,790
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 47 min Crazy Beautiful 159,902
Word Association (Jun '10) 50 min Rock626 26,976
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 1 hr Rock626 199
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 3 hr Mega Monster 18,002
More from around the web