Theories of a Brown Monkey
Even though I finished a degree in Philosophy in my Bachelor's, I'll still pursue it in the Graduate school and beyond because of love. I know, it's a corny reason, but love makes you corny, and loving wisdom makes me corny, so sue me.
Anywho, as the days pass and I grow older in this discipline, I realize the extent of my own stupidity. And realizing how big are these gaps, my appetite for knowledge is whetted all the more.
You see, the battle against ignorance and suffering is a life-long battle, and our only consolation, aside of course having the good life, is an ice-cold beer by the end of every week. Cheers.
Joseph Guillermo
Create Your Badge
There are currently 32 monkeys typing randomly about Shakespeare.
Theme by nostrich.
Post reblogged from IamHippoFierce with 18,736 notes
Anne Hathaway was raised a Catholic with what she considered “really strong values,” and has stated she wanted to be a nun during her childhood. However, she decided against it at the age of 15, after learning that her brother, Michael, was gay; she felt that she could not be part of a religion that condemned her brother’s sexual orientation.
That awkward moment when one claimed that one was raised with really strong Catholic values and then thinking that Catholicism has a counter-productive approach towards homosexuality.
Uh, read the CCC.
Catholic bashing is just pathetic and shameful.
Source: alice-
As defined by the ancient civil or canonical codes, sodomy was a category of forbidden acts; their perpetrator was nothing more that the juridical subject of them. [However] the nineteenth-century homosexual became a personage, a past, a case history, and a childhood… It was consubstantial with him, less as a habitual sin than as a singular nature… Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a specie.
Quote reblogged from i seeeeeee you
When we get to the issue of genes and homosexuality, the political tables are almost completely turned. On the questions of genes and intelligence, genes and crime, genes and sex difference, the Left is vehemently opposed to biological explanations and seeks to downplay any evidence that heredity exerts an important influence on any of these behaviors. On the question of homosexuality, the Left has made the opposite case: sexual orientation is not a matter of individual or social conditioning, but rather something given an individual as an accident of birth.
Whatever the ultimate verdict on these theories, homosexuality, like male selectivity, exists in virtually all known societies and would seem to have some natural basis. What is interesting is the politics of the issue: in contrast to intelligence and crime, where the Left attacked the very idea of heritability, many gay activists seized on the idea of the “gay gene” because the notion of genetic causation frees gays from the moral responsibility of their condition. In this case, it had been the Right that argued that homosexuality was a lifestyle choice. The existence of the gay gene would “prove” that gayness was like freckles: a condition that no one could do anything about.
Francis Fukuyama; Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (via brownmonkeytheory)
Because either everything must be biological, or nothing can be, correct? Logic-y!
(via robot-heart-politics)
moral responsibility?
Probably one of those people who still thinks “homosexuality is a disease”.
Get back to the fucking 50s and beat up your wife again.
(via blackenedbutterfly)
And………. you missed the point.
Btw, I suggest you read him first, or at least know who this guy is before you caricaturize him. If you are too lazy to research on him you could at least formulate a coherent counter-argument from the quote provided which is better than that ad hominem. Attacking the person or attacking his argument in an off-tangent manner only proves his point.
Geez people, Google first before you comment. *facepalm*
Source: brownmonkeytheory
When we get to the issue of genes and homosexuality, the political tables are almost completely turned. On the questions of genes and intelligence, genes and crime, genes and sex difference, the Left is vehemently opposed to biological explanations and seeks to downplay any evidence that heredity exerts an important influence on any of these behaviors. On the question of homosexuality, the Left has made the opposite case: sexual orientation is not a matter of individual or social conditioning, but rather something given an individual as an accident of birth.
Whatever the ultimate verdict on these theories, homosexuality, like male selectivity, exists in virtually all known societies and would seem to have some natural basis. What is interesting is the politics of the issue: in contrast to intelligence and crime, where the Left attacked the very idea of heritability, many gay activists seized on the idea of the “gay gene” because the notion of genetic causation frees gays from the moral responsibility of their condition. In this case, it had been the Right that argued that homosexuality was a lifestyle choice. The existence of the gay gene would “prove” that gayness was like freckles: a condition that no one could do anything about.
