September at TOL.

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by cattyfan

And even though I addressed Flipper's "points," he'll never know. If I remember correctly, he has me on ignore. :chuckle:

What did you say for him to put you on ignore??? :noway:

:chuckle:
 
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 

firechyld

New member
the second part is not mere preference. It's biology. Humans are not designed for gay sex,

I'd disagree.

and there is no genetic proof that homosexuality is inborn or occurs "naturally."

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?

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.

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.

Not all things which occur in nature are desirable.

No-one is attempting to claim otherwise.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by firechyld

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.
All right already!

I concede the point.

I was wrong... and you three are right. Homo's are indeed like animals.
 

firechyld

New member
All right already!

I concede the point.

I was wrong... and you three are right. Homo's are indeed like animals.

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. ;)
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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. ;)
Oh really?

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
Oh really?

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".

aikido said this, seemingly out of nowhere:

Animals and insects are born gay. And transgendered. And even transexual.

But the Bible has set man apart. Gay stuff is normal, but not for mankind.

After you responded with a :kookoo:, this was followed by Flipper attempting to clarify aikido's statement:

I think Aikido is suggesting that same gendered sex is normal within the animal kingdom to an extent. And he's right.

As far as transgendered animals go, there are a lot of animals that are hermaphroditic. There are even some that will change sex more than once throughout their lifecycle.

Up until this point, they were simply random comments. It was you who turned this into an argument with your next post:

This argument is so lame.

First off.... animals do not intentionally have "gay sex". There are times when animals mistakenly attempt to have sex with the same gender. This attempt quickly ends with a fight.

But.... now that you bring this up....

Maybe your right... maybe we should compare gays to animals.

After all...

Animals are dumb! Animals even eat their own vomit or fecal matter! Maybe gays are more like animals than normal people.

Is that the argument you are trying to make?

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!
 

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Lovejoy

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!

Very nice!
 

firechyld

New 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!

Gorgeous. :)
 

Lovejoy

Active member
Originally posted by Poly

Very nice!

Thanks! She is a bit embarrased by the idea of having her picture where so many people will see it. We have only been married for about 20 months, but it has been quite the full time. BTW, you guys look very much in love in your avatar photo!
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by firechyld
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... 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.
 

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Lovejoy

BTW, you guys look very much in love in your avatar photo!

We were ...er .. are ... ARE! WE ARE!! :eek:
 

firechyld

New member
Lovejoy...

Thank you, FC. Is there a picture (other than the flaming thing) of you and your guy in the gallery?

No... I could probably put one up.... *muses*

Knight...

So... you are saying that bringing the "gay" animal topic up had ZERO to do with the topic of gay humans?

If so.... why was that topic even brought up in the first place and then later supported by Flipper and Zakath?

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.

The truth is... the topic was brought up to make the point that homo's are born gay just like some animals are.

*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.

Again... as I have already stated...

I am now conceding the point.....

Homos are like animals.

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.
 

firechyld

New member
Originally posted by ShadowMaid

Wow! That's really cool Straight Pride month, is the month of my birthday! :D Makes me very happy. :)

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. ;)
 
Top