Random Politics & Religion #00

I played Command & Conquer Tiberian Dawn well before FFVII so I always thought Bahamut Zero was just a non-sentient Dragon-shaped Ion Cannon.

Obligatory "Made the Page" unrelated picture.

1. idk, was joking, I like Zero, but the animation is freaking long...

2. I would have gone with not grapey enough.

3. Alicia Silverstone is still smoking hot, and she's a good bit older than me.

You realize "reproduction," or more specifically the ability to pass down genetic material to the following generation, is one of the requirements to categorize something as living?

So yes in humans: sex = requirement for life.

Living things (1) are organized, (2) acquire materials and energy, (3) reproduce ability to pass down genetic material, (4) grow and develop, (5) are homeostatic, (6) respond to stimuli, and (7) have an evolutionary history.

This was a really weird back read.

So according to some you are not gay unless you are having sex or "taking action". You are not straight unless you are having sex or "taking action".

How does this work for bisexuals? Only bisexual when involved in mixed gendered threesomes and more!

Does this interpretation apply when masterbating?
-watching a porn where a straight mixed gendered couple is having sex totally means the person watching is bisexual

Edited~

/mind blown

I'm strictly saying the act of sex is the way human's reproduce and is therefore a requirement of life edit: in humans.

Does sex define sexuality? That's a complex question right there. I don't think it solely defines sexuality.

I think several components define sexuality including, but not limited to: intercourse, innate and developed attraction.

I understand that was what you were stating. I was referring to the "choice" crowd.

I would say sex definately does not solely define human sexuality, but I'm uncertain about other animals. Depends on how we are defining sexuality.

Your edit
I agree with. Especially if this also means sexual arrousal and fetishes (however that is officially defined as it has changed throughout the times but basically anything different from vanilla).

I think simply because of how we interpret data in other animals, sexuality as a term is very crude in other parts of the animal kingdom. I mean we can't perform a through psychoanalysis on a penguin as we can on a human, so if we see them forming partnerships with the same gender or attempting to have intercourse with the same sex we define them to be homosexual.

EDIT: I think also as organisms become more complex in the animal kingdom, sex and sexuality become more complex in their definitions. Sex in very early animals is strictly a primitive function to reproduce, whereas in latter organisms sex takes on additional functions.

Qualitative data can be very open to analysis interpretation and personal bias. I read an article (that I cannot remember the name of) about a biologist who observed mammals (I think it was penguins but might have been monkeys) sexual habits. He assigned heterosexuality based on very leniant requirements (e.g. Touching the opposite sex in a "sexual manner") vs. homosexuality which had to be 100% only homosexual acts. This, obviously, heavily skewed the results.

Even within our species there is a large variance on interpretation of sexuality. Western nations have very different views on sexuality compared with a variety of other cultures.

I can see this.

If animals also have a longer life span they tend to develop more of a "culture" versus animals that live only through one reproduction cycle. E.g. Orcas seem to have a complex social culture which includes passing on knowledge and teaching young to adapt (not referring to sexuality in this case just how the life dynamics are more complex than most insects).

Well, there was that gay celebrity (Cynthia Nixon) that was demonized for saying that for her it was indeed a choice to be gay. I understand that for most it appears to be a genetic thing or whatever, but it's pretty stupid to assume that it's the same way for everyone. Or, on that count, to be vilified for saying that it was a choice.

I was going to say that sounds more bisexual than lesbian but I looked her up since I don't keep track of hollywood names very well.

She stated she is bisexual and if she is solely dating women that would be a choice for her. Could you link an article where she said it was a choice and maybe one demonizing her so I can read context?

I think this one more or less covers both.

She identifies as bisexual and she stated the "choice" was to be with a woman at the time. Her bisexuality was "not a choice".

Her original point though was that it really doesn't *** matter whether you choose something or not. It shouldn't be used as a basis for bigotry.

Well sure. I still find it odd that people would freak out at a gay person for believing they had a choice in the matter.

Because it's used as ammo against them. If it's seen as a choice by even a very small minority, then that means it can be "righted" by therapy or prayer or whatever. It really shouldn't matter but the current circumstances makes the constant proclamation that it's not a choice necessary. At least until people get the *** over it.

I understand what you're saying, but feeling the need to silence a minority for the benefit of the majority seems a bit hypocritical coming from a crowd that's also a minority. And really, any moron who thinks that the circumstances of a few persons can be applied to an entire group is probably someone who will find something else to hold against them anyway. I'm just glad the posters in here aren't so willing to make sweeping generalizations about groups of people based on the actions of the minority. *cough*

No one is silencing anybody. Just making it clear that it isn't a choice for most everybody.

Oh man. Speaking of sex = breathing.

Alicia Silverstone and Liv Tyler. In Aerosmith videos.

For those of us *ahem* "hitting our stride" in the mid-90s there may not have been anything better.

The lack of fascism in this thread is scary.

Follow your own advice?

Oh reading I heard about that but have never done it on here.

I normally just watch MSNBC for a half hour so I know what to post.

Yeah, that wasn't the argument though.

The argument was that who you have sex with is a choice. If it wasn't a choice, then that means we have involuntary compulsion to have sex with anyone we are attracted to. Which means that a lot of women would get raped on a daily basis.

Since people haven't figured it out yet, choice is a voluntary action people do. You can be attracted to anyone you want, you still choose to have sex with her. She also has to choose to have sex with you. If you choose to have sex with her and she doesn't, that's called rape.

To say that sex isn't a choice (as Pleebo is stating), then rape is ok because it is an involuntary action (since you didn't have a choice in the matter).

Same as going out with a person. She has to also choose to go out with you. If not, that's stalking, which is also socially wrong.

Pleebo wants to take personal responsibility out of the equation so he can moralize stalking and rape.

Reminds me of the myth that only humans, dolphins, and pigs have sex for pleasure.

So having sex isn't a choice ? So when I go into Starbucks today and they mess up my latte. I'll just force myself on the closest living thing ?

I'll just say "hey it wasn't a choice it was destiny"

I think humans obsess about sex entirely too much. It's really holding back society as a whole.

Reminds me of a Seinfield episode. When George stopped having sex he got a lot smarter. Most of his thoughts concerned sex.

While I may not disagree in the abstract, in practice, I...well...

I mean, have you tried it?

It's pretty swell.

People are defined by their choices. If you perceive that I choose to be a racist or a homophobe, you shouldn't use that as a basis to judge me?

Pot. Kettle. Black...

I...am...going to kind of agree on this point.

You don't choose what you naturally are attracted to or what you like, but you do choose how to handle that. I'm totally okay with folks being homosexual and engaging in said behavior. But when we discuss sex between people, we frequently use the phrase "mutually consenting adults".

Implicit within the word "consenting" is that they've chosen this action.

Much like a priest who is true to his vows (that is, he doesn't have sex with anyone, including little boys), his sexual urges didn't just go away. He chooses how to deal with them. I personally think he's an idiot, but that's his right and his choice and I let it go.

Or, take sex out of the equation. I have anger issues. I've gotten very good at controlling them. It doesn't mean I don't have this little spark of rage when something rubs me the wrong way. It means I refrain from getting in anyone's face, verbally or otherwise. That's a choice. It's a very concious effort to not do what comes naturally. It can be a very hard one in some circumstances, but it's a choice none-the-less.

So while what you find attractive or alluring is just something that occurs naturally within you, how you react to those impulses are a choice.

What it really comes down to is that when it comes to sexuality, preferring heterosexuality or homosexuality is more akin to a preference for chocolate or vanilla ice cream. There's no right or wrong. Just a preference. And someone people like a nice hearty scoop of each!

Whereas a chosing racism/homophobia/etc. is like punching someone in the face because you like strawberry ice cream and that *** only likes butter pecan.