But it's still heterosexual sex. Saan ang deviation dun?
Sabi mo against "the intended design of nature" (whatever that is), so M-F anal sex is not an intended design kasi penis vagina dapat. Im just following your logic.
If you consider the altruism as not being able to produce any offspring, then should the same thing be said about zoophiliacs & yung may mga object sexuality?
Since both of those are considered sexual deviancies, do you agree then that homosexuality is also a sexual deviation?
Altruism is giving way to the more able part of the population to reproduce instead of them. Altruism is not being able to provide any offspring.
As far as the facts known to us, iba ang psychopathology ng zoophiliacs at may object sexuality (paraphiliacs). Homosexuals can function well, adapt and adjust in society same as the straights. Zoophiliacs and people with object sexuality are usually diagnosed that they can't. Their sexual behavior debilitates their social functioning.
So standpoint palang ng psychopathology, hindi naman deviance ang homosexuality.
If it was alright to kill, you probably would have done it too.
Probably. Case-to-case basis lang siguro. Besides, there is still a world of difference between just fantasizing & acting out your fantasies. Sino ba sa atin ang hindi nagpantasya kahit minsan sa buhay nila?
Yun nga sinasabi ko. Kahit may pantasya ibang tao, dapat objective tayo sa mga views nila. Trust and verify. You fantasize about incest and office massacre, I dont take that against you. KUng ano sabihin mo dito dapat hindi bahiran ng ad hominem. Yun ang point. And we should extend that same objectivity with Kinsey and co. Di dahil may positive view sila sa isang taboo na bagay, mali na sila agad.
LOL it's really funny how science that you agree with is OK, but easily dismiss the science you don't agree with. Sino ngayon sa atin ang may double standard?
And these "deviant sexual fantasies" of theirs will never make their research/studies biased towards it, right? Not even the slightest? Wow, that would be unethical. I mean, they're scientists, right? Scientists should always be objective, right?
Ano double standard diyan? Ano dinismiss ko? LOL Sobrang objective na nga ang sinabi kasi kahit may iba pa siya views sa akin, ang sabi ko ang mahalaga ay sound science. You mentioned bias. That is true. There will always be bias. Kaya nga may
scientific consensus at peer review. Whatever Kinsey finds out, that doesn't stay with Kinsey. He has to always submit to scientific peer review. Kaya nga may mga instances na kinorrect yung samples niya ng harvard o ng sweden.
Peer reviews maintain the objectivity.
Let me get this straight, you think that pederasty/pedophilia is not right because you were conditioned to view it negatively & not because it's just plain wrong & immoral? This speaks A LOT about your beliefs & value system.
E kung tama at maganda sa kanila yun? Ano magagawa natin? What is wrong and immoral is just a point of view and arbitrary.
I don't agree with pedophilia because i think children should have the time to play and experience childhood. Pero si mohammad and his society would think that consummating marriage with a 9 year old kid is right as well. Mali sa akin. Tama sa kanila. Sinong tama? Sinong mali? Sino may moral ascendancy to impose to another?
If he rapes my kid, di tama sa akin and he will answer to my society's laws. If I marry one of their kids, ok sa kanila, at legal ang kasal. Welcome to planet earth.
Bakit hindi nila binalik ulit considering na ilang centuries na naging parte ng "culture" nila yun? Bakit yung ilang aspects ng culture nila ginagawa pa rin hanggang ngayon pero ang pederasty hindi na? Oh yeah that's right, they found it appalling so they enacted age of consent laws.
Or they just succumbed to the cultural hegemony of the age. Nagiba lang yung arbitrary point of view nila sa morality as a society. Kung naiba yung victors ng history, iba din magiging morality natin ngayon. Not because somebody thinks it is not right, may nanalo lang at may na conquer na mas nakakarami.
