September at TOL.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
C
cattyfan
Guest
I'm not sure...I suspect it's just my general demeanor...or he's not fond of felines.:angel:
firechyld
New member
Homosexuality and bisexuality are rife throughout the animal kingdom. It's as simple as that. There's too much evidence to deny that it happens.
However, there's no need to draw any moral conclusion from that. The vast majority of humans acknowledge that there are differences between us and the rest of the animal kingdom.
Animals engaging in homosexual sex doesn't mean that it's specifically OK or not-OK for humans to do so. Animals regularly steal food off and kill each other, too. They also display many admirable traits. There's nothing intrinsically good or evil about an animal.
However, there's no need to draw any moral conclusion from that. The vast majority of humans acknowledge that there are differences between us and the rest of the animal kingdom.
Animals engaging in homosexual sex doesn't mean that it's specifically OK or not-OK for humans to do so. Animals regularly steal food off and kill each other, too. They also display many admirable traits. There's nothing intrinsically good or evil about an animal.
Flipper
New member
Cattyfan isn't on ignore. I have so far avoided putting anyone on ignore, even the tiresome atheistssuck.
I didn't address her post because, as far as I could tell, the first part of her post was in agreement with the section of my post that she quoted.
I had just finished saying that although something occurs naturally, that doesn't make it automatically appropriate for human beings and then she quoted me and said the same thing. She then went further to explain why she disagreed with homosexuality.
I happen to disagree with her but it seems to me that arguments of whether homosexuality is a desirable human trait or not become less concrete; ones of personal preference and opinion rather than ones based on fact.
I thought I would finish the easy dispatch of Knight who had issued such a cocksure and brash challenge before moving on to more slippery ground where the truth is harder to divine.
After all, none of Cattfan's points really seemed to address the core of the argument I was making, particularly since I had already and voluntarily acceded that whether something is natural or not says little about whether it is appropriate to human society. No one was advancing an argument saying otherwise.
I didn't address her post because, as far as I could tell, the first part of her post was in agreement with the section of my post that she quoted.
I had just finished saying that although something occurs naturally, that doesn't make it automatically appropriate for human beings and then she quoted me and said the same thing. She then went further to explain why she disagreed with homosexuality.
I happen to disagree with her but it seems to me that arguments of whether homosexuality is a desirable human trait or not become less concrete; ones of personal preference and opinion rather than ones based on fact.
I thought I would finish the easy dispatch of Knight who had issued such a cocksure and brash challenge before moving on to more slippery ground where the truth is harder to divine.
After all, none of Cattfan's points really seemed to address the core of the argument I was making, particularly since I had already and voluntarily acceded that whether something is natural or not says little about whether it is appropriate to human society. No one was advancing an argument saying otherwise.
C
cattyfan
Guest
Thanks for not putting me on ignore...and yes, the first part of my post is in agreement with you.
the second part is not mere preference. It's biology. Humans are not designed for gay sex, and there is no genetic proof that homosexuality is inborn or occurs "naturally." If that "proof" were to be found, it would be a genetic defect...like poor eyesight or a heart problem...something that is abnormal and in need of repair.
Not all things which occur in nature are desirable.
the second part is not mere preference. It's biology. Humans are not designed for gay sex, and there is no genetic proof that homosexuality is inborn or occurs "naturally." If that "proof" were to be found, it would be a genetic defect...like poor eyesight or a heart problem...something that is abnormal and in need of repair.
Not all things which occur in nature are desirable.
firechyld
New member
I'd disagree.
Does it have to be genetic proof?
This is one of the things that bothers me about the frantic search for the "gay gene". The implication is given that if it isn't controlled by a gene, it's not a true natural compulsion.
Left-handed/right-handed isn't determined by a specific gene, but it's something that we accept as a natural compulsion that affects roughly one quarter of the human population. We don't see anything wrong with being left-handed... it's just how your body works.
Why can't the same apply to gay/straight/bisexual?
Why? An epicathic fold is determined by genetics, but it's not considered a defect. Something isn't a defect until it actually causes a serious physical problem. Regardless of anyone's opinion on the morality of homosexuality, it doesn't cause a serious physical problem.
Interestingly enough, I've heard a much stronger case put forward for this point of view in regards to monosexuality. Throughout the animal kingdom, those animals that are strictly homosexual or heterosexual are greatly outweighed by those animals that engage in sexual play with both genders. The case can be made that monosexuality is the result of a defect, or of unnatural social programming.
*shrug* I don't know how much credence I give the theory, but it's interesting.
No-one is attempting to claim otherwise.
All right already!
I concede the point.
I was wrong... and you three are right. Homo's are indeed like animals.
Oh really?Originally posted by firechyld
This thing you do, where you can't seem to tell the difference between what someone's actually saying and what you want them to be saying? You might want to get that checked out.
Maybe you can summarize what the point is in bringing up homo animals then?
After all.... it wasn't I (or even someone from my side of the moral compass) who brought up animals being being "gay".
firechyld
New member
aikido said this, seemingly out of nowhere:
After you responded with a :kookoo:, this was followed by Flipper attempting to clarify aikido's statement:
Up until this point, they were simply random comments. It was you who turned this into an argument with your next post:
You flatly stated that something with enough scientific backing to make it a given was, in fact, untrue, then launched into a straw man attack against the "gays are like animals" stance that no-one had actually taken.
So to summarise, whilst it may not have been anyone from "your side of the argument" who introduced the concept of homosexual animals to the discussion, it was in fact you yourself who brought the moral implications of homosexual animals into the conversation. The two people who had mentioned them previously had made it quite clear that they were not trying to "excuse" homosexual behaviour in humans by presenting data on homosexual behaviour in animals. Both specifically stated that this was not their stance or intention.
Will that do?
Lovejoy
Active member
I posted a picture of wife from our wedding in the gallery (as well as a picture of myself, not so much from our wedding). As you can see, I have also changed my avatar to a picture from our wedding (this is from when I first got to see her in her wedding gown). Pretty, ain't she? Vive la my marriage!
So... you are saying that bringing the "gay" animal topic up had ZERO to do with the topic of gay humans? :nono:
If so.... why was that topic even brought up in the first place and then later supported by Flipper and Zakath?
The truth is... the topic was brought up to make the point that homo's are born gay just like some animals are.
Again... as I have already stated...
I am now conceding the point.....
Homos are like animals.
firechyld
New member
Lovejoy...
No... I could probably put one up.... *muses*
Knight...
It's usually brought up in retaliation to the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural"... if it occurs in the animal kingdom, it's clearly not unnatural. Whether or not it's a good thing is a completely different question.
I think aikido might have just been jumping the gun a little.
*shrug* It's not something we can argue as a definite, because we simply don't know yet. We know for certain that animals engage in homosexual activity. This may indicate that homosexuality is genetically determined, or that it is a natural inclination.
Is that supposed to be an insult?
You'd never see an animal strapping a member of its species to the back of a ute and driving around until it stopped moving.
You'd never see an animal slaughter millions of its kind because of a disagreement on an abstract concept.
Animals might do things that we consider "brutish", but they're not capable of deliberate, methodical evil. That's the domain of humans.
No... I could probably put one up.... *muses*
Knight...
It's usually brought up in retaliation to the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural"... if it occurs in the animal kingdom, it's clearly not unnatural. Whether or not it's a good thing is a completely different question.
I think aikido might have just been jumping the gun a little.
*shrug* It's not something we can argue as a definite, because we simply don't know yet. We know for certain that animals engage in homosexual activity. This may indicate that homosexuality is genetically determined, or that it is a natural inclination.
Is that supposed to be an insult?
You'd never see an animal strapping a member of its species to the back of a ute and driving around until it stopped moving.
You'd never see an animal slaughter millions of its kind because of a disagreement on an abstract concept.
Animals might do things that we consider "brutish", but they're not capable of deliberate, methodical evil. That's the domain of humans.
ShadowMaid
New member
Wow! That's really cool Straight Pride month, is the month of my birthday! Makes me very happy.
Makes me very happy.
firechyld
New member
Originally posted by ShadowMaid
Wow! That's really cool Straight Pride month, is the month of my birthday!
I guess I can empathise with that... my birthday usually falls on Mardi Gras weekend.
It's always fun to think that the entire city is shaking its booty for me.