The Logic Of Homosexual Activity

[Traveler]

Contrary to what may be the popular opinion of the world, I would like to introduce the notion of logic to the consideration of human biological processes. This should not be difficult to a person possessing normal intelligence – to begin with, note how the term logical fits in the word biological (not to be confused with biostupidity). Consider first the biological process of eating and digestion. This biological process begins by introducing food into the mouth where it is chewed and mixed with saliva and then swallowed down the esophagus to the stomach. In the stomach food is broken down as part of the digestive process then passed to the small intestine. The entire process is completed as the digesting food continues through the large intestine and the unused product is expelled.

Most of the process occurs under the control of what is known as the sympathetic nervous system. To humans, this means that we are not completely cognizant of the process. The part with which we have the most conscious control is during the chewing and initial stages of swallowing and at the end during the relaxing of the mussel that allows the waste to be ejected. The biological process of eating is part of the survival of any individual human. A normal healthy person can go several days without eating but to survive, eating is eventually necessary. Just because a human can survive for a few days without eating is not a logical basis to conclude that eating is not really necessary and can be eliminated or deemed unnecessary. Even if someone is overweight – eating is still necessary for long-term health and survival. Any logical understanding that concludes that eating is not a bio necessity is biostupidity. Eating and digestion is part of the logic in the biological process of survival. Consider the importance of salivating as part of eating in the overall biological process of digestion. The logic of saliva is directly related to eating and digestion. If this one little processes is altered significantly the bio-logic of eating can be interrupted and eventually become a threat to survival. That any individual has discovered other fun things to do with saliva has little to do with the logic of saliva in the biological process of eating.

Pavlov demonstrated that by introducing outside stimulation in correlation to eating, that a dog could learn to anticipate eating and salivate even when no food is present or eating taking place. Sometimes this is referred to as drooling. This process of learning and altering of behavior is known as the lowest cognitive level of learning. Humans with their enterprising intelligence have learned to do all sorts of creative things with extra saliva produced from non-eating learning, such as spitting. Some humans males have learned to drool when introduced to a particularly good looking lady. Others have learned to drool for a variety of other reasons. But the logic or biological logic of saliva remains directly connected to eating. All other logical uses of saliva for non-eating processes are in reality non-natural, not bio-logical and are learned.

Consider another biological processes necessary for survival of a species. Instead of eating and digestion lets look at the biological process of reproduction. Like eating some of the biological activities of reproduction are cognitive and can be controlled and altered through the same lowest level of learning involved with salvia and some activities are controlled by the sympatric nervous system and are not cognitively controlled. For example, in human males during their climax of pleasure in reproductive biological activity, sperm is released in great quantities. The logic of this biological process of releasing male sperm during reproduction activity is directly dependent to the logic of reproduction and survival of the human species. This is the logical reason for its occurrence. It is the logic of the reproductive biological process. So pronounced is the necessity of this logic in the biological process of releasing sperm that the human species cannot continue to exist without it and we all (humans) owe our existence to this biological process.

However, just like the experiment of Pavlov where he demonstrated that the logic of saliva while eating could be cognitively altered to occur without the eating so can the male learn to release sperm without being involved in actual reproductive activity. But the logic of altering biological reproductive activities for non-logical or non-reproductive activity is not bio-logical. Therefore it must be learned.

For some reason the first step in this reproductive biostupidity is to change the definition of terms in an attempt to disguise that fact that the bio-logical process is in reality and at it core a reproductive activity. This is done by denying that the biological activity is in essence a reproductive – this is done by ignoring the logic of the function as reproductive and calling it just a sexual activity. No sane person is going to fall for the biostupid term “homo-reproduction”. This alternate process is not bio-logical but a learned logical process and has nothing to do with logic of survival in any species. For whatever reason it seams that the only way homosexual activity can be justified among human society – even by those that have learned to logically enjoy that activity - is to convince themselves and everyone else that homo-reproductive behavior is as bio-logical as actual reproductive behavior. And that my friends – despite all the hand waving and trying to say otherwise – is why I find the arguments for homo-reproduction amusing and completely stupid. In fact, the harder the sell and the more determined the attempt to convince the public that such biostupid activity is necessary, the more I am convinced that the salesman is incapable of comprehending bio”logical” activity – or for that matter any other real or intelligent logic. There is no logic or intelligence in any homo-reproduction activities. I do not doubt that some find the activities fun and entertaining – but please, homo-reproduction is not “biological” or “natural”.

The Traveler

[Guest curvette]

You are unusually obsessed with homosexuals. I find this strange.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by curvette@May 16 2004, 03:19 PM

You are unusually obsessed with homosexuals. I find this strange.

I was introduced to a homosexual when I was boy scout. The person pretending to be a national Scout leader.

I was again intorduced when I served in the army. Though I was 17 I looked 13. I weighted about 115 lbs.

I know by experience why some homosexuals want access to the boy scounts and the military. And I know why they should not have that access.

I also know that not all homosexuals need to force others to endorce their behavior as something that society must consider the same as fathers and mothers commited in marriage.

I think those that intend to inforce homosexuality through the force of law as somewhat dangerious to children - regardless of their orentation. I also do not see the logic is forcing children to accept homosexual behavior as bio-logacal.

The Traveler

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler+May 16 2004, 03:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ May 16 2004, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@May 16 2004, 03:19 PM

You are unusually obsessed with homosexuals.  I find this strange.

I was introduced to a homosexual when I was boy scout. The person pretending to be a national Scout leader.

I was again intorduced when I served in the army. Though I was 17 I looked 13. I weighted about 115 lbs.

I know by experience why some homosexuals want access to the boy scounts and the military. And I know why they should not have that access.

I also know that not all homosexuals need to force others to endorce their behavior as something that society must consider the same as fathers and mothers commited in marriage.

I also do not see the logic is forcing children to accept homosexual behavior as bio-logacal.

The Traveler

My estimation of your intelligence just dropped three notches below O. Your intial post was the worse example of logic I've seen for a while.

First error--"that what what some do ALL should be suspected of doing"---you committed that error when you implied that because you knew a few gays that you thought were out to "get" young kids. Miserable thinking! There is no evidence what ever that gays, in total, are anymore likely to abuse youngsters than hetero's

Second error--STRAWMAN---"I think those that intend to inforce homosexuality through the force of law as somewhat dangerious to children - regardless of their orentation. " Who is trying to do this? ENFORCING HOMOSEXUALITY? What universe are you living in, dude? No one is forcing anyone to be homosexual! This is a non-argument. Being is favor of allowing gays basic civil rights (like marriage) is hardly FORCING anyone to be gay.

Third error----your pathetic analogy of human biological processes to gay rights is laughable. You disgust the rest of us with your childish rendition of human digestion and reproduction as though you knew more about it that even the run of the mill poster here. No wonder curvy finds you condescending---and the reason it is so funny is because you pretend some expertise in things you obviously know very little about---like biology. Should I first point out your errors in fact:

One--digestion doesn't take place in the LARGE intestine. Any dufus first year Physiology student knows that. The only function of the large intestine is the reabsorption of water--all the nutrients have been broken down, digested and absorbed into the blood stream by then. Second---if you would do a little study on the nature of not only human, but mammalian sexuality in general you would know that homosexuality is even MORE prevalent in some non-human species than in humans. Homosexuality is everybit as natural as any other of the processes you mentioned.

Fourth error--you assume that if a biological process or behavior is not necessary for survival that is must not be "natural"--as though gayness is not biological because you can't think of any survival value in it. The fact of the matter is it is very common in nature, making it, arguably very Biological.

Fifth error--- another STRAWMAN---No sane person is going to fall for the biostupid term “homo-reproduction”.

What sane person suggested we do????? Where did that come from? You have a raised a strawman that says some of us think that homosexuality is related to reproduction? No idiot in even his right mind thinks that homosexuality is good for reproduction. The sixth error is related to this in that you have assumed that because homosexuality doesn't lead to reproduction, it should therefore be, WHAT?, made illegal? If you make illegal every kind of human behavior that doesn't lead to reproduction you will be outlawing everything in sight.

I find this post of yours typical of those who would deprive a perfectly upright citizen of their basic civil rights because he/she doesn't share your narrow minded view of how everyone should act.

[Guest Starsky]

Personally I find anything that counters homosexual behavior is refreshing and a heck of alot smarter than anything the strawmansexuals can come up with to validate perversion of their natural uses of their body.

So hurray for Traveler!

[sgallan]

Yes Starsky, we pretty much know you have a homophobia thing and otherwise hate pretty much everybody. It is a way to live I suppose. Makes the world interesting....

[sgallan]

Traveller -

You have seemingly become a bit of a religious hobbiest with regards to this issue. Doesn't your religion suggest you not be a hobbiest? Because if the church were to do something which might dispute you interpetation of your hobby you might leave? You know; like various splinter groups, and fundamentalists, have broken off in the past?

[sgallan]

FWIW, the fat lady may not have sung yet, but she tuning up her voice, and the arena is full......

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=519&ncid=716

[Tr2]

Homosexuals are normal human beings who have chosen to have their love needs met in a different way. It is just that simple.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@May 17 2004, 04:15 AM

Homosexuals are normal human beings who have chosen to have their love needs met in a different way. It is just that simple.

No...it is just simply people who have perversions galore! LOL...simple as ..SIN!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Starsky+May 17 2004, 10:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starsky @ May 17 2004, 10:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tr2@May 17 2004, 04:15 AM

Homosexuals are normal human beings who have chosen to have their love needs met in a different way. It is just that simple.

No...it is just simply people who have perversions galore! LOL...simple as ..SIN!

Nothing in this life is that simple. That's why God is the judge and not us.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Traveler@May 16 2004, 03:52 PM

I was introduced to a homosexual when I was boy scout.

I was introduced to a hetrosexual when I was a Happy Mountain Bluebird. I think you are confusing pedophiles and homosexuals. They aren't any more interchangeable than hetrosexuals and pedophiles.

[Tr2]

No...it is just simply people who have perversions galore! LOL...simple as ..SIN!

Not the first time I've seen the holier-than-thou-art attitude. Clearly you have very limited first hand knowledge into this area.

Jesus came down much harder on those who looked down on others than he did on the sinners. Think about that and re-adjust your attitude.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@May 18 2004, 02:59 AM

No...it is just simply people who have perversions galore! LOL...simple as ..SIN!

Not the first time I've seen the holier-than-thou-art attitude. Clearly you have very limited first hand knowledge into this area.

Jesus came down much harder on those who looked down on others than he did on the sinners. Think about that and re-adjust your attitude.

Well if it is holier than thou...then I must be right...because right is holier than thou....when it comes to perversions and sin.

[sgallan]

Starsky - I think I'll convert to Whabbi Islam and start thinking you are perveted because you don't where a Burka.....

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by sgallan@May 18 2004, 08:05 AM

Starsky - I think I'll convert to Whabbi Islam and start thinking you are perveted because you don't where a Burka.....

I tried wearing a burka once. Very uncomfortable and unattractive!

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+May 18 2004, 09:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ May 18 2004, 09:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--sgallan@May 18 2004, 08:05 AM

Starsky - I think I'll convert to Whabbi Islam and start thinking you are perveted because you don't where a Burka.....

I tried wearing a burka once. Very uncomfortable and unattractive!

Starsky believes in the kind of God that would make someone homosexual and then make that state of being a massive sin. Way to go, God of Starsky. Fortunately I feel no obligation to believe in that kind of God.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Tr2]

Well if it is holier than thou...then I must be right...because right is holier than thou....when it comes to perversions and sin.

You seem like you'd rather be right than see others, who don't agree with you, go to heaven. Whatever belief system you have, you can keep because it's not what Jesus had anything to do with.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+May 17 2004, 07:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ May 17 2004, 07:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@May 16 2004, 03:52 PM

I was introduced to a homosexual when I was boy scout.

I was introduced to a hetrosexual when I was a Happy Mountain Bluebird. I think you are confusing pedophiles and homosexuals. They aren't any more interchangeable than hetrosexuals and pedophiles.

Technically speaking, the confusion is between homosexuals and ephebophiles, not pedophiles. And the line between the former two classes is a lot fuzzier than the line between pedophiles and anyone else.