Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2006 18:02 Post subject:
triguy wrote:
So what if some people have defined marriage as a union between different sexes? Marriage has also been defined to include bigamgy and polygamy and the enslavement of woment and legalizing rape of women. Also, people have had same sex lovers throughout the ages and some cultures have allowed gay marriages (some Native American cultures). Moreover, not all cultures have formalized marriages.
I'm not sure if I would agree that marriage has been defined to include all those things you have mentioned, though they have clearly existed within marriages in various cultures. I remember you said some time ago that some Native American cultures allowed homosexual marriage. I found an article that stated that a particular tribe, outlawed it as against nature. I would like to see your evidence citing that some Native American cultures allowed for homosexual marriage.
Yes not all cultures have formalized marriages, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they woulf frown upon same sex unions.
triguy wrote:
First, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.
I did not say he did. Please go back and read my post. The one thing I cannot stand is someone who "puts words in my mouth" that I did not write.
triguy wrote:
Secondly, people pick and choose what sins they recognize. Again, doesn't the Bible say that a disrespectful child should be stoned to death? And, saying it is against nature is a judgement and not fact.
Hardly. Smoking is against nature. The reason why it is against nature is because the repercussions from smoking is disease. Polluting the environment is against nature. Is this a judgement and not a fact???
Anal sex is against nature, this is not a judgement, but a fact. The rectum was not designed for such activity, hence the propagation of disease that can result.
triguy wrote:
Homosexuality exists in nature, and it's unscientific to claim otherwise when facts speak differently. How can the gay penguins, monkeys, chimps, and swans be unnatural? How do you know for certain that evolution didn't provide homosexuality as an adaptation for the survival of species?
So are you trying to tell me that 2 male penguins will simulate a male/female relationship??? Methinks penguins have sex to procreate, not for recreational purposes. Homosexual sex is for recreational purposes only. I hardly doubt that 2 swans will link togther because they think they are "gay". The homosexual propagandists want the world to belive this to legitimize their life style.
Your statement about evolution: So homosexuality is used by evolution as a check on the population??? If so, how, since most reliable fugures put the percentage of homosexuals at 2% to 4%.
triguy wrote:
Again, bigots used the Bible to justify committing attrocities and subjugation of others.
I don't know what you are implying here. Please advise. This has really has nothing to do with the Bible.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2006 18:29 Post subject:
This article is professionally written. It is chock full of footnotes of the research that was put into it. It is rather lengthy.
Quote:
The Animal Homosexuality Myth
by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
The following article is adapted from the author's recently published book, Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.
In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement[1] turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:
Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
Homosexuality is irreversible;
Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.
Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises,[2] the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.[3]
Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?
The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:
- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?
In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:
There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
-- Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts
To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.
Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.
In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]
At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."
-- Animal "Filicide" and "Cannibalism"
Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving "mixed signals" from their instincts:
Most female cats can switch between "play mode" and "hunt mode" in order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of "hunt mode" may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the "hunting" instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue.... Compare the size, sound and activity of kittens with the size, sound and activity of prey. They are both small, have high-pitched voices and move with fast, erratic movements. All of these trigger hunting behavior. In the tomcat, maternal behavior cannot always override hunting behavior and he treats the kittens in exactly the same way he would treat small prey. His instincts are confused.[5]
Regarding animal cannibalism, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes:
Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.[6]
-- Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States
To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.
Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man's disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.
Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:
There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.
First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]
Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]
Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:
Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]
Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:
Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]
Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.
-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:
Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]
It Is Unscientific To "Read" Human Motivation
And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior
Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often "read" human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:
The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.[13]
Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:
Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure....The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.[14]
Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:
Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations."[15]
Dr. Bagemihl's interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, "an imprint of St. Martin's Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books."
Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational Man
Some researchers studying animal "homosexual" behavior extrapolate from the realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man's nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.
Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside, for example, states:
Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. ... Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.[16]
Simon LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal "homosexuality" will help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states:
It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of nonprocreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is "against nature": the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.[17]
Other researchers feel compelled to point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions:
For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural. They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.[18]
The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself:
It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. .... The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.[19]
The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man's rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human.
Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.[20]
To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.
From Science To Mythology
Dr. Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance research displays his fundamental dissatisfaction with science and enthusiasm for aboriginal mythology:
Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures about systems of gender and sexuality...[21]
To Western science, homosexuality (both animal and human) is an anomaly, an unexpected behavior that above all requires some sort of "explanation" or "cause" or "rationale." In contrast, to many indigenous cultures around the world, homosexuality and transgender are a routine and expected occurrence in both the human and animal worlds...[22]
Most Native American tribes formally recognize--and honor--human homosexuality and transgender in the role of the 'two-spirit' person (sometimes formerly known as berdache). The 'two-spirit' is a sacred man or woman who mixes gender categories by wearing clothes of opposite or both sexes .... And often engaging in same -sex relations. ... In many Native American cultures, certain animals are also symbolically associated with two-spiritedness, often in the form of creation myths and origin legends relating to the first or "supernatural" two-spirit(s)....A Zuni creation story relates how the first two spirits--creatures that were neither male nor female, yet both at the same time--were the twelve offspring of a mythical brother-sister pair. Some of these creatures were human, but one was a bat and another an old buck Deer.[23]
Dr. Bagemihl applies this androgynous myth, so widespread in today's homosexual movement, to the animal kingdom with the help of Indian and aboriginal mythology. He invites the West to embrace "a new paradigm:"[24]
Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological Exuberance brings us full circle--back to the way of looking at the world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves binary oppositions....Biological Exuberance is...a worldview that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable.[25]
Conclusion
In summary, the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science.
Luiz Sérgio Solimeo joined the Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) in 1959. As a researcher and writer, he specializes in philosophical and theological topics and has several published works. Mr. Solimeo has been in the United States assisting the American TFP since 1999.
In this article, Mr. Solimeo develops a section of Chapter 11, "Answering the Movement's Scientific Arguments," of the new book Defending A Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement (Spring Grove, Penn.: The American TFP, 2004) -- ISBN 1-877905-33-X -- 232 pages -- paperback -- $14.95 (s/h included) -- To order, call toll-free (866) 661-0272.
[1] The expression homosexual movement is used to designate a vast network of organizations, pressure groups, intellectuals and activists who strive to impose changes in laws, customs, morals and mentalities, so that homosexuality is not only tolerated but also accepted as good and normal. Hence, movement activists pressure society to legalize both the practice and the public manifestations of homosexuality, such as same-sex "marriage," while relentlessly assailing those who defend traditional morals.
[2] For a brief overview of the evidence debunking the "it is in the genes" and the irreversibility of same-sex orientation theories see the TFP's flyer "Not Genetic! Not Irreversible! Not Natural!" www.tfp.org/tfc/boston_scientific.pdf.
[3] Cf. Simon LeVay, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996). Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999).
[4] Cf. Régis Jolivet, Traité de Philosophie, (Lyon-Paris: Emmanuel Vitte, Éditeur, 1950), Vol. 2, pp. 306-396.
[12] Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos médicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89.
[13] "Exploding the Myth of Constitutional Homosexuality," National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/exploding.html. (Our emphasis.)
[14] "Cachorro Gay?"
[15] Bagemihl, p. 2. (Our emphasis.)
[16] Dinitia Smith, "Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name," The New York Times, Feb. 7, 2004. (Our emphasis.)
[17] LeVay, p. 209.
[18] Quoted by Dinitia Smith, "Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name."
[20] "Man is correctly defined as a rational animal; animal refers to the proximate genus; rational refers to the specific differentiation." Joannes di Napoli, Manuale Philosophiae (Turin, Italy: Marietti Editori, 1961), Vol. 2, p. 165.
[21] Bagemihl, p. 5.
[22] Ibid., p. 215.
[23] Ibid., p. 216.
[24] "The final chapter of part 1, 'A New Paradigm: Biological Exuberance,' calls for a radical rethinking of the way we view the natural world. This revisioning begins with an exploration of another, alternative set of human interpretations: traditional beliefs about animal homosexuality/transgender in indigenous cultures." Ibid., p. 5.
[25] Ibid., p. 262.
I even highligted where this article states that homosexual relationships were a part of many Native American cultures.
[color=red]First, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Secondly, people pick and choose what sins they recognize. Again, doesn't the Bible say that a disrespectful child should be stoned to death? And, saying it is against nature is a judgement and not fact.
The apostle Paul also said 'doesn't nature teach you that is't a shame for men to have long hair'
I Corinthians 11:14, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
First, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Secondly, people pick and choose what sins they recognize. Again, doesn't the Bible say that a disrespectful child should be stoned to death? And, saying it is against nature is a judgement and not fact.
He didn't say anything about not eating pork either, but as a practicing Jew I can guess he would have been opposed to that too.
The Old Testament outlaws homosexuality. Jesus as a devout Jew was probably aware of this. Perhaps he never spoke about homosexuality because it was tacitly understood by his followers (other Jews) that it was wrong (from a Jewish religious perspective of course).
First, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Secondly, people pick and choose what sins they recognize. Again, doesn't the Bible say that a disrespectful child should be stoned to death? And, saying it is against nature is a judgement and not fact.
He didn't say anything about not eating pork either, but as a practicing Jew I can guess he would have been opposed to that too.
True, but after the ressurection, thru a vision God told Peter to eat pork.
The Old Testament outlaws homosexuality. Jesus as a devout Jew was probably aware of this. Perhaps he never spoke about homosexuality because it was tacitly understood by his followers (other Jews) that it was wrong (from a Jewish religious perspective of course).
I hear what your saying but the Old Testament doesn't equal the Levitical Law. Nothing was written concerning it prior to this. Outside of Sodom, which again I believe is taken out of context. I too thought this was a story about homosexuality. Until I found through general study that it wasn't uncommon for an army of a Nation to rape the women & sodomize the men the became conquerors of. A sodomite was a male temple prostitute who worshipped Baal or some other god. And that is what Leviticus and Deuteronomy is dealing with.
I'm not sure if I would agree that marriage has been defined to include all those things you have mentioned, though they have clearly existed within marriages in various cultures. I remember you said some time ago that some Native American cultures allowed homosexual marriage. I found an article that stated that a particular tribe, outlawed it as against nature. I would like to see your evidence citing that some Native American cultures allowed for homosexual marriage.
Just the fact that new legislation in Navajo and Cherokee nations has banned such marriages speak to their prior occurence.
Quote:
Yes not all cultures have formalized marriages, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they woulf frown upon same sex unions.
Now you are an expert on all ancient cultures?
Sorry, but I don't think religious extremism will ever be the solution for improving U.S. society.
Quote:
Hardly. Smoking is against nature. The reason why it is against nature is because the repercussions from smoking is disease. Polluting the environment is against nature. Is this a judgement and not a fact???
Anal sex is against nature, this is not a judgement, but a fact. The rectum was not designed for such activity, hence the propagation of disease that can result.
We don't see animals smoking. But we do see animals performing anal sex. Animals also bite each other during sex and can get infected through those wounds. Doesn't mean they are unnatural.
Quote:
So are you trying to tell me that 2 male penguins will simulate a male/female relationship??? Methinks penguins have sex to procreate, not for recreational purposes. Homosexual sex is for recreational purposes only. I hardly doubt that 2 swans will link togther because they think they are "gay". The homosexual propagandists want the world to belive this to legitimize their life style.
The heterosexual only extremeist try to create a propaganda that homosexual and bisexual activities do not occur in the animal world. They always conveniently ignore that there are many mammals that use sex for social structure and bonding and that this is not only done for procreation.
So what if some people have defined marriage as a union between different sexes? Marriage has also been defined to include bigamgy and polygamy and the enslavement of woment and legalizing rape of women. Also, people have had same sex lovers throughout the ages and some cultures have allowed gay marriages (some Native American cultures). Moreover, not all cultures have formalized marriages.
I'm not sure if I would agree that marriage has been defined to include all those things
It did/does. Many nations and tribes have polygamy as a natural part of marriage.
you have mentioned, though they have clearly existed within marriages in various cultures. I remember you said some time ago that some Native American cultures allowed homosexual marriage. I found an article that stated that a particular tribe, outlawed it as against nature.
Where is the article? Is this a recent statement?
I would like to see your evidence citing that some Native American cultures allowed for homosexual marriage.
Yes not all cultures have formalized marriages, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they woulf frown upon same sex unions.
triguy wrote:
First, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.
I did not say he did. Please go back and read my post. The one thing I cannot stand is someone who "puts words in my mouth" that I did not write.
triguy wrote:
Secondly, people pick and choose what sins they recognize. Again, doesn't the Bible say that a disrespectful child should be stoned to death? And, saying it is against nature is a judgement and not fact.
Hardly. Smoking is against nature. The reason why it is against nature is because the repercussions from smoking is disease.
Over eating causes diseases and complications too...
Polluting the environment is against nature. Is this a judgement and not a fact???
What causes Pollution? Cars,trucks,buses...
Anal sex is against nature, this is not a judgement, but a fact. The rectum was not designed for such activity, hence the propagation of disease that can result.
Penis/Vaginal sex causes diseases too... and heterosexuals take part in anal sex as well.
triguy wrote:
Homosexuality exists in nature, and it's unscientific to claim otherwise when facts speak differently. How can the gay penguins, monkeys, chimps, and swans be unnatural? How do you know for certain that evolution didn't provide homosexuality as an adaptation for the survival of species?
So are you trying to tell me that 2 male penguins will simulate a male/female relationship??? Methinks penguins have sex to procreate, not for recreational purposes. Homosexual sex is for recreational purposes only. I hardly doubt that 2 swans will link togther because they think they are "gay". The homosexual propagandists want the world to belive this to legitimize their life style.
Your statement about evolution: So homosexuality is used by evolution as a check on the population??? If so, how, since most reliable fugures put the percentage of homosexuals at 2% to 4%.
That percentage is only counted on people who have openly acknowledged it.
triguy wrote:
Again, bigots used the Bible to justify committing attrocities and subjugation of others.
I don't know what you are implying here. Please advise. This has really has nothing to do with the Bible.
Sure it is... even the usage of 'against nature' was directly used from the apostle Paul.
The Animal Homosexuality Myth
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature.
Actually they are.
Quote:
There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
Incorrect. It only means that those instincts are one, not excusive, and two play an interlaced role with other instincts.
Quote:
Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
He claims that others attribute human characteristics on animals, and then speaks of confusion in the animals because they do not have 'human clarity' and don't understand their senses.
Quote:
In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]
One, he assumes that homosexuals have not followed this logic as well and gone with their homosexual instincts. And two, the assumption of clash of instincts and favoring of one over the other in animals does not disprove the basic premise he uses himself: That animals will have homosexual instincts.
Quote:
At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."
All part of the natural kingdom.
Quote:
-- Animal "Filicide" and "Cannibalism"
The assumption of supposed confusion in tomcats, does not address filicide and cannibalism in Chimpanzees, Baboons, Bears, etc.
Quote:
Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:
There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.
First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Does this whole shpeel accomplish anything other than a strawman argument? The bottom line is, his interpretation not withstanding, THEY ENGAGE IN SAME GENDER SEXUALITY
Quote:
Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]
And when humans mate many times it is male dominance over the female and impregnation is an aside. So this proves nothing. It is still sex.
Quote:
Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.
I am entertained by this supposed animal cofusion. They can detect specific animals and material for miles, but they can't get the male or female straight. More than likely they don't care as much, and the confusion is a projection from homophobic researchers.
Quote:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Fine so bisexuality is the norm. And humans have a higher capacity to choose partners. The same way many animals are not monogamous in their relationships .
[quote]Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]
He just contradicted himself. Just because sexuality is also used for reproduction does not mean it can't encompass more than production. And in many it does. Part of nature.
It's a waste to tear down the whole article, as the bias in the comments has clearly been shown.
The Animal Homosexuality Myth
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature.
Actually they are.
Quote:
There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
Incorrect. It only means that those instincts are one, not excusive, and two play an interlaced role with other instincts.
Quote:
Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
He claims that others attribute human characteristics on animals, and then speaks of confusion in the animals because they do not have 'human clarity' and don't understand their senses.
Quote:
In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]
One, he assumes that homosexuals have not followed this logic as well and gone with their homosexual instincts. And two, the assumption of clash of instincts and favoring of one over the other in animals does not disprove the basic premise he uses himself: That animals will have homosexual instincts.
Quote:
At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."
All part of the natural kingdom.
Quote:
-- Animal "Filicide" and "Cannibalism"
The assumption of supposed confusion in tomcats, does not address filicide and cannibalism in Chimpanzees, Baboons, Bears, etc.
Quote:
Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:
There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.
First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Does this whole shpeel accomplish anything other than a strawman argument? The bottom line is, his interpretation not withstanding, THEY ENGAGE IN SAME GENDER SEXUALITY
Quote:
Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]
And when humans mate many times it is male dominance over the female and impregnation is an aside. So this proves nothing. It is still sex.
Quote:
Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.
I am entertained by this supposed animal cofusion. They can detect specific animals and material for miles, but they can't get the male or female straight. More than likely they don't care as much, and the confusion is a projection from homophobic researchers.
Quote:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Fine so bisexuality is the norm. And humans have a higher capacity to choose partners. The same way many animals are not monogamous in their relationships .
[quote]Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]
He just contradicted himself. Just because sexuality is also used for reproduction does not mean it can't encompass more than production. And in many it does. Part of nature.
It's a waste to tear down the whole article, as the bias in the comments has clearly been shown.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2006 21:11 Post subject:
Quote:
Now you are an expert on all ancient cultures?
I don't understand where you got this from. I made no such insinuation.
Quote:
Sorry, but I don't think religious extremism will ever be the solution for improving U.S. society.
Who ever mentioned anything about religion let alone religious extremism??
Quote:
We don't see animals smoking. But we do see animals performing anal sex. Animals also bite each other during sex and can get infected through those wounds. Doesn't mean they are unnatural.
Of course we do not see animals smoking. Only humans "smoke". Along the same lines you cannot attribute the sexuality of humans to the "animal world". Studies have acknowleded that animals have anal sex. This just doesn't mean that they are homosexual as in humans.
Quote:
The heterosexual only extremeist try to create a propaganda that homosexual and bisexual activities do not occur in the animal world. They always conveniently ignore that there are many mammals that use sex for social structure and bonding and that this is not only done for procreation.
Again . Please cite the propaganda that so called heterosexual "extremists" state that homosexual and bisexual activities do not occur in the animal world. The article I posted acknowledged this but stated very clearly that you cannot associate human sexuality with that of the animal world. But the homosexualists want to make this association so as to hope it makes what they do more legitmate to the mainstream.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2006 21:23 Post subject:
gemini072 wrote:
Where is the article? Is this a recent statement?
Yes it is recent. This article is from June 2005:
Quote:
Navajos Override Gay-Marriage Ban Veto
By ANNA MACIAS AGUAYO
Associated Press Writer
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- The Navajo Nation's tribal government voted Friday to override its president's veto of a measure banning same-sex marriage on the nation's largest Indian reservation.
The Dine Marriage Act of 2005 defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. It also prohibits plural marriages as well as marriage between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, brothers and sisters and other close relatives.
Dine is the Navajos' name for themselves.
"In the traditional Navajo ways, gay marriage is a big no-no," said Kenneth Maryboy, a delegate from Montezuma Creek, Utah. "It all boils down to the circle of life. We were put on the earth to produce offspring."
The Tribal Council vote was 62-14, with 12 delegates abstaining or absent, to override Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr.'s veto last month.
"My feeling is that the reason they overrode the president's veto is that they have a huge animosity toward the president," said Percy Anderson, a gay rights organizer who started a Web site and petition to lobby against the marriage act.
Anderson, who previously held an elected office in the tribe's Manuelito, N.M., chapter, said he believes the council is locked in a power struggle. "They want to show the president that they are the governing body," Anderson said.
Maryboy disagreed, saying his constituents overwhelming oppose gay marriage and generally disapprove of gay relationships.
"My supporters told me to stay firmly against it, especially the ministers who join people in marriage," he said.
A spokesman for Shirley said he will issue a statement override over the weekend.
Delegate Larry Anderson of Fort Defiance, Ariz., author of the Dine Marriage Act, did not return numerous phone calls seeking comment.
The Navajo Nation, which has more than 180,000 residents, spans parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. Same-sex marriages are not allowed in any of those states.
gemini072 wrote:
Over eating causes diseases and complications too...
Correct. Many things we eat go against nature. Hence the reason why cancer and heart disease is so prevalent in some places.
gemini072 wrote:
What causes Pollution? Cars,trucks,buses...
Yup, and forest fires, volcanoes... Perhaps not the the degree that humans pollute, but the potential exists that it could happen, particularly if several volcanoes errupt simultaneously on the Ring of Fire.
gemini072 wrote:
Penis/Vaginal sex causes diseases too...
Sure, but if one is in a monogamous relationship in which both parties are faithful to each other, the possibility of disease from this is very slim.
gemini072 wrote:
and heterosexuals take part in anal sex as well.
Absolutely. And they will be susceptible to the same diseases that homosexuals who engage in anal sex.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2006 21:47 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
It's a waste to tear down the whole article, as the bias in the comments has clearly been shown.
Hardly. If it is possible, I will try and contact this author and/or the webite www.NARTH.com and forward your comments.
Quote:
Maggie Gallagher And Andrew Sullivan
Blog About 'Gay Penguins'
September 19, 2005 - Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, has recently engaged in a blog discussion about the documentary "March of the Penguins" and whether or not "gay penguins" exist. The discussion included comments from homosexual author Andrew Sullivan.
Gallagher noted that "March of the Penguins" showed that "Beauty, goodness, love and devotion are all part of nature, built into the DNA of the universe. Even in the harshest place on Earth (like 21ST-century America?), love will not only endure, it will triumph."
Sullivan expressed appreciation for "March of the Penguins" as well, but noted that the New York City Zoo has a pair of male penguins who found a pebble and warmed and nurtured it together. They were later given a real egg and they "nursed and brought to birth and childhood like every other heterosexual couple. This alternative penguin family still thrives and you can go see them, if you want."
Gallagher, however, noted that these male penguins, Roy and Silo, have split up after six years together. Roy is alone and Silo has a penguin girlfriend. The zoo-keeper claims there are other same-sex penguin pairings.
NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee Chairman, Dr. A. Dean Byrd has observed: "There are significant differences between human sexuality and animal mounting behavior. There simply is not a good animal model for human sexual behavior. Pigs don't date, penguins don't go to church and fruit flies don't fall in love."
Gay researcher Dr. Simon LeVay has noted: "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such a thing in animals, seems to be a rarity." (Queer Science, 1996, p. 207.)
There are animals that form life long pair bonds and animals that don't. There are primates that have recreational sex, human primates being a prime example, but not the only one (I believe that chimps have plenty of recreational sex). Both animals and humans run the hetero-homo spectrum, naturally.
The value judgements that are placed on animal and human behavior have nothing to do with nature or naturally occuring behaviors. They are human observations and conclusions about that world upon which cultural norms are established, nothing more. The adulterers that were stoned in ancient Jewish culture would have been seen as normal adults doing what comes naturally in some Southeast Asian island cultures.
Human cultures have been extremely diverse in many areas and sexuality and marriage are only examples. Most of the world's cultures also agree that women should be oppressed/objectified in various ways - is this also something that enlightened human beings should accept as "natural?"
Marriage is not natural. It is an artificial, culture-created institution. What's natural is fertile man + fertile woman = continuation of human species.
There are animals that form life long pair bonds and animals that don't. There are primates that have recreational sex, human primates being a prime example, but not the only one (I believe that chimps have plenty of recreational sex). Both animals and humans run the hetero-homo spectrum, naturally.
The value judgements that are placed on animal and human behavior have nothing to do with nature or naturally occuring behaviors. They are human observations and conclusions about that world upon which cultural norms are established, nothing more. The adulterers that were stoned in ancient Jewish culture would have been seen as normal adults doing what comes naturally in some Southeast Asian island cultures.
Human cultures have been extremely diverse in many areas and sexuality and marriage are only examples. Most of the world's cultures also agree that women should be oppressed/objectified in various ways - is this also something that enlightened human beings should accept as "natural?"
Marriage is not natural. It is an artificial, culture-created institution. What's natural is fertile man + fertile woman = continuation of human species.
The human race doesn't seem to have a problem procreating without benefit of marriage at all or ever in the past. (Adam and Eve never had a formal marriage, did they? ) That said, marriage has been used widely as a tool for political, economic and social alliances. So, giving marriage any kind of special glow about procreation doesn't make sense. No one in the United States is required to sign an oath, swearing to procreate upon marriage. And the state does not require proof of fertility or ban infertile people from marrying. Furthermore, who says gays and lesbians can't or won't have children? It's very common for committed GLBT couples to have a child via donation of egg or sperm or to adopt a child.
The whole issue of survival of the species is a red-herring. In countries like China and India with lopsided balances of too many males being born, having gays might be very helpful to stablize society. Idle hands are the tools of the devil's mischief: angry, frustrated heterosexual men might make good arms for war.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 12 Aug 2006 03:58 Post subject:
triguy wrote:
...
Marriage is not natural. It is an artificial, culture-created institution.
Sure. Marriage is just a fashion, eh? Do you think so?
Actually, what do you mean for "marriage" in the first place?
If you mean, male-female couples that live together most of their life, that is pretty standard worldwide. Yes, there have also exist polygamy and polyandry (the opposite), however, in most cultures, relative standard couples are a very common behavoir.
What is artificial is the formal contract that exist between couples. The papers, the rituals, the traditions. Those things are artificial. What is not is marriage itself. Even in animals is possible to observe there are some that keep their couples for life. Nothing strange.
Quote:
What's natural is fertile man + fertile woman = continuation of human species.
Well, that's even more standard. That's the way the human bodies were designed.
Quote:
The human race doesn't seem to have a problem procreating without benefit of marriage at all or ever in the past. (Adam and Eve never had a formal marriage, did they? )
If you said there is not a problem that a child grows with a single mother or in an orphanate. Well, then there is not a problem.
Quote:
That said, marriage has been used widely as a tool for political, economic and social alliances.
What's wrong with that? Families themselves are "social alliances". You can choose to live alone or being part of a family. People can choose, and many preffer to be a member of a family.
Quote:
So, giving marriage any kind of special glow about procreation doesn't make sense.
Your personal oppinions are not necesarily in tune with what the rest of the people believe.
Quote:
No one in the United States is required to sign an oath, swearing to procreate upon marriage.
U.S. is not mankind, just a crazy variety of it.
Quote:
And the state does not require proof of fertility or ban infertile people from marrying.
Marriages and families are relations between individuals. The states have no business on it.
Quote:
Furthermore, who says gays and lesbians can't or won't have children?
Actually they can, what most people say is they shouldn't.
Quote:
It's very common for committed GLBT couples to have a child via donation of egg or sperm or to adopt a child.
People with wild behavoir expand that behavoir throughout every single action in life. Once they start can't stop.
Quote:
The whole issue of survival of the species is a red-herring. In countries like China and India with lopsided balances of too many males being born, having gays might be very helpful to stablize society.
What's happening in China and India is a perfect example of the ugly consecuencies of trying to change human nature. Chinese and Indian societies have always believe males are better than females, and believe they have the right to intervine in the process of selecting the sex of kids. Other so called "backward" societies, who really believe kids are gifts from God (like Hispanics, for instance) would never intervine in the sexual selection of kids, because the creation of life is God's business.
Quote:
Idle hands are the tools of the devil's mischief: angry, frustrated heterosexual men might make good arms for war.
Who said gay people are more peaceful than heterosexuals? Actually, the passional crimes between gay people are usually very bizarre and extremely violent. And gays can be as murderous in battle or in torturing people like any straight.
...
Marriage is not natural. It is an artificial, culture-created institution.
Uh, Triguy did not write the above quote! Omar, you have mixed my words with Sagascend's. Sagascend wrote that statement, not I. He also wrote several of the one's below.
Sure. Marriage is just a fashion, eh? Do you think so?
Actually, what do you mean for "marriage" in the first place?
If you mean, male-female couples that live together most of their life, that is pretty standard worldwide. Yes, there have also exist polygamy and polyandry (the opposite), however, in most cultures, relative standard couples are a very common behavoir.
What is artificial is the formal contract that exist between couples. The papers, the rituals, the traditions. Those things are artificial. What is not is marriage itself. Even in animals is possible to observe there are some that keep their couples for life. Nothing strange.
Quote:
What's natural is fertile man + fertile woman = continuation of human species.
Well, that's even more standard. That's the way the human bodies were designed.
Quote:
The human race doesn't seem to have a problem procreating without benefit of marriage at all or ever in the past. (Adam and Eve never had a formal marriage, did they? )
If you said there is not a problem that a child grows with a single mother or in an orphanate. Well, then there is not a problem.
Quote:
That said, marriage has been used widely as a tool for political, economic and social alliances.
What's wrong with that? Families themselves are "social alliances". You can choose to live alone or being part of a family. People can choose, and many preffer to be a member of a family.
From the perspective of denying gays and lesbians the right to marriage based on execuses, my intent was to poke a hole in the fallacy that marriage is soley about procreation and point out how marriage has been used cynically for other pursposes.
Quote:
So, giving marriage any kind of special glow about procreation doesn't make sense.
Your personal oppinions are not necesarily in tune with what the rest of the people believe.
That's the point. Views on marriage are subjective. And the "rest of the people believe" is your opinion and not based on fact.
Quote:
No one in the United States is required to sign an oath, swearing to procreate upon marriage.
U.S. is not mankind, just a crazy variety of it.
Quote:
And the state does not require proof of fertility or ban infertile people from marrying.
Marriages and families are relations between individuals. The states have no business on it.
The state gives legal permission for marriage; thus, how can the state have "no business on (sic) it"? Most countries provide licenses and laws governing who can and can't marry, and social/tax benefits.
Quote:
Furthermore, who says gays and lesbians can't or won't have children?
Actually they can, what most people say is they shouldn't.
"Most people"? That is subjective and based on your opinion.
Quote:
It's very common for committed GLBT couples to have a child via donation of egg or sperm or to adopt a child.
People with wild behavoir expand that behavoir throughout every single action in life. Once they start can't stop.
Quote:
The whole issue of survival of the species is a red-herring. In countries like China and India with lopsided balances of too many males being born, having gays might be very helpful to stablize society.
What's happening in China and India is a perfect example of the ugly consecuencies of trying to change human nature. Chinese and Indian societies have always believe males are better than females, and believe they have the right to intervine in the process of selecting the sex of kids. Other so called "backward" societies, who really believe kids are gifts from God (like Hispanics, for instance) would never intervine in the sexual selection of kids, because the creation of life is God's business.
"Trying to change human nature"? Sex selection is not changing human nature but is a direct result of human nature and sexist theories that devalue human females. Also, making statements about all "Hispanics" is biased, attempting to make a whole group of humans somehow morally superior. History proves that wrong. Someone would argue that many Latino cultures don't have respect for children based on the long history of poverty, enslavement, abandonment, and refusal to provide universal education (not to mention death squads that kill street orphans).
Quote:
Idle hands are the tools of the devil's mischief: angry, frustrated heterosexual men might make good arms for war.
Who said gay people are more peaceful than heterosexuals? Actually, the passional crimes between gay people are usually very bizarre and extremely violent. And gays can be as murderous in battle or in torturing people like any straight.
Actually, the passional crimes between gay people are usually very bizarre and extremely violent.
Omar, that is an horrifical bigoted statement. There are twisted human being of all genders, sexual orientations, races, ethnicities, and religions who commit attrocities while impassioned or as cold blooded, well planned murder.
You also missed my point. People who are in relationships and have families, gay or straight, would have more invested in their social networks. If you look at societies that have large numbers of angry, untethered men, there are more men available as participants in social mischief. Look at the suicide bombers involved in most terrorist attacks: the majority were unmarried men.
Finally, both the Canadian and British armies allow gay and lesbian soldiers; therefore, I have no doubt that gay men and lesbians can't be great warriors. Of course, given that Alexander the Great and Achilles are famous bi/gay warriors this should never be questioned.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sat 12 Aug 2006 12:48 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
DChapman wrote:
The Animal Homosexuality Myth
This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature.
Actually they are.
That "filicide" and "cannibalism" occur in extreme circumstances does not make them an instinct. Does an evolutionary parental instinct to kill offspring on a whim make any sense?
Salsassin wrote:
DChapman wrote:
There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
Incorrect. It only means that those instincts are one, not excusive, and two play an interlaced role with other instincts.
I think what the author is getting at is the interaction of environmental factors with animal instincts.
Salsassin wrote:
DChapman wrote:
Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
He claims that others attribute human characteristics on animals, and then speaks of confusion in the animals because they do not have 'human clarity' and don't understand their senses.
What Solimeo says is wrong is to '"read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behaviour'. But if human clarity observes the animal confusing one object with another that is empirical.
Salsassin wrote:
DChapman wrote:
In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]
One, he assumes that homosexuals have not followed this logic as well and gone with their homosexual instincts. And two, the assumption of clash of instincts and favoring of one over the other in animals does not disprove the basic premise he uses himself: That animals will have homosexual instincts.
No, they engage in homosexual acts. Many homosexual acts are commited in prisons, but you risk your life calling them gay. Homosexuals have to decide on causation. Most say they would be heterosexual if they could as that would make their life easier, which implies a sensorial causation to them.
Are you arguing that there are two instinctive reactions in men and women: one same-sex lifestyle, the other opposite-sex lifestyle and lesbians and gays with intellect and logic choose same-sex?
Salsassin wrote:
DChapman wrote:
Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]
And when humans mate many times it is male dominance over the female and impregnation is an aside. So this proves nothing. It is still sex.
I get the sense that it is sexual "play", like the play fighting males engage in, or when good friends greet each other. All good clean homoerotic male bonding.
WRT to human mating, just because the guy is on top off gal doesn't mean the guy is dominant, but then maybe that's my failing. This is the point - only human cognition can differentiate between closely related instinctual impulses, like sex and power.
I found much to recommend in this article. I'm interested in whether homosexuals are born that way.
Does an evolutionary parental instinct to kill offspring on a whim make any sense?
It makes perfect sense if you look at it from the gene's viewpoint. When a male lion becomes the leader of a pride, his first act is to kill and devour all of the cubs that were sired by the previous pack leader. This focuses all of the pride's efforts and resources on propagating his genes, not on those of his predecessor. This is not a guy thing. The same thing happens in hyena troops, which are led by the most powerful female (who is the only reproducer), when a new female takes control. Similar genetic-advantage tactics are found in many non-monogamous organisms, from corals on up.
Last edited by fwsweet on Sat 12 Aug 2006 15:58; edited 1 time in total
Right, this is a people who's ways have literally by white washed. And taught that just like anyone else thru the religion of their 'conquerors'
Quote:
Navajos Override Gay-Marriage Ban Veto
By ANNA MACIAS AGUAYO
Associated Press Writer
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- The Navajo Nation's tribal government voted Friday to override its president's veto of a measure banning same-sex marriage on the nation's largest Indian reservation.
The Dine Marriage Act of 2005 defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. It also prohibits plural marriages as well as marriage between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, brothers and sisters and other close relatives.
Dine is the Navajos' name for themselves.
"In the traditional Navajo ways, gay marriage is a big no-no," said Kenneth Maryboy, a delegate from Montezuma Creek, Utah. "It all boils down to the circle of life. We were put on the earth to produce offspring."
The Tribal Council vote was 62-14, with 12 delegates abstaining or absent, to override Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr.'s veto last month.
"My feeling is that the reason they overrode the president's veto is that they have a huge animosity toward the president," said Percy Anderson, a gay rights organizer who started a Web site and petition to lobby against the marriage act.
Anderson, who previously held an elected office in the tribe's Manuelito, N.M., chapter, said he believes the council is locked in a power struggle. "They want to show the president that they are the governing body," Anderson said.
Maryboy disagreed, saying his constituents overwhelming oppose gay marriage and generally disapprove of gay relationships.
"My supporters told me to stay firmly against it, especially the ministers who join people in marriage," he said.
A spokesman for Shirley said he will issue a statement override over the weekend.
Delegate Larry Anderson of Fort Defiance, Ariz., author of the Dine Marriage Act, did not return numerous phone calls seeking comment.
The Navajo Nation, which has more than 180,000 residents, spans parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. Same-sex marriages are not allowed in any of those states.
gemini072 wrote:
Over eating causes diseases and complications too...
Correct. Many things we eat go against nature.
What do we eat that go against nature? I said overeating, overeating the things we need naturally causes diseases and complications. But it's not 'Against Nature'
Hence the reason why cancer and heart disease is so prevalent in some places.
That's tends to be from 'lack' of eating nutritional foods.
gemini072 wrote:
What causes Pollution? Cars,trucks,buses...
Yup, and forest fires, volcanoes... Perhaps not the the degree that humans pollute, but the potential exists that it could happen, particularly if several volcanoes errupt simultaneously on the Ring of Fire.
But it's all natural...natural things causing pollution.
gemini072 wrote:
Penis/Vaginal sex causes diseases too...
Sure, but if one is in a monogamous relationship in which both parties are faithful to each other, the possibility of disease from this is very slim.
Heterosexuals have the same exposures to diseases. There are actually some that is more dominate with heterosexuals.
gemini072 wrote:
and heterosexuals take part in anal sex as well.
Absolutely. And they will be susceptible to the same diseases that homosexuals who engage in anal sex.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
) That said, marriage has been used widely as a tool for political, economic and social alliances. So, giving marriage any kind of special glow about procreation doesn't make sense. No one in the United States is required to sign an oath, swearing to procreate upon marriage. And the state does not require proof of fertility or ban infertile people from marrying. Furthermore, who says gays and lesbians can't or won't have children? It's very common for committed GLBT couples to have a child via donation of egg or sperm or to adopt a child.