Pride In Objectively Disordered Sexual Desires?

Okay, it’s 6:30 AM and someone dropped me in a George Orwell novel. I demand to be released. NOW.

None of this self-esteem. It’s being tools for the ruling progressive regime.

Forget “objectively disordered sexual desire”—it’s “white is black and black is white” and don’t you dare say differently. It’s up is down, down is up and there is no truth. It’s hello captivity, penalties for stupid finally winning out and extreme poverty of the spirit intertwined with massive violence now called peace marches. It’s antimatter labelled matter.

What follows from denying disorder is anarchy. That’s it. Anarchy. Then more anarchy.

(NOTE: This is not sex that does not involve procreation, or polygamy and pedophilia would be legal. Beastiality is reportedly legal now in Canada, but that’s another story. Wrong definition, obviously. The reasons for pride also apply to these two afore mentioned groups, so that definition of pride may be problematic as well.)

Imagine the reaction to a parade of drunks who flout their disorder and in which marchers tell the world they intend to remain drunk, that they encourage “straights” to experiment with drunkenness.
On many college campuses the modern reaction is to participate in that venerable March holiday, St. Patrick’s Day.

Not a lot of diversity in that last picture

Me thinks that there is absolutely no belief in Divine Providence from those prideful practitioners of sodomy. Nevertheless, the source of these Pride events of banality comes from the top executive and courts within our government and is extending to ordering disorder in all aspects of our lives.
I take heart in the fact that there is a distinct rumbling from the non progressive population but fear that strife and heart ache follows before the cleansing.

Prof Briggs states: “engaging in any kind of sexual activity not directed toward procreation and the preservation of the species is by definition disordered”

As the learned Stove reminds us it can be problematic to concentrate on an “evil” in isolation not knowing the other “evils”, lesser and greater that accompany it.

I do not regard homosexuality as a disorder – it is a ubiquitous and common behaviour throughout the natural world.

Nor do I regard it as a moral evil. The deliberate persecution of homosexuals is.

What I clearly do not know is what would happen if the causes of homosexuality were magically removed from society, or if the genuine urges people have towards homosexuality were suppressed ending the physical manifestation of the desires it causes.

Homosexuality could be a result of a hyper-sexuality gene which increases the sexual behaviour of the overall population, resulting in a larger population overall even though in a few cases its manifestation results in it being directed in a non-procreative direction.

Homosexuality could be the result of a stronger bonding gene which in the majority of females produces more better cared offspring outweighing the smaller number of males who have it who are non-procreative.

Please always remember many many homosexuals can and do produce children. Homosexuality is a spectrum with heterosexual behaviour existing at various times within a lifetime common.

Homosexuality may come along with creativity allowing a person who is homosexual to advance society by helping others more than their lack of procreation diminishes it.

Suppressing homosexual desire may cause social ills – alcoholism, suicide, relationship failure – just as severe or worse than giving a space in society for homosexual relationships to be accepted as a natural part of our behaviour.

Prof Briggs believes in a religion which doesn’t need to bother with any of these nuances. It tells us God condemns those who lie with those of their own sex and damns us for even to think of the passion of sex with another – adultery in your heart.

This would seem to axiomatically tell him that homosexuality is “wrong”.

I do not know these things, and along with Stove suspect any “evils” associated with homosexuality are in reality far more complex and difficult to disentangle than is being made out here.

It is always easy to cherry pick the obvious prejudices some have against homosexual behaviour. The reality is far more nuanced, and without the condemnations of a Good Book I’m unable to know what is the best social policy towards homosexuality.

I suspect suppression, condemnation and persecution have had far worse social consequences and am willing to see how our more tolerant times – with clear education about safe sexual practices etc – progresses.

Casting stones about sexual behaviour would not seem to be the right policy, for all the clear commands in the old testament and other religion’s holy texts. I hope we can agree that is so.

Personal moral condemnation, and legal constraint doesn’t really have much authority over what consenting people do in private.

I wouldn’t be proud of a piece of writing which so devalues others.

Oh boy! Can’t wait for replies to Chinahand to start coming.

For my part, I don’t get how “homosexuality” being a ubiquitous and common behaviour throughout the natural world makes it somehow not a disorder or evil while at the same time [t]he deliberate persecution of homosexuals which is also over the centuries a ubiquitous and common behavior now is.

“any kind of sexual activity not directed toward procreation and the preservation of the species is by definition disordered”

This clearly includes coitus carefully timed by married Catholic couples to avoid conception (the so-called “rhythm method”).

There is a natural phenomenon – homosexual behaviours – well observed in 100s of species with very diverse evolutionary histories, indicating homosexual behaviours have been a part of stable evolutionary strategies for millions of years.

To call this disordered would require calling, say, eusociability in mammals disordered. The Bayesian in me wants to know the assumptions behind the idea that homosexuality is disordered in biology – there are innumerable examples where mating strategies suppress reproduction in some individuals while increasing it in others – think ants.

These are biologically common, stable and normal in the natural world; calling it disordered is simply to show a moral bias, not to provide a description of a natural phenomenon.

Chinahand:

Your questions are well put, indeed. The usual motivation behind obsessively harping on this one aspect of human behavior is well-known:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html

Well we all know what Briggs harps on day in day out. Maybe he’s a closet Bayesian.

it can be problematic to concentrate on an “evil” in isolation
…seem to axiomatically tell him that homosexuality is “wrong”.

Love the scare quotes.

ubiquitous and common behaviour throughout the natural world.

There are lots of behaviors that are ubiquitous and common in the natural world. Stalking one’s prey and pouncing unexpectedly from ambush, for example.

Please always remember many many homosexuals can and do produce children.

But not by the homosexual behavior; otherwise men’s prisons would be burgeoning population centers.

Nor do I regard it as a moral evil. The deliberate persecution of homosexuals is.

Why not both? Drunkenness is also an evil — but so was Prohibition. Racism is an evil; but so is throwing rocks and bottles at otherwise peacefully demonstrating racists.

Briggs subscribes to a religion that is famous for making distinctions and conditions, the sort of thing that holds even murderers capable of redemption.
cf. http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/Complete_Father_Brown/chapter41.html

if the genuine urges people have towards homosexuality were suppressed ending the physical manifestation of the desires it causes.

So all urges must be satisfied or else who knows what might happen? What about Joe’s urge to possess your stereo? Should that be suppressed? What about Sam’s urge to eat sugar? Or Beth’s urge to throw up her dinner? Or Bill’s urge to smite the driver who cut him off? Or Jeff’s urge to possess his neighbor’s wife? Which urges that are ubiquitous in nature should be privileged and which not?

Besides, there may be a distinction between “suppression” and simply not surrendering to an appetite, much as a hungry person might forego a snack for the sake of a diet — or a fast.

To call this disordered would require…

…would require knowing what “ordered” means.

Chinahand: Finally, an advocate for pedophilia—practiced all over the world. Yes!
(Just substitute the word “pedophile” in your argument and you’re good to go—it all applies.)

acricketchirps seems to have found a possible flaw in the “everyone’s doing and has been argument” but I have confidence Chinahand will not let that stop him. Next he can call for polygamy, necrophelia, assassination of leaders (Rome used that one), and virtually any behaviour he wants. Everyone’s doing it is a great way to get there—every child knows that. If everyone’s doing it, it must be okay.

There is NO such thing as homophobic. People do NOT fear homosexuals. They may hate them, love them, call their behaviour wrong, etc but they do NOT fear them. If one fails to grasp this simple concept of phobia being an irrational fear in psychology and no fear is involved, what else are they clueless about? The wrong terms are bandied about to make the speaker look what? Smart? Stupid? Uninformed?

Briggs: “any kind of sexual activity not directed toward procreation and the preservation of the species is by definition disordered”

Lee Phillips: “This clearly includes coitus carefully timed by married Catholic couples to avoid conception (the so-called “rhythm method”).”

Technically (though I doubt that this was his intent) Mr Briggs comment would apply to any recreational sex even if no birth control was used.

Actually, homosexuality is just a behavior, like bestiality or necrophilia or heterosexuality. The homosexuals have long been trying to find a gene or brain to justify their behavior but with no success. Freud hypothesized that homosexuality is the result of a dominating mother and a remote, rejecting father. I forget who did a study on homosexuals about 50 years ago and concluded Freud was evidently correct. The bible condemns lots of behaviors such as stealing for example. The bible must hate kleptomaniacs and be kleptophobic. BTW, isn’t pride one of the 7 deadly sins?

Briggs: “any kind of sexual activity not directed toward procreation and the preservation of the species is by definition disordered”

Lee Phillips: “This clearly includes coitus carefully timed by married Catholic couples to avoid conception (the so-called “rhythm method”).”

MattS: Technically (though I doubt that this was his intent) Mr Briggs comment would apply to any recreational sex even if no birth control was used.

“Objectively” disordered means “not ordered toward its proper object.” An archer who does not aim at the target is objective disordered. This is independent of whether or not he actually hits the target. From a Darwinian perspective, it’s hard to imagine any other object to the procreative act than procreation, even if one fails to hit the target each time.

This is independent of whether or not one has fun in the process. The proper object of eating is nutrition, but one may also engage in recreational eating. Yet there are nonetheless eating “disorders” such as binging and purging the “products of digestion” and the ingestion of substances that are harmful to the body.

Interestingly, ingestion and reproduction are two appetites of the vegetative psyche and are therefore in the sub-basement of our psyche. Given our Late Modern pursuit of the permanent vegetative state, it is no coincidence that an epidemic of single motherhood is running hand in hand with an epidemic of obesity.

Mr. Briggs,

[I]t is scientific because engaging in any kind of sexual activity not directed toward procreation and the preservation of the species is by definition disordered, which itself is a truth. This conclusion is simple biology, indeed the simplest, and is indisputable.

“It is scientific because … by definition…” I can just hear biologists sighing…

For your health, I hope your sexual activity, though none of my business, can be categorized as disordered by your definition. This is not to say that women over age 50 will not or should not get pregnant. Best wishes always.

I bet a smart person like you can imagine a good reason why it is called Pride Parade.

Sheri – I am think Prof Briggs is guilty of doing something he regularly logically skewers – the naturalistic fallacy.

He claims that homosexuality is biologically disordered and then moves to homosexuality’s position in the human moral landscape.

As is well known the naturalistic fallacy does not follow – the “is” of something’s existence in the natural world, is not a guide to the “ought” of its moral stature.

Homosexuality is not a biological disorder – no more than eusociality or the sexual habits of male dolphins are disordered. It is a wide-ranging behaviour within the natural world.

So, not only is the natural fallacy unhelpful due to its logical inconsistency, in this instance it is also unhelpful because the natural claims Prof Briggs is making are wrong, ignoring homosexualities place within the natural order – dolphins do it, sperm whales do it, albatrosses and penguins do it, even fruit flies.

Now let us move on to the moral issue – the only real issue here.

What is morally wrong with homosexuality. Prof Briggs raises sodomy, but sodomy is not an exclusively homosexual activity. Research shows that more women receive anal sex than homosexual men.

Safe sexual practices to stop injury and infection are moral goods of great benefit to society, and that advice can, of course, include abstinence and alternatives. I am in total favour of encouraging safe sexual practices, but there is a much bigger picture to homosexuality than just that. And please note far more people die from smoking related cancer than sodomy or HIV each year; in the moral arithmetic what is it that makes Prof Brigg’s pick homosexual practices to write blog pieces on?

Homosexuality is a rather minor backwater in the sum total of humanities unsafe sexual practices, but even that is not, in my view, the moral issue when it comes to homosexuality.

It is perfectly possible for a monogamous homosexual couple to practice safe consensual sex in a loving relationship.

Prof Brigg’s version of Christianity morally condemns this and wishes to brand it disordered and hopes those involved in such a relationship will repent their sin of loving each other in a consensual mutually supporting partnership.

Sheri, you want to compare this to bestiality and pedophilia – sorry, but no. If you cannot see the moral difference between two consensual adults freely choosing to love each other, whether physically or not, and bestiality and pedophilia, well then I doubt your moral compass.

A loving, safe sex practicing homosexual couple does not deserve your moral indignity.

Such couples contribute to our society and for them to be branded disordered by Prof Briggs is, in my view, hugely impolite and judgemental of him.

That is a shame, but que sera sera.

Chinahand
Yes, homosexuality occurs among many animals. I’ve never read anything though that places it as a fundamental relationship, taking a vital part in determining the ‘tribal structure’ of a herd or flock. What part does it take in pecking order in assisting the herd to sustain and perpetuate itself?

A common criticism –
“why do you care about what two consenting adults do in private?”
I don’t care. Why do you? And why should the state care, or even need to know about it. Go home and do whatever it is indoors please.

Gary in Erko – you need to learn more about marine cetaceans – homosexuality among their bachelor male pods is as important for them as it was for Sparta etc.

It’s a central part of their social fabric. Bonobos are the same, though in this case amongst the females.

Why do I care, because I think it is wrong to “other” a people in the way Prof Briggs is doing here.

Homosexuality is … a wide-ranging behaviour within the natural world.

Wait. Isn’t this simply another example of the naturalistic fallacy?

No it is an accurate observation.

I’ve already asked what is the moral objection to a safe-sex practicing monogamous homosexual couple.

Rather than getting hung up with observations on the natural world, what is the moral issue here?

Prof Briggs extols smoking – something which kills far more people than anal sex, and concentrates on homosexuals when buggery is more common in the population between heterosexual couples than gay men.

Is the issue homosexuality? – ok, lets talk about the moral issues behind homosexuality rather than trying to deny its role beyond the human world; something which is objectively false.

YOS,

Objectively” disordered means “not ordered toward its proper object.” … From a Darwinian perspective, it’s hard to imagine any other object to the procreative act than procreation, even if one fails to hit the target each time.

YOS,
Since I do know what sunglasses is for by its name, the object of so called “procreative act” is quite clear to me. But You are just begging the question.

From a Darwinian perspective, the function of procreation or reproduction is indeed to perpetuate the species, regardless of whether an organism reproduces sexually or not. Is procreation the only proper object of sexual activities? Can pleasure or bonding or something else be a proper object of sexual activities?

——
Well, this is indeed just another contemptuous and hateful post towards gay people. What follows from denying the hatred is

What follows from denying the disorder is that, sooner rather than later, it will come to be seen as wrong and immoral to disparage the acts. Saying “Anal sex is always wrong and destructive” will be “hate” speech. And when that happens yesterday’s marchers will be proud.

Chinahand: I doubt your sincerity in rejecting Christian morality on homosex but then damning those who love more than one woman, animals or children. Morally, children and animals have no choices and consent is irrelevant. You believe the consent argument allows you the “morally superior” position of accepting homosex, but not those practices you do not like, but it does not. It merely shows you area a hypocrite or someone who simply wants their own way and cares nothing of the truth.

Until the 70’s homosexuality WAS a mental disorder at which time it was VOTED out. Tell me how you “vote” a mental illness out. Pedophilia is a mental disorder—it can be voted out just as homosexuality was. It was for a brief period and will be soon because of the fact that you can’t draw the line you think you can. All sex is okay once you remove the male/female marriage requirement. ALL. Canada already made some sex with animals legal, so consent even to our northern neighbors is irrelevent.

Requiring consent is imposing YOUR morality on others. Many countries have arranged marriages and you are damning them for that. You moralistic cad. You are just mean and nasty and morally demanding. Not to mention desperate to avoid the truth of your position.

Chinahand: If children cannot consent to sex, they cannot be allowed to have sex with each other. Yet they are. So consent is just a big fat lie used to hide behind the reality that you are advocating an argument that allows all forms of sex.

smoking – something which kills far more people than anal sex

That’s consequentialism: the notion that a thing is good or evil depending on its consequences rather than on the nature of the thing itself. One may as well cherry-pick from Hume and cite the IS/OUGHT distinction.

Can pleasure or bonding or something else be a proper object of sexual activities?

Pleasure is an emotion which like all e-motions precipitates the motion. It is not the object of the motion. Now, nothing prevents an animal from seeking pleasure qua pleasure. But the object of the act need not be the intentions of the actors. Consider the elk in rutting season. The male is virtually compelled to seek out and copulate with some available female and to battle other males for access to her. (This, too, is “ubiquitous.”) The elk is not thinking of reproduction (or, indeed, thinking at all). It just wants the hurt to stop. (An interesting question: for animals that experience heat do they feel “pleasure” or “relief”?

As for bonding, you can achieve that without engaging in sex. I have bonded with many folks without sexing them or being sexed by them. Naturally, the face you see when your genitals explode becomes fixed in your mind as a sex object and you may bond so well you become a stalker. (I knew a guy who became a stalker. The man he met in the YMCA locker room decided eventually to go back to his wife, and he just could not let go. He talked about calling the wife, writing letters. He even showed up at the guy’s kid’s little league games. Eventually, we talked him down and he took up with another guy.)

However, bonding is what a design engineer would call a “secondary basic function.” or perhaps a “supporting function.” IOW, it is something the thing does that adds value or which enables and supports the “main basic function,” the reason the thing exists at all. An automobile is to provide transportation, even if driving it gives pleasure and it also provides satellite radio reception.
For discussion of function in design, cf.
Kai Yang, Basem EI-Haik, Design for Six Sigma New York: McGraw Hill Professional, 2003. and
L. D. Miles, Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961

Well, the reason pride is the choice word for the movement is because they had so long been shamed, as you are doing here, Briggs, a quite understandable reaction if you think about it for more than a few seconds. Recall how many in the black civil rights movement used power to react to their disenfranchisement. These are understandable reactions only an intemperate fool would confuse as masking some inherent flaw. You are the reason they use “pride.”

JMJ

So how does one discover the proper object of a given behavior using certain parts of the body? Is the proper object of the Ear to hear, or to balance? The mouth to speak, or to eat? The hands to type words on a keyboard, drive a car, or punch a Yankees Fan? Hand-use has many “proper objects”.

How then have we decided that certain specific parts of the body only have one specific use in an activity, and not many different uses (like the ear, the mouth, and the hand).

Essentially it seems you are saying:

Sometimes a man and woman engage in an activity using certain body parts that leads to the woman becoming pregnant. This act is hereby defined as the “procreative act”. This act has many biological and social consequences but we will ignore all of these except maybe the woman becomes pregnant. Other acts using these parts (and others) of the body lead to some of the same and some different biological consequences. Because these other acts are in some special ways similar to the procreative act, they are hereby termed “disordered”.

I hereby declare that it is objectively disordered to drink anything but water. The proper object of drinking is hydration. As beer and wine dehydrate, they are evils.

So, Chinahand is saying that homos are no better than animals.
(Nope, you don’t get to backtrack, this is what your argument unquestionably infers. Own it, be, “proud,” of your logic.)

Good to know.

You do know, being the great homo scholar you purport to be, that, “boy loving,” in ancient Greece and Rome was considered a deplorable act against the strictures of decency and dignity. In fact it was not only a grave insult for most, but also illegal in most periods of Roman culture and only vaguely permitted on the basis of the perversity of the ingroups which protected themselves from it and the difficulty of proving the perversity in court. Only becoming more common in the hedonistic days near the end of the Empire where the populace was more intent on getting their, “pride,” on than defending their nation from the savages.

Of course you did. You’re an honest fellow aren’t you? You wouldn’t dare utilize something out of context to support an idea completely contrary from the concept itself would you?

JMJ,

You need to learn the difference between the meanings of the word suppress and oppress.

It is right and proper to suppress evil, deplorable, and dangerous things like murder, theft, and homoism.

To suppress what is good and right is called oppression. So to suppress things like truth, dignity, and wholesomeness is oppression.

If you wish to suggest that the suppression of homoism is actually oppression, then the burden falls to you, leftist, to PROVE why homoism is not simply common but why it is GOOD.
These are not good answers:
“Because it is.” Begging the question/circular argument
“Animals do it.” Invalid analogy/Apples and Oranges
“Because it’s been around a long time.” Appeal to tradition (Murder and rape has been around for a long time too.)
“Love.” Non-sequitor
“Genetics.” Non-sequitor
“Your stupid.” Baseless and unrelated ad hominem

“You misspelled X,” is also an invalid reason.

Is the proper object of the Ear to hear, or to balance?

Yes. Except that by “ear” one must understand the entire structure from the outer sound-gathering apparatus to the aural neurons. Balance is of course the proper object of the vestibular system, which happens to be located within the ear canal. But that is no more significant than that the horn is co-located on the steering wheel. We don’t ask whether the proper object of the steering wheel is to steer or to honk? The reason we don’t ask that is because it has no direct implication for pleasuring your sex organ and you can consider it dispassionately.

The mouth to speak, or to eat?

Speaking is the proper object of the vocal chords, although they work in conjunction with the lips, tongue, and teeth. But so one wonders whether the proper object of the teeth is to chew or to form the sound of ‘t’ or ‘d’. Eating, of course, is the proper object of the stomach, where food is digested and passed into the body. You don’t eat with your mouth.

The hands to type words on a keyboard, drive a car, or punch a Yankees Fan? Hand-use has many “proper objects”.

The proper object of the hand is to manipulate objects. That should be evident from the word manipulate.

How then have we decided that certain specific parts of the body only have one specific use in an activity, and not many different uses

See the books referenced earlier, esp. Yang and El-Haik, Ch. 9 IIRC for the distinction between main basic function, secondary basic functions, supporting functions, harmful functions, and so on. The heart pumps blood and it also makes a thumping noise. No one supposes that the proper object of the heart is to make thumping noises and it pumps blood only incidentally to this.

Two functions can reside on the same part, but when they do they are generally separated in either space or time. For example, the well-known church key is designed to pop of bottle caps and to puncture tin cans. But these two functions reside at different locations on the piece. (In Aristotelian terms, they reside on different parts of the device.)

Sometimes a man and woman engage in an activity using certain body parts that leads to the woman becoming pregnant. This act is hereby defined as the “procreative act”. This act has many biological and social consequences but we will ignore all of these except maybe the woman becomes pregnant.

The Miles book on Value Analysis and Engineering referenced earlier explains the distinction between a function, why the function is performed, how the function is performed, and when the function is performed.

Do not confuse consequences with objectives. The proper object of the automobile is transportation. But in driving one I may get into an accident, with “many biological and social consequences.” But we can’t say that these consequences are in any way the objective of the automobile.

Because these other acts are in some special ways similar to the procreative act, they are hereby termed “disordered”.

In what way are these other acts similar? If they were similar, they would be properly ordered. Unless by “similar” you mean ‘imitation’ or ‘parody’ or something like that. But that is not why they are called ‘disordered’. They are called disordered if they are not ordered toward their main basic function (in engineering terms).

I hereby declare that it is objectively disordered to drink anything but water. The proper object of drinking is hydration. As beer and wine dehydrate, they are evils.

I’m not sure we can speak of doings rather than things as having proper objects, but I would have to read up on the subject. Beer and wine are evils, but only to the extent that they impair judgment, coordination, etc. and are thus a deficiency in a healthy mind in a healthy body. In ancient times, however, they were safer to drink than water or milk, because harmful bacteria could not flourish in alcohol. They are disordered, but not gravely so, unless drunk in excess. Ask women on college campuses what can happen when they drink too much.

Ah John, you provide yet another proof that conservative positions are born of the inability to understand that ol’ axiom, “there but for the Grace of God go I.”

JMJ

“The deliberate persecution of homosexuals is (a moral evil)”
Why?
Perhaps this persecution is justified in terms of encouraging generally heterosexual behavior and family formation.

There is also Pride in one’s country or one’s children or one’s achievement.
There is also “Proud to know you”–Americanism.

Here we have a common ploy of evasions in which the essence of the argument is drowned or lost in a pernickety flurry of peripherals.

That the whole of Creation was “denatured” by its rebellion does not predicate that the corrupted version is the perfect or perfectible version.

As I have been at pains to describe elsewhere, the corrupted version is inherently self-destructive… it is wasting away because there is nothing within itself that can cause it to be greater than it is… either morally or physically. That some of the brutes and beasts are degenerate according to their purpose should be no surprise to an observer unless that observer is egomaniacally committed to some ideology that assumes that everything is magically “perfecting itself”.

Look, you fellas, I’m getting tired of this. Eejuts who proclaim or rationalise the fashionable superstition that everything is in the process of perfecting itself, no matter how convoluted or abstruse their sophistry or rhetoric might be are still just eejuts.

Poofters, sexual pedophiles, and all other weirdos are exemplary moral degenerates. It is not an example of trending “evolutionary” perfection.

As a registered nurse, I don’t need a “Good Book” to tell me about the physical effects of anal or oral sex (regardless of the participants’ gender) or of promiscuity in all its forms. I’ve seen it firsthand. Anyone want the visual aids with the lecture? There is no such thing as “safe sex” except between those who pair up as virgins, remain monogamous for life, and avoid harmful practices, i.e. actions that don’t respect the body’s design.

Your GI tract, like the rest of your body, is an amazing piece of work. Mechanically speaking, your colon is the final absorptive conduit; its musculature promotes unidirectional movement. When the anal sphincters are violated repeatedly (i.e. penetrated from the “wrong” direction), they become damaged and normal function is impaired, sometimes permanently. Yes, I said “violated” because that’s the best way to describe the action, whether consensual or not, and whether it is penetrated with a male organ, or anything else that one can imagine inserting into the body. We could also talk about the effects of oral sex on both the giver and the receiver, mostly from viruses, if you really want some gooey truth with your morning coffee.

Can we handle the truth? Maybe not. Like Briggs said, this is basic biology – why, even a simple caveman lawyer can grasp it. Anatomically, a vagina is not a mouth or an anus, even though they’re all openings into which male organs can fit. Not only can the vagina handle repeated bidirectional “action” for a lifetime, but also the occasional result 9 months later. Furthermore, there is a complex “chemistry” between semen and vagina that promotes the health of the woman – a biological love story. However, when semen is present in the anus of a man or a woman, it can promote unhealthy inflammation among other adverse effects because the colon is absorptive in a way that the vagina is not. Yes, man and lady parts don’t just “fit” – they’re complementary in myriad ways.

Men having sex with men was common among decaying pagan cultures along with polygamy, militarism and other manifestations of machismo. Today, homosexuality is practiced in some Islamic cultures, embedded (bad pun, sorry) within relationships of power and submission. The initiator is viewed as superior to the one penetrated and men do not view sex with children as sinful. It’s “just” sex and the penetrated are “just” tools. Same as in the “enlightened” West. It’s those pesky, wet-blanket Christians who teach that men must faithfully, monogamously love their wives for life as Christ loved the church – giving up his life for her.

As a side note, since someone else mentioned the outdated rhythm method, I wanted to clarify that couples who practice fertility awareness methods of natural family planning are not using the rhythm method or messy (ineffective) withdrawal. I intentionally said above that conception is an “occasional result” because a human female is only fertile for about 1 day out of the month. It’s that spunky male sperm that lives for 3 days in the female tract that requires couples to abstain for one week per month in order to avoid pregnancy.

And, yes, there is an objective difference between abstaining from an act versus engaging in that act while intentionally suppressing the act’s natural outcome. Fertility awareness is not “Catholic birth control” because there is no need for artificial barriers to fertility like “raincoats” or cancer-promoting hormone therapy.

Ah, Jean!
Lots of what you said makes perfect sense, but this one, I think, needs some qualification.
[quote] It’s those pesky, wet-blanket Christians who teach that men must faithfully, monogamously love their wives for life as Christ loved the church – giving up his life for her.[/quote]

Chinahand to Sheri: “If you cannot see the moral difference between two consensual adults freely choosing to love each other, whether physically or not, and bestiality and pedophilia, well then I doubt your moral compass.”

Sheri to Chinahand: “If you cannot see the moral difference between a man and a woman freely choosing to love each other, whether physically or not, and two objectively disordered sexual desire practitioners loving each other, well then I doubt your moral compass.”

The statements are equivalent in logic and truth value. What it boils down to is Chinahand is imposing HIS/HER morality on everyone. Pure and simple. There is no justification whatsoever for his/her choice using the statements made.

JMJ: Pride in one’s ignorance and foolishness is really not a good thing.

Conservatives are not the only ones holding positions you disagree with, though you do not seem bright enough to understand that. I would also assume your compassion extends to those poor pedophiles being beaten up in jail—there but for the Grace of God goes you.

Nate: So you are saying an ear can be an eye if we want it to be?

Jean: Thank you for a rational explanation of sexual activity, based on science in your first three paragraphs. It is in no way true that “religion” is the only or even the best reason for not behaving in self-destructive behaviours.

Briggs,

What about the second picture? Some of us don’t judge and make conclusions by readings form just a picture. I like the picture because it annoys the hell out of people like you. Yes, “Woof-woof! Woof-woof!” You just don’t get it. (I am being mean here. I am, I know.)

YOS,

Efficacy and existence of alternatives do not tell me about “proper-ness” here. Neither the categorization of primary/secondary/tertiary function. I simply think that there is more than just the object of reproduction because that infertile couples, human beings they are, knowing they are infertile, still engage in sexual activities.

Thank you for attempting to answer my question. Perhaps, whether something is proper is not a scientific question that biologists explore.

Oldavid: Thanks for your comment. I’m drawing a blank on the qualification you had in mind, but I’m curious to hear more.

Briggs: Thanks for suggesting another look at the 2nd picture. Now the Barking Hillary “viral” video makes perfect sense. Guess she was at the parade to meet up with her Republican fact-check team.

Don’t know if the second picture says anything about hatred, the but caption obviously shows what a lie and how clueless this whole charade is.

infertile couples … knowing they are infertile, still engage in sexual activities

And sometimes do get pregnant, so ya never know. There are cases where, having given up on children a couple has adopted and then have gotten pregnant. (Beside, how would we know that a particular union is infertile before they perform the marital act?) As usual, Chastek gets to the nub of it:

We recognize a thing according to its ordering toward an end, not its success at achieving it. A business can be recognized as a business ordered toward making money even if it doesn’t make any.

And what if Adam and Betsy have sex and neither of them find it deep, intimate and meaningful? As, say, on college campuses these days. Would you use this as evidence that sex is not a deep, intimate, and meaningful sort of thing? If not, why cite non-procreative sex as evidence against sex being a procreative sort of thing? Not every sex act ends in orgasm, but would you claim that this means the act is just as ordered to not having an orgasm as to having one?

I don’t mean to interrupt, but given the state apparatus support of certain disordered behaviors – and attendant justifications thereof – the most appropriate action to take with chinahand’s comments is simply to delete them.

Arguments against his positions are well established and ancient and yes, the arguments can be long. The reason for the ascendency of his position in the minds of men is not its veracity or ability to convince, but rather, a combination of sophistry and state support.

YOS,

You said “Do not confuse consequences with objectives. The proper object of the automobile is transportation.”

Is it all about intent then? The *intent* of the designer and builder of the automobile is to create a system that will move a person about from A to B. So even if the automobile is a Yugo and routinely does not move anybody anywhere, it’s proper object is still moving people about? If there is no user manual that specifies the intent, all we can do is look to nature to see what the typical ‘car’ is used for most often? But you say that consequences are not objectives…?

So this leads to the question – How does one discover the ‘base function’ of any object, i.e., the intent of the designer in any way *other* than reviewing the consequences of common, similar objects, and making an inference (induction) that since many objects do X, the base function of those objects is X?

As an aside, this discussion makes me think of a wonderfully well illustrated and funny book by the author of The Way Things Work, called “Motel of the Mysteries”. An archaeologist in the far future digs up an ancient motel and proceeds to identify the common everyday objects there with ‘ceremonial’ or ‘ritual’ uses.

Nate: Wouldn’t that be just fine? Maybe the objects were ritual or cermonial or in the future they are used for such. This is not about objective identification, so what does it matter?

How does one discover the ‘base function’ of any object

Usually, it’s just freaking obvious. The proper object of the eye is light. The proper object of the ear is sound. The proper object of the skin is the tactile. And so on. (And of course, one must understand “eye” and so forth as the entire apparatus in question.) So the proper object of the reproductive act is, hmm, reproduction? Otherwise, why the high velocity sperm expulsion? Why the ovulation?

We are required to think of this behaviour as not only normal but something to be celebrated. Now all of you behave yourselves and do what the masters/mistresses tell us!
Meanwhile laugh at this!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/not-laughing-now-are-you-brussels-attacks-nigel-farage-over-brex/

He may not be nice but he has courage.

You’re not gay or bi or transgender or any of the other things in this increasingly long list. “Pride” refers to the gains the community has made in the last 50 years or so, attaining a modicum of acceptance, though still far from the unconscious acceptance of things the straight populace takes for granted such as the ability to engage in public displays of affection. I once dared to hold my boyfriend’s hand in public. None of this stuff actually threatens you. It never will. Your fascination with us borders on the morbid

“Usually, it’s just freaking obvious.”

Not if you say that consequences are not taken into account. How do we know the ear hears? We play soft noises and we note that when we cover our ears, we note the consequence that we longer hear the sound. “Obvious” simply means that we innately make the connection between the action and the consequence.

the ability to engage in public displays of affection. I once dared to hold my boyfriend’s hand in public.

Like when Richard Gere embraced a woman in public in India? Besides, most PDAs are in poor taste, as the old expression, “Get a room, fer Gawd’s sake!” would indicate. Dogging it in the park being perhaps the ultimate in bad taste.

when we cover our ears, we note the consequence that we longer hear the sound.

Okay, I’ll buy that. But I also note that when I move certain muscles in my head, my ears wiggle. Yet, it is fair to say that the ears are “for” hearing in a way that they are not “for” wiggling. That is, hearing is the main basic function of the auditory organ(s) and not a simple consequence of having them. By your account of mere “consequence,” you cannot distinguish between the heart “pumping blood” and the heart “making thumping sounds.” Yet heart-as-pump is more in the line of main basic function than heart-as-noise-maker. I think you may be over-analyzing when you should be synthesizing.

@ Chinahand:

You’ve said what I was thinking with far greater clarity than I could manage. Bravo.

YOS,

The skin is an organ of (1) protection, (2) sensation, an (3) regulation. Three functions. Well, I am not sure such analogy is appropriate, because sexual activities, though involving organs of the reproductive system, are not an organ or a system.

So Adam and Betsy may not find their sex meaningful, and my infertile, 60 year-old Uncle Pete and Aunt Susie may be surprised. This doesn’t logically imply that there cannot be other proper object to sexual activities.

Similarly, the fact that Misha and Michelle try to and may not get pregnant and that they can get pregnant without sexual activities (IVF) doesn’t prove the statement “procreation is a proper object of sexual activities” invalid.

Still what is the function, object, intent, whatever word you want to use, of the sexual activities for infertile couples? Nothing proper, judging from what you want to argue for, I guess. Well, I won’t tell Uncle Pete and Auntie Susie that they are engaging in improper sexual activities though, especially Uncle Pete is a pastor.

The skin is an organ of (1) protection, (2) sensation, an (3) regulation. Three functions.

Artifacts often have multiple functions, too! Just think, an automobile will play music on demand, air condition you to the required comfort level, move you from place to place, make honking sounds on demand, maintain a smooth ride, and so forth. Which of these can it not perform in principle and still remain an automobile? Hmm. An auto with a flat tire does not give a smooth ride, but it is still an automobile. It’s radio may go dead, but it is still an automobile. It’s horn may no longer work, but it is still an automobile. It’s air conditioner fail, but it is still an automobile.

Even if it’s engine or transmission fails and it becomes inoperable, it is still an automobile, and these failures are noted as primary failure modes precisely because they affect the main basic function, which failures of horn, radio, tires, etc. do not.

I think if you look at the three functions you listed and look at the skin in more detail, you will find that they are carried out by different parts of the skin. For example, the skin contains different receptors for pain and heat. But we may speak generically or specifically. That is, considering the skin in general we would cite a generic object. But speaking specifically, there would be specific objects. Just as a component in an artifact may carry distinct functions if they are separated in time or space, so too may a part of a natural body.

Still what is the function, object, intent, whatever word you want to use, of the sexual activities for infertile couples?

Those are three different concepts. The proper object of the reproductive act is reproduction. This has nothing to do with the intentions of the actors, the likelihood of success, or indeed their capabilities. Just as the purpose of a radio is to play music, news, talk, even if it is busted and actually plays nothing; even if you’re not in the mood and don’t turn it on.

YOS,

I cannot really discern your point by stating the fact that the three functions of the skin are carry out by various parts of the skin or which function is more important than others. (Without the protection of the skin, there might be a higher risk of death.) Analogy can only go so far.

Still, there is still no clue as to why there cannot be another proper object (other than procreation) to sexual activities. Not all sexual activities are reproductive acts. If they are qualified as reproductive act, yes, by way of circular argument, its proper object is reproduction.

Let’s just for the moment assume they are three different (overlapping, really) concepts concerning human activities, specifically, sexual activities. I still don’t see any answers to the questions: (1) what is the function of infertile couples’ sexual activities, (2) what is the object of infertile couples’ sexual activities, and (3) what is the intent of infertile couples’ sexual activities? However, I know reproduction is not a possible answer to those three questions.

It always comes down to the same thing: male, middle-aged religious fundamentalists always want to control peoples sexual activities. They are obsessed with doing so and will never stop. The only thing to do is kick them where it hurts.

It always comes down to the same thing: male, middle-aged religious fundamentalists always want to control peoples sexual activities.

This does not explain why every society on the face of the earth has historically evolved institutions to control sexual urges, even those in which concepts like “fundamentalism” (a 19th cent. Anglophone phenomenon) had no traction or in which relatively few survived to become middle-aged. You also overlook the role of the clan-mothers in controlling the domestic economy, esp. in protecting their daughters from randy young rogue males.

Besides, for the post-modern era, you have misidentified the groups that have been seeking to legislate their sexual appetites into law and deploy young women as the cannon fodder of the sexual revolution.

Malc: There is no “fascination” with sexually disfunctioning people, anymore than with a schizophrenic loudly proclaiming he/she is god and the world will end tomorrow. I’m sure the schizophrenic would like to be considered normal, too, as would the guy with 6 wives, the guy married to the 12 year old and the guy who thinks there are giant silver spiders living in his basement and no one will listen. Everyone wants to be taken seriously. I doubt you’d support a “pride” parade for people with giant silver spiders living in their basements or the male with the largest harems. I can see it now—”New York’s Grand Harem Day featuring Mateo and his 600 wives”. A truly beautiful site, I’m sure.

Nate: As long as we are talking using body parts for what they may or may not be intended for, I have heard that sheep have body parts that some cowboys and others have found unconventional uses for. I assume from your comments you’re fine with that. (JH may also be in agreement—it’s not clear if she’s calling IVF a sexual activity……)

YOS: Agreed on the PDA’s. Way too much of that and much of it completely insincere—little affection much of the time. It’s often considered a sign of insecurity and teenage lust.

Andyd: It always comes down to the same thing—anarchist adolescent 50 year old progressives want to behave like petulant children and avoid all consequences. The only cure is to let them and they can destroy themselves. Can’t come too soon, either. I’d throw in complete removal of all laws, just to speed things up. (No one wants to “control” sexual activities—but that’s the asinine argument progressives use. If it’s true, then speed limits should go, laws against theft—come on and admit you are advocating anarchy. The interesting thing is, should you get what you want, people can feel free to throw you off a tall building if their Islamic background so mandates. As noted, giving you what you want would be the most perfect punishment there is.)

These comments drip bile.

On form and function of the human body:
Tinnitus was a common reason for locking people in mental institutions in the past, so sure were they of their knowledge of the function of the human body.

The skin has many functions. You need a better physiology book. Gyton’s a good start.
The liver, for example, is said by school children to have nine but actually has about five hundred and counting. If one counts all chemical reactions it’s an unbounded number looking forward because all new drugs are broken down by the liver, each one a separate molecule. Each brand a fraction different from the next. There is so much we don’t know and yet those who don’t even work with the human body think we do because they’ve swallowed an argument that an old theologian has tied to physiology. So easily pleased.

Some on here seem to think we know all about the human body. We do not.

Sheri,
Utterly disingenuous as always from start to finish.
Malc,
Excuse Briggs banging on about self esteem he can’t help himself.

Chinahand,
Good arguments, pleasant, polite and truthful.

ME,
Farage isn’t unpleasant. How can you tollerate the remarks and comments on here and find him anything but mild?
Answer? because the media has told you what you’re supposed to say about him and ‘there’s no smoke without fire.”
He tells the truth.
He doesn’t object to people having self esteem either, imagine that!

(1) what is the function of infertile couples’ sexual activities,

Objectively speaking, the proper object of the reproductive organs remains reproduction. The ability of a particular couple to achieve that object is irrelevant. The proper object of the automobile remains transportation, even if the car becomes inoperative.

(2) what is the object of infertile couples’ sexual activities

See above. The proper object of the organs is not the same thing as whether the activities will achieve it.

(3) what is the intent of infertile couples’ sexual activities?

Activities do not intentions. Only people do. I do not know what their intentions are. The owner of a car may intend to drive it to Schenectady, but that is not generally the object of the automobile per se. And has nothing to do with whether the car will make the trip successfully.

That the proper object of the automobile is transportation, does not mean you can’t have fun driving it.

The argument, once again, seems to be between realists on one hand and on the other those positioned (for the time being) somewhere on the long greasy slope from nominalism to down to moral nihilism. Grasping at the notion of all powerful “consent” (which, with all the solidity of a gentle zephyr, magically grants license to any possible depravity) may place one near the bottom of that slope.
Still, never the twain…

Joy: These comments drip bile.

No, that’d be the function of the liver.

Joy: My dictionary begs to differ with your assessment.

acricketchirps: Well said.

The skin has many functions.

But only one proper object; to wit, the tactile.

The liver… has about five hundred [functions] and counting. If one counts all chemical reactions it’s an unbounded number

Surely not unbounded! That would be infinite.

But the question is not how many different functions are built onto a platform, but what is its proper object. In design work, some functions are secondary to the main basic function. The mbf of the automobile is transportation. But another of the many hundreds of functions performed by the automobile is the oil light on the dashboard, which warns of low oil pressure. We can say that detecting low oil pressure is one of the functions of the automobile; but it is not its proper object* and it certainly does not mean that it has no primary objective for existing.

So, is the liver more like an automobile or an oil pressure light?

IOW, when you list the hundreds of functions performed on the platform of the car or the of liver are you simply obscuring what the two assemblies are for, and confusing auxiliary functions with secondary functions with main basic function?

For example, WebMD tells us:

The liver’s main job is to filter the blood coming from the digestive tract, before passing it to the rest of the body. The liver also detoxifies chemicals and metabolizes drugs. As it does so, the liver secretes bile that ends up back in the intestines. The liver also makes proteins important for blood clotting and other functions.

Important to note: In all chemical processes, you can never do just one thing. An electrolytic cell series has the main basic purpose of producing chlorine gas, i.e., its proper object is chlorine gas (Cl2.) But in the course of doing so, it cannot help but produce caustic soda (NaOH) as well. It’s an inevitable result of the chemistry, but it is not the reason why electrolytic cells were designed and built.

Hence, in filtering the blood, various molecules are filtered out and must be disposed of and in the course of that disposition bile is produced as a useful byproduct. It’s not clear to me how “making proteins” fits in, since I don’t know the inputs and outputs for these. But it is not unusual for a platform to support multiple functions. What you usually find in such cases is that:
a) each function is really just the same thing only applied to different substances. For example, if the liver is said to metabolize hemoglobin, metabolize fats. metabolize carbohydrates, and to “help” metabolize proteins, one gets the sense that one of its functions is to metabolize stuff, let alone to specify each protein, each carbohydrate, each fat to be metabolized.
b) each function resides in different parts of the liver (separation by space on the platform) Are some of these functions carried out in different tissues or different lobes of the liver?
c) each function is performed at different times in a larger cycle (separation by time on the platform) as for example the breakdown of hemoglobin forms bilrubin, which then goes into making bile. It may be useful to consider the entire cycle rather than each phase or step, esp. if it is a chemical chain.

It may be helpful to consider the following useful classification used by design engineers:
Main basic function: primary purpose or most important action
Secondary basic functions: responding to other must-be needs
Nonbasic beneficial functions: esteem value, comfort, etc.
Supporting function: enables or supports basic and useful functions
Assisting function: assists other useful functions
Correcting function: corrects negative effect of a useful function
Harmful function: unintended, unwanted, negative actions caused by the method used to achieve a useful function

___________________________
(*) An object is different from a function and both are different from a technology (or design solution). A function is a means for achieving the proper object and a technology is a particular methodology that function. For example, the proper object of a tea bag — actually of the entire tea-making process — is a cup of tea. The function is infusion of the tea into the water, but this infusion can be achieved by different technologies: the tea bag, a tea-ball, loose tea leaves, etc.

@China Land and anyone else defending sodomy.

Virtually every country thus far that has accepted sodomy as “normal” has a low birth rate and legal abortion on demand practiced at high rates in the US alone 1 in 5 pregnancies ends this way. Even more telling is those subcultures which refuse to tolerate such acts, the Amish, Mennonites, Orthodox Jews etc… Have high fertility, low crime, very stable families compared to the average population etc… If there is any correalation between homo sodomy and the fecundity of a society it appears that it has a negative affect on the overall reproductive fitness of a population. One cannot forget that the acceptance and normalization of homo sodomy came directly after the “sexual revolution” sparked by the mass production of highly effective contraception and it’s subsequent ubiquoutous usage throughout society. That is before it was “normal” to enage in “safe sex” (a real misnomer seeing as pregnancy is the natured order if the sex act) the disordered nature of homo sodomy was more obvious to the masses. The reason pride in sodomy even exists now is bevause most heterosexual sex is sodomy. The culture is convinced full stop that sex is an orgasm, the reality of course is that an orgasm is a mere side effect to encourage mating. On TLC there is a show called “My Strange Addiction”, on which several individuals described enjoying the taste of non-food products everything from cigarette ash to nail polish, and they consumed such substances daily. I am waiting for the episdoe featuring a homo sodomite but I fear that my patience is in vain.

Eve, like others deliberately misses the point. It is not okay to be untruthful to win an argument. If you’re doing this you are bearing false witness. Just face it Eve, as a Christian you cannot win. I have never been someone who argues for homosexuality. However, I see such bad attitudes, unchristian, poor arguments and utterly distasteful remarks, I can’t stand and watch without comment. As for your presented evidence,

I think you’ll find that any society that encourages multiple births of reason are ‘more fertile’. It’s a rather obvious error of attribution. Statistics can’t prove cause either, get out of that!

The bible is there, the church is there the rules too. We all have responsibility for our own actions. Conscience is paramount. You cannot control others, nor should you try. For further to this read the last paragraph of this comment. I’m not about to embark on a switch the crime and win the discussion. Shame there’s not more commenters to point out these fallacies other than me. Where’s Bernie? 49r? Hilfi? Perhaps too mild mannered. They used to be pointed out but I’ve noticed since the change a tediously repetitive reference to bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia in a most dishonest and churlish way. No wonder it’s certain commenter’s favourite fallacy. Self esteem, foolish pride abounds!
___________
YOS,
I do believe you hope people don’t read properly. I will explain why.
” If one counts all chemical reactions it’s an unbounded number looking forward”
I did not use the word infinite for obvious reasons although it would do as long as the number is a whole integer and not a fraction. You missed the word going forward! You missed it out to reframe the argument. If we say that on the last day of the universe or of human existance which ever comes first you can be considered right to leave out ‘going forward’. For all practical purposes, the number that is true today won’t be true tomorrow or the next minute as the number of chemicals that the liver can catabolise is not fixed.

You are quite wrong about the skin on two counts,
1, about it’s having one function.
2what that main function is.

The liver DOES have hundreds of functions and counting. You must accept this or just deal in half truths.
There’s no point in debating unless to find the best arguments.

Same for skin. It’s naive that you think the primary function is sensation. Forgetting loss of bloodYou’d be dead in minutes without your skin and nothing to do with sensation although painful it would be.

I’m sure you’re thinking about lepers given that you normally rush to ancient literature history.

The most important function of the skin is homeostasis;

It forms a barrier against infections or invasion of foreign bodies.

Synthesis of vitamin D3: Conversion of dehydrocholesterol which is synthesised in the skin and which is broken down by UVB into cholecalciferol, a precursor of vitamin D3 in a process which is completed in the liver;

Protection from excess UV and infrared by the ‘remodelling’ of melatonin, each molecule acting as a little umbrella.

Temperature modulation, again in conjunction with the liver;

Production of sweat;

Breakdown of bilirubin in case of liver failure or jaundice; (with multiple causes)

Provision of attachment for connective tissue therefore providing increased surface area for muscle attachment.

Excretion of excess urea in particular when the kidney is not able to perform this function effectively as a result of, kidney failure (or chronic alcoholism, urea being an irritant and causing itching, red, scaley skin.

Assistance in gripping of the hand, the pattern of capillary ridges each involved in producing the right amount of moisture for increasing friction and suction depending on the object and surface.

On pretty, in certain places such as the dimples at the top of the buttocks and at the base of the spine, these are said to be there for no reason other than attraction of the male. The skin is attached to the fascia which is directly attached to the ileum bone ultimately.

On the face skin is attached in intricate ways to the underlying tissue to allow for expression;
The blushing reflex, well understood; (There are no sanctimonious octopi, the cognisant dissonance would be too great.)

The growth of hair, each one owning it’s own erector pilae, providing warmth, again homeostatic function, and acting as a secondary sexual characteristic;

The eyelid provides cover for the eye, we won’t go into eyelashes and lacrimal gland; also used in expression.

We won’t mention the foreskin;

The areola and nipple have well known functions as complex as you like;

The skin on the lips, like the areola is similarly structured. It is able to reproduce faster and repair quicker than the rest of the epidermis.
It’s sensitivity matched to it’s function;

The growth of fingernails, more useful on the hand than the foot but they are there for a very important reason other than the aesthetic or for certain females to attempt the proverbial eye scratch. They provide protection to the distal phalanx, (fingertip.) When you apply pressure the nail is a backstop, spreading the force and allowing the tip to give like a button on a sofa, again aiding grip, enabling plucking and dexterity of small objects. It prevents injury not just from percussive blows but from repeated pressure applied during gripping. On the foot this comes into play on the ‘toe off’ phase of walking where pressure is placed on the great toe in particular.

So, if you must have a most important function, for the skin it is homeostasis. It is the moat, drawbridge, and castle keep. It’s one big protection racket.

On tactile Sensation the skin does not act as one organ as in the case of the ears and eyes. Even the smell and taste functions act rather together.

On sex organs, the most important one is the brain.

The clumsy depiction of ‘appetites’ isn’t, yet again entirely accurate either and I’m not about to go into an argument about the brain.
The right has thoroughly lost this debate for good. Not least because of the manner of debate which is the level of the school playground. It’s high time you few who worry so about other people’s sex lives in such an altruistic way woke up. If you were really concerned for the moral wellbeing of others you would at least be consistent in your outrage which is entirely phoney. You care not for the souls of others but have a lust for disgust and want an excuse to feel superior. You have forgotten that all moral arguments are ultimately logically unwinable and dependant upon world views. This is on good authority, from W M Briggs years ago, it’s where I learned that point. Essentially they are won by consensus. We all just agree on the premises. Our values, beliefs must be aligned the same. You’d have done better to argue more politely and you’d have won more hearts and minds which is all that matters in the end. Some people aren’t good to have on side, they are a hindrance, a lose cannon. I’ve given up thinking anything’s about to change. Peter Hitchens was right, again.

The liver DOES have hundreds of functions and counting. You must accept this or just deal in half truths.

I take it you are not a design engineer, since the distinction between main basic function and various other functions seems to continue to elude you. Study the analogy to the functions of the automobile for instruction. See also the chapter on Axiomatic Design in Yang and El-Haik Design for Six Sigma. It’s not that difficult.

The distinction between objects and functions is also instructive. One may have many functions directed toward the same object. Think of all the functions carried out by Task Force 58 all toward the same proper object of securing the island of Iwo Jima.

Joy: No one is being dishonest, thought I’m really wondering if you even grasp honesty. Many comparisons presented are 100% applicable, the only problem with them is they lead to undesired consequences and the support of uncomfortable beliefs. You effectively argue that religion is worshipping Barney the Dinosaur (of the “I love you, you love me” fame—everything is equal and we’re all moral and happy). Complete removal of rules is actually that antithesis of religion. It’s practiced by false prophets and is quite effective, judging by Hillary and her “Kumbaya” diplomacy ideas. ISIS has not bought into the idea, but I’m sure if we are just “nice” enough, it will happen.

Sheri,
No, you are reframing, nay inventing an argument that I haven’t made and then by implication expecting it to be defended. If you are not a christian and you are defending christian doctrines, you’ve chosen a sticky wicket because as I said to Eve, as a christian, you cannot win. You will always find contradiction and you will always be accused of being found lacking. I mean by this not you per se but you who is defending Christianity or being a Christian and defending Christianity. It is by it’s nature powerful in example rather than in argument, since no theist can prove the existence of God. I hope you can tell the difference between what I am describing and not mistaking me for someone who does not believe in God. HILLARY IS IRRELEVANT! Briggs is naughty bringing her up!

You do not describe christianity. You are describing your own invention of it and saying that I have invented something. That is, I hope an error on your part.

You do you see the difference between Hillary and a professed christian?
She isn’t teaching the gospel and frankly the argument you defend given by the above isn’t a christian attitude either. Whatever the rights and wrongs of homosexuality.

“let he who is without sin cast the first stone”,
Don’t get stuck defending the indefensible.

The pope recently spoke about the need for more love. I noted certain distain at this announcement. You don’t have to wear this attitude. This is what he means, not a dressed up phoney version but the real thing as taught by Jesus.

Sanctimonious people hate to be shown the contradiction in their arguments.Since we’re on the subject of self esteem, the sanctimonious Christian’s is built on the axiomatic belief that they must be right at all costs.

These types of individual are the reason that people take absolutely no notice of what they say and become wayward. Yet they do not listen and they’re not listening still, as the song goes.
Most people don’t read the bible first to come to the faith. It is incumbent on
genuine christians, not intellectual snobs who have in truth no faith or hangers on, to bear witness by their behaviour and attitude. They are the real face of Christianity. The pope has come to this conclusion recently. However, as I’ve said before, people don’t change their minds, they die.

I think homo supporters need to ask themselves, is a car that has an amazing stereo but an inability to drive better than a car that has no radio but drives optimally with incredible mileage per gallon? The answer is obvious, (I would hope). We know the latter car is the better car because the primary function of a car is driving, I mean if lisening to music was it’s primary function a car would be quite an ineffective and impractical means of doing so–talk about a waste of metal, glass, and rubber. Likewise if the primary function of sex was “bonding” wouldn’t a hug suffice? The whole excercise seems expedient.

See, even if someone were to argue that homosexual acts “are not bad” they could not validly argue that they are better or even on equal footing with the heterosexual act (which is what the pride movement is attempting to do). The latter is not only capable of all the non-reproductive benefits of sexual acts (bonding, intimacy etc….) it is BETTER at doing so, (hetero relationships have a much higher longterm success rate compared to homosexual relationships), and also has the ability to produce offspring which is an absolute necessity for the survival of the human race and was the ONLY way to do so for the overwhleming majority of human history (even IVF is a heterosexual union in principle). Homosexual acts on the other hand are more like our broken car with the stereo system, and even that analogy is weak, since homosexuals are better at spreading HIV then they are at “bonding”, and forming long lasting relationships–hmm makes you wonder if that is their “primary function”? Meanwhile, heterosexuality is like a car that can drive AND has awesome stereo.

Since the homo pride movement is about EQUATING homosexuality with heterosexuality the entire movement is flawed. And deep down I suspect we all know this, even the LGBT affiliates. For I could try and sell un-drivable cars with sub par stereo systems but at the end of the day the guy selling cars that can drive will put me out of business, and so will the guy selling stereo systems–that one could actually bring into their home.

YOS,
“I take it you are not a design engineer,”
How funny, nope, nor does one have to be one to understand the obvious. You made the point several times above, I noted that point.

However you obfuscate by dodging the correction. ‘Skip it!’

“Since the distinction between main basic function and various other functions seems to continue to elude you.” That isn’t what you actually said before. nor is it at odds with what I ACTUALLY wrote.

when you insist on the singular linear function of the skin you are being inaccurate. Still for the same reasons. So who is missing the point? The skin’s functions are in conjunction with and coupled with other parts of the body. It is the same for sex organs.

The human body is not separable in the way that a car can be dismantled and parts distinctly separated. This point continues to allude you and I know why.
We’re hitting on it again, just as with the soul discussion.

However since you are of the ED F camp, you will fail to acknowledge, I won’t insult you by saying understand as you might do.
You will no doubt come back with the mechanical heart valve or the transplant organ but you will also know that this is not a simple switch either. The fewer functions the organ, the more successful the transplant. All implants and transplants carry complications and come at a cost of reduced function elsewhere in the system. Even joint replacements. It is only the adaptability of the human body that gives the illusion of linearity.

” Study the analogy to the functions of the automobile for instruction. ”
“it’s not that difficult”
No, it’s not but I’m not reading the book you mention any more than you’re about to buy a physiology book to learn how the body is a complex system with hundreds of coupled functions and feedbacks.

It is not necessary, other than as a point of interest or to give a source of an assertion to include any ‘special’ written information either by link or reference. The argument, if it is a logical one, must stand on it’s own merit. I am always more than happy to have mine straightened up or corrected but in this case with respect to the objections I made about your argument I am not mistaken.

The analogy you offer as an argument is not based on the truth about the body. It relies on an ideal.
The: electronic, analogue and digital, hardware firmware and software mechanical design engineers who I have known and know of don’t refer to the terminology you speak of. They sit down and invent, design and come up with the goods. They are producers.

They do not pontificate about the words they must use to describe their process. They do not argue about whether to call something an object or or an objective or a function or a form. These words all have simple definitions. If the engineer is just a design engineer, of course they put “form over function”, I am thinking of Apple in particular, (also a distraction.)

None of that is relevant other than you brought it up to the argument about homosexuals and whether they should feel proud.
The important question is:

At what point does dignity and self esteem turn into a vice of puffed up hubris and sinful pride? A rhetorical question.

Eve, the above argument you posted is lazy, curt, harsh, distasteful, unoriginal, faulty and therefore a waste of time Yours and mine. Read my reply to YOS.
I don’t care who you are or who you think you are.

Analogy does not prove an argument is correct.
Yet still, the same old chestnuts are wheeled out over and over.

Put your boney finger back where it belongs, next to the others and try more full creamed milk with added sugar.

@Joy

“It is not okay to be untruthful to win an argument”

Where did I lie? And if I recall Paul called homo acts “unnatural” and “shameful” I wonder if people like you even own a Bible.

“Statistics can’t prove cause either, get out of that!”

Well I was using stats to disprove not prove anything. An argument was made in defense of homosexuality claiming that it benefits reproductive fitness, the actual numbers suggest that so called “homophobia” is what promotes reproductive fitness. Pro Homo NYC has about 1.5 live births for every abortion, and that number includes the babies born to the large “homophobic” Orthodox Jewish communtiy living there in which the average family has 6-7 children more than three times the national average. Now it’s possible that this is a mere “coincidence” however what is does prove is populations can produce tons of babies just fine without gay pride parades.

Joy: How I wish Hillary were irrelevant.
Nope, I’m following the traditional Christianity before the progressives drove a truck through the doctrine.
Nice quote on “without sin” but I can “prove” anything taking quotes completely out of context. We call that “dueling quotes” and it leads no where.
Jesus did not invite people to gay pride parades nor did he profess it was a good thing for people to do. He was pretty clear on this.
Sanctimonious is what people with very weak morals call people with very strong morals. (I would also note that sanctimonious is usually associated with people preaching without an invitation to do so. Participating in a discussion on morality is an invitation to be preached to. If you don’t want preaching, don’t participate.)
It is NOT better to be happy than right, though that does seem to be the idea. Kiss everyone’s behind and pretend you agree with them. That’s how we got to this mess—complete capitulation to evil and bad behaviour. (Bet you’re still saying ISIS would be nice if only we were.)
Real Christians don’t attend gay pride parades and pretend that homosex is not evil.
I really don’t care what the Pope concluded.

Eve: Well said. I doubt Joy cares what Paul said in the Bible. The Church of Barney only cares about love and conciliation, not truth.

when you insist on the singular linear function of the skin you are being inaccurate.

What is a ‘singular linear function’? I have not insisted on that at all. Only that every sense or thing has a proper object. It might employ many functions to achieve that object or to support it or to handle the consequences. Nor does it exclude secondary objects, as well.

The skin’s functions are in conjunction with and coupled with other parts of the body.

Who said otherwise? One of the evidences of soul is the wholeness of the living body: that it functions as a singular being rather than as an assemblage of parts. That is the difference between natural telos and artificial telos.

The human body is not separable in the way that a car can be dismantled and parts distinctly separated.

Exactly. You are coming around to the Thomist pov! The mechanistic view of the naturalist is incomplete. Analysis and reductionism can be useful, but not without synthesis to bring it all together.

However since you are of the ED F camp

I’m not sure what an ED F camp is.

It is only the adaptability of the human body that gives the illusion of linearity.

I don’t know what you mean by linearity. By me, linearity means that the derivative is a constant.

The: electronic, analogue and digital, hardware firmware and software mechanical design engineers who I have known and know of don’t refer to the terminology you speak of.

Not everyone is self-conscious about their own work. They just “do it” and don’t analyze what they do. The same is true in most professions. There are novelists who could never teach a course in how to write.

They do not argue about whether to call something an object or or an objective or a function or a form. These words all have simple definitions. If the engineer is just a design engineer, of course they put “form over function”, I am thinking of Apple in particular, (also a distraction.)

I hope they do not put form over function! Are you thinking of “design” from a visual arts point of view, like fashion design or furniture design or mere styling? That’s not how it works. The first thing a product designer asks, even if it’s not clean-sheet work, is “What is this thing supposed to do?”

When there is more than one thing to do, these must be separated in space or time. Either by placing them on different parts of the platform (in which case we have two different things which happen to reside on the same component, such as the bottle opener and can opener on a ‘church key’) or by activating them at different times on the duty cycle, such as the heating and chilling of a wire-drawing die when the pull is active versus when it is paused.

A function is expressed as subject-action-object; so it is hard to describe a function without knowing what its object is. A toothbrush (subject) cleans (action) teeth (object), so its proper object is “cleaned teeth.” This would be true even if you used a toothbrush for scrubbing grout on your tiles. This would be an objectively disordered use. A brush designed specifically for scrubbing grout would have bristles made of different materials, have a differently shaped handle, etc.

Clean-sheet design would express the function as “tooth-cleaning device” removes “particles in teeth.” That is, would be expressed without any specific technology in mind. Hence, the water-pick as an alternative.

This sidebar started because that an organ might host multiple functions was stated in response to the concept of proper object as if it were an objection. It seemed to me to stem from a confusion of object with function, so I offered the automobile as an example of a thing that had many functions (like the liver) but also one proper object (transportation), simply to show that the Objection of the Liver was not cogent to the original point.

It has long been my view that Briggs’s line about self esteem is not the way to win an argument. Rather it is the way to start one. I understand that this is the purpose of most of the posts and so take much with a pinch of salt. However since I have been reading this distain for self esteem for eight years now I think it’s worth exploring. Self esteem is a virtue, like self respect and dignity.
Vanity, hubris and selfish pride are vices. I wonder how many intellectuals suffer from vanity? How many from hubris? Hmm.
It says a lot about someone who would begrudge another’s self esteem.

Sheri, I am not convinced by your claims. You are hanging onto coattails.
Where exactly did your moral remark come from? Just who do you think you are talking to?
Eve,
Yes I have several, christening, bridesmaid, sunday school, confirmation, and Gideon’s . None of any use!
The braille bible is in sixty volumes, each one larger than A4 and as yet I rely on the internet. Oh, yes.
It’s not enough to own one Eve, some of the chapters are not about sodomy. You have to actually read it. Then you have to try and live like it means something to you. Not as though it means something to the pope or your favourite priest. That’s no disrespect to The Pope.

YOS,
I am not ‘coming round” to anything.
The position I take hasn’t altered since the topic of all things gay and homosexual were recently brought up. See comments from November or December and you will be in the picture about what my position is. I do not share the lust for disgust that you and your fellows do and here’s why.

Men, as a rule, if they are straight find homosexuality disgusting. I don’t like the thought but I am able not to think about it.
This makes yours and others positions and comments utterly mundane and without claim of morality in my view for it is rather a normal response not to like the prospect if you are straight. For this reason I see through the disgust and supposedly high morals! That is laughable. Highly moral to be disgusted by homosexuality. What an easy target.

What I see and strongly suspect is a religious backdrop to bolster a gut reaction. It is, it seems to me, a certain type of sanctimony that actually lusts after talking about it. Positively salivating at the thought of another opportunity. So forgive me for not being impressed. Not only has the right lost this battle, it’s rather boring now. As I’ve said before it is for each individual to mind their own morals along with their own business.

I am fully behind objections to forcing people to go against their conscience in matters of civil law.
I’ve commented clearly on that. I do not agree with PC laws, quoters, speech laws and the rest but I’m not about to take moral lessons from people

1 who I don’t know from Adam,
or
2 who are showing all signs of disingenuousness.
or
3 who’s knowledge of being christian and of the bible is as good as it is on the mating habits and plight of the mountain chicken frog.

(Incidentally, Steven Fry reports that he finds the thought and sight of female bits positively scary and unpleasant, imagine that!)
His opinion of the bible is that it is hilarious. That’s what you’re up against.
Better find a sweeter song to sing. There are a lot of homosexuals who are currently not allowed to come to christianity or have their chances reduced to highly unlikely and it’s not helped by the likes of Eve, Sheri or yourself.
Jesus taught love not hate. You are supposed to hate the sin not the sinner.
Everyone’s a sinner.

I am not ‘coming round” to anything.

Ah, then your agreement with Thomist psychology was accidental, and we cannot expect logical consistency to lead either to its abandonment or to acceptance of logically annexed conclusions.

I do not share the lust for disgust that you and your fellows do

Neither do I. By me it is a straightforward logical deduction. But one kind of fornication is no more reprehensible than any other kind, save for the greater likelihood of disease and damage. We don’t react to kleptomania — to take a different example — with ‘disgust,’ but that doesn’t mean society should tolerate petty thievery simply because the urges are “natural” or even that they are difficult to resist. The proper response is compassion, not disgust.

Men, as a rule, if they are straight find homosexuality disgusting.

Men’s sex magazines often feature female homosexual acts, so you must mean they are put off by specifically male homosexual acts. The fact that this is cross-cultural and cross-temporal is instructive and may indicate that the reaction is just as inborn and “genetic” as homosexual behavior is said to be. Why homosexuals are thought to be helpless objects storm-toss’d by their urges while everyone else is the master of their instinctive response is a mystery. It seems to reduce the homosexual to a bundle of autonomic reactions while endowing everyone else with agency.

At least it doesn’t merit the death sentence as it did in Republican Rome.

Joy: My remarks come from my studies. I am never really sure who I am talking to when responding to you, so I can’t answer that question.

I’m waiting for the Bible verse where Jesus told homosexuals their behaviour was a-okay and he’d be coming over for the gay pride parade. I can find nowhere that it is said that sin should be celebrated and flaunted, except on Satan’s side.