Zaid said:

We contribute nothing to the gene pool and 100% of our sex lives are in the pursuit of pleasure. Heterosexuals not only get to enjoy sex but also have an opportunity to create something with it. Heterosexuals contribute to society with reproduction. Homosexuals complain society isn't nice enough to us and that definitions should be bent to fit with our feelings. (I'm speaking very generally here.)

---

Zaid said:

You're entirely missing my point. The fact that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system." is not governed by the physicist. He didn't write it down and suddenly all of reality started following that rule. It was a rule created at the beginning of the universe that the physicist merely discovered and put into words.

Edit: I suppose saying "created at the beginning of the universe" puts a bit too much faith in Science. What I mean to say is that the law would have existed and reality would have followed it regardless of whether or not the physicist was ever aware of it existing.

---

Zaid said:

It was asserted in the biblical story, not by me. Take it more as a fable than a law of the universe.

---

Quote:

So just because homosexuals don't add to the population, that makes them hedonistic?

There are plenty of sexually  active heterosexuals that are not procreating. Are they all hedonistic?

---

Quote:

Not to mention, just becasue you do some things purely for the pleasure of it, does not make you a hedonist.

---

Quote:

I was nailing down the miscommunication.

I'm just trying to get you to assert what you think the natural order is; put it into words.

We haven't even got past "what is it?" Let alone, does it exist.

---

Quote:

Now I'm confused. Are you saying the biblical story asserted the existence of a "natural order"?
Because that's what I was talking about, and it seemed like you asserted it's existence.

---

Quote:

If your joking around in here mostly cool, but sometimes it seems like you are very serious in a lot of the statements you make in regards to your outlook on life, and that outlook seems bleak.

---

Quote:

Check this book out. I wrote an English paper on it back in 2008-09 (if you care to read it). You seem to inject a lot of religious tones in relation to homosexuality and seem to interpret certain things a certain way. This book was enlightening and I hope you read it.

---

Quote:

"Yes, because it serves no purpose other than pleasure".

Is there something wrong with this?

---

Zaid said:

Yes, because it serves no purpose other than pleasure.

By definition, in that moment, it actually does. At the very least it's performing a hedonistic act.

---

Zaid said:

I can't say because it's too big of a scope for me. We as a species over hundreds of thousands of years barely have any answers, how am I supposed to answer it alone? It's a moral story anyway.

---

Zaid said:

If we cut down an excess of trees for wood to build luxurious homes are we not left with deserts in the place of former forests? I'm not exactly sure how to put into words what I'm thinking here but it's something along those lines.

---

Quote:

There is no such thing as a hedonistic act.

---

Quote:

Homosexuals are not hedonistic.

---

Quote:

Since its too big in scope for you, I guess homosexuality could very well be the natural order of things, just out of your view.

---

Quote:

Yes, balance will be maintained.

but was the forest more natural than than the desert?
Or was the creation of a desert part of the natural order?

My point here is that "the natural order" you're referring to doesn't exist. It is only perceived by a 3rd party, through their biases and desires.

---

Zaid said:

This is absolutely false. Getting intoxicated for no good reason is an example of a hedonistic act. (And you end up with a hangover to balance.)

---

Quote:

No, its an example of someone trying to enjoy themselves. This is no way makes them a hedonist.

All humans seek pleasure, it doesn't become hedonistic until that pleasure is the meaning of your existence.

---

Quote:

But anyway, if by "homosexuals are hedonistic" all you meant was they like to enjoy themselves (like all humans) then I guess I don't really care to argue against that point.

---

Quote:

I think it's important to note that it isn't inherently hedonistic to be attracted to the same sex or even to fall in love with a member of that sex but it is hedonistic to pursue sex for the sake of pleasure.

---

tyrannicalrex said:

Not much time tonight, And I'm sure you've heard it before. If your joking around in here mostly cool, but sometimes it seems like you are very serious in a lot of the statements you make in regards to your outlook on life, and that outlook seems bleak. IDK, I'm catching a vodka buzz right now too, so..............

---

I'm still not totally certain if this was meant to be addressed to me or Zaid... eh, he got it.

I argued so much I passed my 420th post!

Zaid said:

I disagree. Any act for the sake of pleasure can be hedonistic regardless of whether or not pleasure is the meaning of your existence. Just because you've slept with a member of the same sex doesn't make you a homosexual. But it was a homosexual act. Same idea.

---

Quote:

I think it's important to note that it isn't inherently hedonistic to be attracted to the same sex or even to fall in love with a member of that sex but it is hedonistic to pursue sex for the sake of pleasure.

---

Quote:

The way I see it, homosexuality is a self-proclaimed label. Hedonism is a label describing someones ideology.

---

Quote:

But at this point, we're just arguing semantics, not points.

---

Word. I don't see much use in going any further unless you do.

You made me think a lot though and even got me to acknowledge my own biases about certain things and for that, we thank you. Good stuff, man. Happy 420 posts!

Zaid said:

Going back a bit, I think it's less about labels and more about the act of doing something for the sake of pleasure which causes a negative counter balance. As I see it, suffering causes pleasure in the long run and pleasure causes suffering in the long run. As you pointed out, "balance will be maintained". It's a zero sum from what I can tell.

---

Zaid said:

Word. I don't see much use in going any further unless you do.

You made me think a lot though and even got me to acknowledge my own biases about certain things and for that, we thank you. Good stuff, man. Happy 420 posts!

---

Well don't ask me, I'll argue semantics for an eternity

Thanks man! enjoyed the discussion.