[Dennis002]

There are more gay animals than religious animals, so why not give this concept a chance..

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dennis002 

There are more gay animals than religious animals, so why not give this concept a chance..

What concept? That eating your own young and your own feces is normal?

Are you trying to suggest that homosexuals are somehow not human? I mean, this has got to be the absolute most ignorant line of reasoning I've ever read.

[CleoW]

No, I think he's trying to poke fun at the other thread by lamely insinuating that it's more normal or natural to be gay than to be religious.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CleoW 

No, I think he's trying to poke fun at the other thread by lamely insinuating that it's more normal or natural to be gay than to be religious.

That's what kills me about this line of reasoning though. We're comparing a species incapable of this degree of self-awareness and introspect, and defining humanity down to the "animal kingdom" in an attempt to elevate the definition of a specific social behavior among humans. I just don't think using the gibbon as a gauge of normalcy among humans is an effective method of "changing hearts and minds" on this issue.

Not to mention the underlying assumption that "abnormal" is a bad thing.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Dennis002 

There are more gay animals than religious animals, so why not give this concept a chance..

How do you know animals aren't religious?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's what kills me about this line of reasoning though. We're comparing a species incapable of this degree of self-awareness and introspect, and defining humanity down to the "animal kingdom" in an attempt to elevate the definition of a specific social behavior among humans.

Not to mention the underlying assumption that "abnormal" is a bad thing.

Now honestly, you take a good, hard look at the world and you tell me it's really a step "down" to the animal kingdom.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Now honestly, you take a good, hard look at the world and you tell me it's really a step "down" to the animal kingdom.

I suppose it depends on one's definition of "up" or "down". I think animals would probably do a much better job of designing their own zoos, but unfortunately they lack the necessary technical trades.

[CleoW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I just don't think using the gibbon as a gauge of normalcy among humans is an effective method of "changing hearts and minds" on this issue.

I agree

Btw, at the OP, you don't realize that exclusive homosexuality is only found in the human species?

[medicineman]

I was watching a group of squirrels begin building an abbey the other day. They had just set the lintel, when a bunch of kids came along and knocked it down. Then the landscapers came and removed the debris. There's religious persecution everywhere!

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

I was watching a group of squirrels begin building an abbey the other day. They had just set the lintel, when a bunch of kids came along and knocked it down. Then the landscapers came and removed the debris. There's religious persecution everywhere!

I had lintel soup the other day!

[red rocket]

Nutters.

[ebuddy]

Proud members of a D&D club and resident goons.

[Dennis002]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

How do you know animals aren't religious?

Well, with the exception of mice going to church perhaps..

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by CleoW 

Btw, at the OP, you don't realize that exclusive homosexuality is only found in the human species?

Is that so? You got proof of that?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Proud members of a D&D club and resident goons.

I'm not sure what d&d and goons have to do with that picture.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'm not sure what d&d and goons have to do with that picture.

Don't all atheists play D&D and aren't they all gooney? I thought this was the silly generalizations thread.

[CleoW]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Is that so? You got proof of that?

In Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity , the author examines homosexual behaviour in animals. Species that were noted to engage in homosexual activities also engaged in heterosexual activities.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Is that so? You got proof of that?

Wouldn't the burden of proof be on those making the claim that there are homosexual animals?
Really, would it be so damnable to find out that what others are calling homosexuality is wrong by definition?

I think discussions like this are fruitless without an understanding of whether or not what is being said is actually accurate first.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's what kills me about this line of reasoning though. We're comparing a species incapable of this degree of self-awareness and introspect

It occurs in species that definitely are self-aware, such as dolphins.

Oh, and for troll content:

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by CleoW 

In Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity , the author examines homosexual behaviour in animals. Species that were noted to engage in homosexual activities also engaged in heterosexual activities.

You mean that "individuals that were noted to engage in homosexual activities also engaged in heterosexual activities", right?

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by CleoW 

I agree

Btw, at the OP, you don't realize that exclusive homosexuality is only found in the human species?

I don't think this has been published yet, but the friend of a colleague of mine succeeded in raising exclusively homosexual male mallards.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

You mean that "individuals that were noted to engage in homosexual activities also engaged in heterosexual activities", right?

Species tend to be made up of individuals, yes…

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Species tend to be made up of individuals, yes…

Read what he wrote again. There is a huge difference between the two statements.

[CleoW]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

You mean that "individuals that were noted to engage in homosexual activities also engaged in heterosexual activities", right?

Individuals within species that were noted to engage in homosexual activities engaged in hetero activities as well. And I'm a girl.

I would love to see the study, when published.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I don't think this has been published yet, but the friend of a colleague of mine succeeded in raising exclusively homosexual male mallards.

In the presence of female mallards?

[Dennis002]

Did I already mention that no sex before marriage is not normal?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It occurs in species that definitely are self-aware, such as dolphins.

I didn't say simply "self aware". I said "this degree of self-awareness" referring to the comparison of animals and humans.

Man, when faced with two instinctual conflicts will rely upon intellect in solving the dillemma. Among animals, generally what follows is whatever is most readily available. The cognitive capability of animals is limited to touch, smell, sight, and taste. They do not generally express themselves in the numerous ways available to humans. For example, studies suggest that bonobos will use sexual behavior to avoid conflict with one another and to relax the instinctual fight or flight response. Dogs may engage "homosexual" behavior to establish dominance. The mere smell of a female in the vicinity can often spark a host of mounting behaviors among male dogs.

Dolphins combining in pair-bonds, often caring for one another and spending most of their life together (even while engaging sex with female dolphins) will use one another as protection and aid when injured. This has as much to do with mere survival as it does any ambiguously-assigned human trait they may exhibit. Aside from the mere fact animals touch one another, it seems a leap to compare this with human homosexuality.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you trying to suggest that homosexuals are somehow not human? I mean, this has got to be the absolute most ignorant line of reasoning I've ever read.

I never got that from his statement.

Shows me where your mind is at. Certainly not in this dimension, but in the outer limits.

Typical rapture-right twisting.

I mean, this has got to be the absolute most ignorant line of reasoning I've ever read.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I don't think this has been published yet, but the friend of a colleague of mine succeeded in raising exclusively homosexual male mallards.

And it is unlikely it ever will be published as the concept of imprinting has already been beaten to death and is understood. This is simply a way to try and twist science to manipulate uneducated people.
I knew someone would bring up birds. AFAK ALL birds can be “raised” to court any object or life form. This is not “homosexuality” a case where the bird would have feelings leading him to be attracted to males; differentiating between male and female then choosing male. The bird’s brain is a machine (in imprinting), without ability to think about or make any choice on this matter. That means it can not choose to know even what the difference is between male and female. It will court what it is imprinted on only because it thinks that is a female of its own species. But if you want to take this study seriously then it should also be used to show how gays “raising” kids can turn them homosexual, since the study is really showing it’s how the birds are raised.

Something that has been published though is all the cases were birds imprinted on and attempted to mate with, farm tractors, trees, humans, cats, dogs and bushes.

[Dennis002]

So, is it normal for a bird to mate a farm tractor if it makes the bird happy?
Or would it become normal if the tractor started reproducing little motorized birds?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

I never got that from his statement.

Shows me where your mind is at. Certainly not in this dimension, but in the outer limits.

Typical rapture-right twisting.

I mean, this has got to be the absolute most ignorant line of reasoning I've ever read.

I'll take this entire rant as; "I really have nothing at all to contribute to the discussion". What is "rapture-right twisting" anyway? Is that someone who believes gays should be allowed to marry, but questions the line of reasoning that uses gibbons as the template for human social behavior or are you just spraying insults hoping to hit something?

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by CleoW 

And I'm a girl.

I would love to see the study, when published.

Oops, sorry about that. There is a very good chance that it won't ever be publish. She hates controversy. The discovery was accidental.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

In the presence of female mallards?

The ducks weren't raised in the presence of female mallards. When they were later introducted to them, they still prefered to 'mate' with the male ducks.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'll take this entire rant as; "I really have nothing at all to contribute to the discussion". What is "rapture-right twisting" anyway? Is that someone who believes gays should be allowed to marry, but questions the line of reasoning that uses gibbons as the template for human social behavior or are you just spraying insults hoping to hit something?

One can only have a discussion with someone who has a clear understanding and open mind of the subject at hand. I just don't see that with a person who does not understand or comprehend simple English but twists it and spews it back at a poster totally incoherent from what was posted. I call that desperate and insulting.

A good example is what you did with kobi in another thread. If you need a link?

Here...

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post3374611

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

One can only have a discussion with someone who has a clear understanding and open mind of the subject at hand. I just don't see that with a person who does not understand or comprehend simple English but twists it and spews it back at a poster totally incoherent from what was posted. I call that desperate and insulting.

A good example is what you did with kobi in another thread. If you need a link?

Here...

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post3374611

While I'm sure Kobi appreciates your inept defenses; If I say "... and when the Huskers beat the Aggies in September..." I'm in fact hoping for the Huskers to beat the Aggies in September. Read the context of the link you provided and really ask yourself if it seems Kobi is hoping for defeat. Honestly.

No? Well then you're as blind as a fruitbat and I honestly have nothing more to say to you which really shouldn't affect our discussion. After all, you've yet to offer anything at all of substance, but find it convenient to defend others who've not offered anything of substance. I understand you oppose me, I just wish you employed a modicum of common sense in so doing and could indicate the reasons for your opposition other than; "I don't like you." Again, a focus on "left or right" will leave you dismally ignorant on right and wrong.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

And it is unlikely it ever will be published as the concept of imprinting has already been beaten to death and is understood. This is simply a way to try and twist science to manipulate uneducated people. I knew someone would bring up birds. AFAK ALL birds can be “raised” to court any object or life form. This is not “homosexuality” a case where the bird would have feelings leading him to be attracted to males; differentiating between male and female then choosing male. The bird’s brain is a machine (in imprinting), without ability to think about or make any choice on this matter. That means it can not choose to know even what the difference is between male and female. It will court what it is imprinted on only because it thinks that is a female of its own species.

Why the hostile attitude? I don't have an agenda. You are right that waterfowl use sexual imprinting. Humans don't use this method, but at some point the sexual orientation is 'set' in the brain, just like in the waterfowl. In the case of humans it is probably a combination of the prenatal environment and a genetic susceptibility that makes men gay. Ducks make this 'choice' after birth, but the events in the brain are probably otherwise evolutionarily homologous.

You seem to be suggesting that humans make their mate choice decisions based on their conscious understanding of gender. While we do understand the difference between the sexes, I think it's incorrect to claim that that influences who we are attracted to. Attraction is clearly instinctual. We don't have a choice in the matter any more than the birds do.

Notice that humans are susceptible to paraphilias, pornography, bestiality, blow-up dolls, etc. too (the bird equivalent of the tractor seat or cat). It's not that we are too stupid to realize that the magazine we are holding isn't a real human, it's just that we don't care. Our brains didn't evolve in the presence of pornography, so we don't have any resistance to these 'decoys'.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While I'm sure Kobi appreciates your inept defenses<snippity snip snip>

You see, there you go again. Twisting and squirming. I wasn't defending kobi, I was putting you down. But you knew that.

But as a side note kobi is sane.