fucking-amal.com
A forum dedicated to Fucking Åmål, Lukas Moodyson's other films and anything else that would seem related ;).
Shocked
Moderator: Ian
25 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
by kant1781 » Mon May 08, 2006 10:41 pm
Well I hope it's not only sexuality that shows that we're not machines!
(And you should know better Anny... you must have seen the All Is Full of Love video!)
Apart from that, frankly, I don't even understand what it means to say that homosexuality is "unnatural".
Does it mean that there is no homosexual behaviour in nature? If so, the idea is just wrong. There are lots of homosexual behaviour amongst animals. And, even more obviously, human beings too are natural creatures, and some of them are homosexuals. They don’t seem to be less natural than anybody else. There may be more hetero- than homosexuals, all right. And? There are more right-handed than left-handed people too. Does that make being left-handed "unnatural"?
Does it mean that homosexuality seems to be "useless" from the point of view of the reproduction of the human species? If so, it certainly is. But then, millions of other things that human beings do aren’t useful to that goal either, many of them are even downright harmful. What about smoking - kills you, kills other people, harms your offspring. Does that make smoking therefore "unnatural"?
Or does it mean that homosexuality should be morally deplored because it is useless seen from the point of view of reproduction? If so, that idea is just wrong. There isn't anything more stupid, dangerous and inhuman than to try and derive morals and norms from "nature" (as Kolya said). If we want to know whether something is right or wrong, why should we even consider whether "animals do it too"?! Some of the very best things that humans do are things that have no parallel at all in nature. Letting your offspring die or killing it if it was born prematurely is natural. That's what animals do. So is it morally good therefore? Bullshit!
What matters is: Does something make people happy or unhappy? Does it make them free or unfree? Does it make our society just or unjust? Does it make our way of life richer or poorer? These things have nothing to do with biological survival. They don’t concern life as such, but a good life. A human life.
(And you should know better Anny... you must have seen the All Is Full of Love video!)
Apart from that, frankly, I don't even understand what it means to say that homosexuality is "unnatural".
Does it mean that there is no homosexual behaviour in nature? If so, the idea is just wrong. There are lots of homosexual behaviour amongst animals. And, even more obviously, human beings too are natural creatures, and some of them are homosexuals. They don’t seem to be less natural than anybody else. There may be more hetero- than homosexuals, all right. And? There are more right-handed than left-handed people too. Does that make being left-handed "unnatural"?
Does it mean that homosexuality seems to be "useless" from the point of view of the reproduction of the human species? If so, it certainly is. But then, millions of other things that human beings do aren’t useful to that goal either, many of them are even downright harmful. What about smoking - kills you, kills other people, harms your offspring. Does that make smoking therefore "unnatural"?
Or does it mean that homosexuality should be morally deplored because it is useless seen from the point of view of reproduction? If so, that idea is just wrong. There isn't anything more stupid, dangerous and inhuman than to try and derive morals and norms from "nature" (as Kolya said). If we want to know whether something is right or wrong, why should we even consider whether "animals do it too"?! Some of the very best things that humans do are things that have no parallel at all in nature. Letting your offspring die or killing it if it was born prematurely is natural. That's what animals do. So is it morally good therefore? Bullshit!
What matters is: Does something make people happy or unhappy? Does it make them free or unfree? Does it make our society just or unjust? Does it make our way of life richer or poorer? These things have nothing to do with biological survival. They don’t concern life as such, but a good life. A human life.
-
kant1781 - Crew Member
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: Berlin
by Kolya » Tue May 09, 2006 1:16 pm
Swedish scientists: Brain of lesbians reacts singularly
Automatic translation of the article
Original German article
Gist: There is a physical base to human homosexuality that can be proven by the processing of pheromones.
Automatic translation of the article
Original German article
Gist: There is a physical base to human homosexuality that can be proven by the processing of pheromones.
- Kolya
- Gold Member
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:57 pm
by Nemo_Me » Tue May 09, 2006 11:57 pm
Kolya wrote:Nemo_Me wrote:Actualy homosexuality is natures way of making sure that we don't over populate the planet.
You must be kidding...
It has been proved with animals. If there are too many of them they start having sex with their own gender. I'm not saying humen do it so they won't overpopulate but I'm just saying that proves homos are not a failure of nature.
Meaning of Nemo. Nemo is a latin word and means nobody. And therefor I will be Nemo forevermore.
I'm an angel, angel of the universe, who doesn't belong.
I keep on hearing tunes, yet no one has turned on the radio.
I'm an angel, angel of the universe, who doesn't belong.
I keep on hearing tunes, yet no one has turned on the radio.
- Nemo_Me
- Faithfull Member
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Iceland
by jaret » Wed May 10, 2006 4:29 am
i expresed my opinion and i'm glad everyone said something about it.
i did tried to say that sexuality developed, maybe i wrote made just to.... i dont know but when i wrote it i meant developed through out evolution, but "made by nature" is shorter.
When i said "unnatural" i meant it doesnt have a goal in the reproductive stage of a speceis just like kant said and i still think that, but it's true that most things made by humans dont have a real goal for nature, it does not help cycles in anyway, but it's still done.
If we started talking about ethics we could get in a lot of trouble, but who doesnt like trouble?
From the ethics point of view i could say this:
the most accpeted definition (or the one i've been teached byt most of my teachers) of freedom says it begins where the other people's freedom start, so:
is any homo (i write it this way cause it's faster i dont mean to hurt anyone's feelings) trasgreding someone else's freedom by liking someone of the same sex??? of course not! is it seen as not apropiate by society, of course it does, but just a couple of deacades ago no one talked about sex the way they do now, so society is so changeable we cant live under its norms.
i did tried to say that sexuality developed, maybe i wrote made just to.... i dont know but when i wrote it i meant developed through out evolution, but "made by nature" is shorter.
When i said "unnatural" i meant it doesnt have a goal in the reproductive stage of a speceis just like kant said and i still think that, but it's true that most things made by humans dont have a real goal for nature, it does not help cycles in anyway, but it's still done.
If we started talking about ethics we could get in a lot of trouble, but who doesnt like trouble?
From the ethics point of view i could say this:
the most accpeted definition (or the one i've been teached byt most of my teachers) of freedom says it begins where the other people's freedom start, so:
is any homo (i write it this way cause it's faster i dont mean to hurt anyone's feelings) trasgreding someone else's freedom by liking someone of the same sex??? of course not! is it seen as not apropiate by society, of course it does, but just a couple of deacades ago no one talked about sex the way they do now, so society is so changeable we cant live under its norms.
- jaret
- Member
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:07 am
by Anny » Wed May 10, 2006 9:10 pm
kant1781 wrote:Anny wrote:sorry kant, i just wanted to make a joke too ^^
that's just how i'm feeling since last friday
How pleasant to have somebody who actually just seems to be happy!
yes i am
name: annika
d.o.b.: 08 sep 1987
location: germany
sex: female
sexuality: lesbian
d.o.b.: 08 sep 1987
location: germany
sex: female
sexuality: lesbian
- Anny
- Crew Member
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:53 pm
- Location: HH
25 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests