Metal Reviews

Whatever. It worked in a way for thousands of years, why the hell are you guys so sure there won't be any negative aspects about it?

There's a reason why Nature intended for procreation to be between male and female

nature doesn't have intentions. if it did, evolution would work as a pro-genocide argument ("nature intended for the survival of the fittest, and since i can kill you i'm more fit")

Then, why can't two humans of the same sex procreate?
Answer: because nature did not intend it.
Besides, genocide is a condition inflicted upon humans by humans; it is a human act. When nature decides a species should die out, it is doen by natural selection, and it is an act of nature.
Natural selection is a process of survival as decided by nature, through evolution and adaptation.
Evolution is part of nature.
It is all circular.

Then, why can't two humans of the same sex procreate?
Answer: because nature did not intend it.
Besides, genocide is a condition inflicted upon humans by humans; it is a human act. When nature decides a species should die out, it is doen by natural selection, and it is an act of nature.
Natural selection is a process of survival as decided by nature, through evolution and adaptation.
Evolution is part of nature.
It is all circular.

Then, why can't two humans of the same sex procreate?
Answer: because nature did not intend it.
Besides, genocide is a condition inflicted upon humans by humans; it is a human act. When nature decides a species should die out, it is doen by natural selection, and it is an act of nature.
Natural selection is a process of survival as decided by nature, through evolution and adaptation.
Evolution is part of nature.
It is all circular.

Except there is no nature that wills anything; nature does not "decide" that a species should die out. Natural selection is an entirely random process. The entire discussion of natural versus unnatural is bullshit in any case. Its not natural for humans to fly or travel 120 kilometres an hour on a road, yet it seems to happen anyway. To get to a closer example, if nature didn't intend for men and men to procreate, it also didn't intend for men or women to have sex with themselves and raise a kid by themselves. Somehow, it happens, and nobody calls out "unnatural! unnatural!" when a single mother adopts a child, or when a child is raised by one parent.

Once again, do you have any evidence that kids raised by homosexuals will grow up fucked up? Many studies have shown that they grow up about as normally as others; funnily, all of the studies that show otherwise seem to be published by Republicans or the Christian right. It is possible that these kids will have some problems; it is also possible that kids adopted by a single parent will have some further problems. There are hundreds of reasons a kid can have further problems than other kids.

So banning gay adoption, because "nature did not intend for it" (and noodles is quite right in saying that talk of nature's "intentions" are reminiscent of Social Darwinism) is bullshit. Doing so because its somehow going to destroy our children and our good old fashioned modern western family values is equally bullshit, but I think its that second one that lies behind most of the debate here- after all, nobody gives a shit that nature never "intended" for us to fly, whatever that means. And its entirely false to assume that homosexual adoption will somehow destroy the fabric of our society, or cause our children to become weird pot smoking anarchist hippies with weeeeeeird ideas about gender roles that just ain't like they were in the good old 1950s. So, until we all ban airplanes, cars, industrialization, and single parents, I think we can manage to hold society together even if there is gay adoption.

Edit: Ha, I see traptunderice beat me to the airplane example. Crafty bastard.

Except there is no nature that wills anything; nature does not "decide" that a species should die out.

nature isn't sentient, so it can't "decide" or have "intentions". the reason two human beings of the same sex can't procreate is because we did not evolve that way. it doesn't have any deeper significance or tell us how we *should* act.

Nature is an ongoing process, but there are certain axioms that never change (thats why they are axioms!)... one of them is it takes a human male and a human female to sustain their species. All organisms strive for survival and even dominance; what Neitzsche dubbed the "will to power"... that is nature at it's very core, though vastly simplified.

And are you knocking traditional western values? Western "culture" is becoming less and less civilized, not the other way around, and isn't it funny how that downward slide is directly proportional to the farther we drift away from traditional values?

So how does this relate to a man giving birth? Johnny flings a handful of poo in my face. Rather than give Johnny the hiding he deserves, I must develop a program of acceptance for poo flingers, who feel that their cultural heritage of flinging poo is not being allowed to be expressed within such a restrictive classroom environment.

First of all, I think this is pretty fucked up. Let me refer to Andrew Dice Clay: "What's all this bullshit about being bisexual? You either suck dick or you do not!"

In this case, are you a woman or man? Make up your fucking mind.

Right now at uni I'm being bombarded in this course based on inclusiveness, which is a good thing. But it tends to go several steps further down the ugly road of far-left political correctness. The basic idea is that all kids have a right to a far and inclusive learning environment regardless of there disabilities. Absolutely. No problem.

But here's where it goes tits up. As a teacher, you are expected to adjust the norm to cater for the differences at all costs. Meaning, dramatically lower the standards of behaviour and academic achievement for all so that you don't hurt the feelings of those who find things too hard. This is mostly to do with those with behavioural or mental problems such as ADHD or Aspergers. This means that you effectively do a Robin Hood. Rob from the rich (those who are steadily achieving and/or are capable of some sort of future) to give to the poor (those few who require specialist care).

So far I haven't seen who benefits from this. Teachers aren't properly trained for Special Education, those who are trained in Special Ed are out of a job because their customer base has been shoved into mainstream schools, the "normal" students are losing out because they aren't being challenged and not getting the right amount of attention, and the students who have such disabilities are expected to function in an environment that can (often) be socially hostile and academically alien.

So how does this relate to a man giving birth? Johnny flings a handful of poo in my face. Rather than give Johnny the hiding he deserves, I must develop a program of acceptance for poo flingers, who feel that their cultural heritage of flinging poo is not being allowed to be expressed within such a restrictive classroom environment.

Bloke gives birth. Instead of saying "Oh for fuck's sake, that is just not right", we must form an international community of awareness where men giving birth is just as natural as a man's right to yiff.

.

blah blah blah...
saying something is bullshit is not an argument, and can you prove that this kid won't be fucked up?

And are you knocking traditional western values? Western "culture" is becoming less and less civilized, not the other way around, and isn't it funny how that downward slide is directly proportional to the farther we drift away from traditional values?

Spare me the liberal pc BULLSHIT

, I am not interested in politics, anyways... social Darwinism notwithstanding, whether or not you think you understand what natural law dictates, there are consequences that result in going against nature... air travel, automobile travel, etc... hell, the whole industrialization of the world has consequences... global warming, radioactive waste, carcinogens in the air, water and soil these are all by-products of our fiddling around with things we can't truly understand, only manipulate to our immediate gratification.

imo those two things are the root of most of humanity's problems 'cause i think overpopulation and nukes are the two things that could make us go byebye. so we should be moving away from 'nature' as fast as fucking possible.

anyways away from that because i think we're both arguing totally different things (i'm arguing that theres nothing wrong with the transgender birth thing and don't really think that it matters whether it's natural or not. you're arguing that it's unnatural)

but this is just a silly point...

what's your definition of civilized? i can't see how moving away from racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry, etc is becoming less civilized :\

Its not, true. Hence the 500-600 other words in my post. And no, I can't prove that this kid won't be fucked up. Maybe he will. And can you prove that this kid will be fucked up? No more than you can any other kid. As I've said, most studies find no difference in children raised by gay parents and the kids raised by gay parents I know have turned out fine- some have had problems, but others didn't, and they've all gotten over them, save one; but then, I have many friends raised by heterosexual parents who have problems. Nothing's guaranteed either way. Some links:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -5,00.html

http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/harm_n.htm

Note that studies that show otherwise are mainly made by right wing Christians. This is not to turn this into a political debate, but to note that these institutes are clearly biased. Example:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_E ... .html#info

Note the further articles at the bottom, which essentially reinforce all the old stereotypes that gays are AIDS spreading, child molesting machines who completely choose their orientation. The institution, the Family Values Institute, is essentially one gay hating machine.




I enjoy the western tradition, and think there are lots of things worth keeping. That being said, there are lots of things that ought to be changed as societies naturally evolve. 100 years ago, it was part of our proud western culture that women should work in the kitchen, man should bring home the bread, a black man couldn't ever beat a white man in a fight because they just ain't as smart and can't think on their feet? Remember kids, the only good man is a proud white Protestant! In any case, my questions for you are: Why should past traditions be held onto irregardless of their value? Why are gays such a huge threat to the societal order and the family (ie: How does this news story destroy your family life?) Is it to do with gender roles? Would you prefer to be living in the 1950s than now? I truly am curious. What is this great decline you speak of? There truly are some horrible flaws in our society. Great injustices. But are they worse or better than in the past? And more importantly, can you argue that the loss of traditional gender roles and "values" has caused this decline in society, if it exists?



I thought we agreed that this was a naughty word.



So then, our choices are clear: Shut down gay marriage and the entire industrial system or let both go along. After all, its not fair to shut down just one. So, I never expect to see you on the internet again; after all, its not as nature intended when she wrote that good old book of life's plan millions of years ago.



In that case, people who are single and never procreate are equally unnatural. As are people who use condoms or birth control. And why do we need to procreate as much as you say anyway? There seems to be some sort of population boom going on, after all.



My main criticism with your argument is that I have no bloody idea what "natural" means. You take nature to be some all knowing entity, like a God, that directs all and has laws that must be followed, when this isn't the case at all. As far as I can tell, your definition is purely biological, meaning that its not natural for us to do anything except eat, shit, procreate, raise our young, and not die. Thats nice, but what does it actually allow for? Furthermore, if homosexuality is not something directly chosen, as I think it isn't (my gay friends didn't "choose" to become gays, and some of them didn't choose to become "heterosexuals" after- their bodies are/were just attracted to a certain gender), then yes, wouldn't homosexuality be natural?





Once again, natural selection is a random process. Some groups make it, some groups don't. I fail to see what this has to do with homosexuality, though, unless you think that its gotten so bad that we're not going to be able to procreate anymore.

(By the way, social darwinism is a theory that natural selection can be applied to cultures and nation states; the Europeans are inherently and biologically better than the Africans because they're on top, and thats that. I don't, therefore, see the link between overpopulation and social darwinism).



I brought up adoption because two of the underlying assumptions in this thread are that:

a) This baby will be physically deformed, and
b) That because it is raised by a gay couple, the baby will have social problems

Gay adoption is relevant to b because here we have examples of gay couples raising kids. Therefore the situation is comparable, even if in this case the baby is born.

As for a person having sex with themselves; it is impossible (well.. my hand does a good job). The point was that if this is going to be opposed because the baby won't be born in a traditional family and thus will be made fun of or have social development problems... well then, what about all these single mothers?

And once again, I'm going to have to ask you to define "natural." Is this person having the baby normal? By human and animal standards, no, not at all. Then again, there are lots of abnormal humans, but this is not necessarily a negative thing. When Copernicus proposed that the earth revolved around the sun, and even did so within a Christian framework, he was not normal by his society's standards. When Jackie Robinson became the first black baseball player, he was not normal. This stuff is fucked up and strange, no doubt. But things change. And true, sometimes for the worse, but many times for the better; and it seems ridiculous to just call this unnatural and have it a day. Until you can prove that this person is harming others by doing this, I have no idea why this is such a huge deal.

First of all, I think this is pretty fucked up. Let me refer to Andrew Dice Clay: "What's all this bullshit about being bisexual? You either suck dick or you do not!"

the ugly road of far-left political correctness

the marijuana plants my sister was growing had sex changes though!!~ totally natural

also seahorse males give birth XD