Uh... that's called "sarcasm".
September at TOL.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
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?
C
cattyfan
Guest
looking forward to the start of the month. 
Flipper
New member
Knight:
Sorry, no. Bonobo chimps appear to have sex (including same sex couplings) for pleasure. And in other primates where establishing dominance may be the primary aim of a same-sex coupling, no fighting occurs. In fact, it appears such an approach may be adopted as an alternative to fighting. If the alpha males have to fight all the time, their condition will be worn down to the point that they might lose the fight to a male who might otherwise ordinarily not have beaten them.
Hardly. I didn't say anything about whether all animal behavior are desirable just because they're natural. My argument begins and ends with countering this erroneous notion that gay sex is somehow unnatural because animals don't do it. That's just incorrect.
The argument you are now advancing is one I agree with. Just because it happens in nature doesn't make it appropriate for humans.
Whether that includes gay sex or not is highly arguable.
Sorry, no. Bonobo chimps appear to have sex (including same sex couplings) for pleasure. And in other primates where establishing dominance may be the primary aim of a same-sex coupling, no fighting occurs. In fact, it appears such an approach may be adopted as an alternative to fighting. If the alpha males have to fight all the time, their condition will be worn down to the point that they might lose the fight to a male who might otherwise ordinarily not have beaten them.
Hardly. I didn't say anything about whether all animal behavior are desirable just because they're natural. My argument begins and ends with countering this erroneous notion that gay sex is somehow unnatural because animals don't do it. That's just incorrect.
The argument you are now advancing is one I agree with. Just because it happens in nature doesn't make it appropriate for humans.
Whether that includes gay sex or not is highly arguable.
Again this is a losing argument for you Flipper.
Why is that Bonobo chimps are the liberals favorite animals????
Bonobo chimps uniformly mistake other male chimps for sexual activity, In other words its common among many of the chimps not just certain "gay" chimps. Again.... there are not certain Bonobo chimps that are gay and others that are not gay. There are NO Bonobo chimps that prefer gay sex to normal sex. There are not Bonobo chimps that choose gay sex over normal sex.
I have been in this argument before and trust me its a losing argument for you Flipper. We can go there if you want but you will lose and make a fool of yourself yet one more time.
philosophizer
New member
I think you used the wrong word here. Just because something happens doesn't mean it is "normal".
C
cattyfan
Guest
Just because something is natural doesn't make it good. For example, small pox, tornadoes, salmonella, and flash flooding are all natural but are not good. This list also demonstrates that when humans determine something isn't good, they fight against it.
I look at the gay issue this way: no one has shown that being gay is anything BUT a choice. There is no genetic proof...just a bunch of speculation from people trying to make immorality more palatable. and even if there was a genetic component, it would put homosexuality in the same category as other genetic DEFECTS. It will never be normal.
And I've said before that pointing out the behavior of animals and reminding us that humans are animals has never been a great defense for homosexuality: I've never aspired to act like the other animals. Dogs sniff each others' behinds as a greeting, frightened rodents eat their young, and monkeys fling feces. I wouldn't want humans engaging in any of this behavior. These, as with homosexuality, are disgusting.
We are unlike the other animals since we ostensibly have higher cognitive function.
Ironnically, many of the same people who support homosexuality also believe in evolution...and those two ideas are mutually exclusive since the theory of evolution claims that process takes place to ensure the survival of the species.
Doesn't seem to matter from what angle you look at it: homosexuality is wrong on all counts.
Flipper
New member
Knight:
Oh you mean "exclusively gay".
Well you're wrong.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1061683.htm
Here's a piece that talks about longer term same sex bonds in animals. Apparently 5% of black swans in the wild and in captivity form lasting same sex bonds.
http://www.bnews.net.au/content3/mstar/074/05.pdf
As far as the bonobos go, this paper "The Social Behavior of Chimpanzees and Bonobos" points out that male/female sexual activity may actually be the minority of bonobo sexual activity.
http://hominid.uchicago.edu/cmalcom/BonoboChimpSocBehavior.pdf
Hyaaah! Truthsmack!
Oh you mean "exclusively gay".
Well you're wrong.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1061683.htm
Here's a piece that talks about longer term same sex bonds in animals. Apparently 5% of black swans in the wild and in captivity form lasting same sex bonds.
http://www.bnews.net.au/content3/mstar/074/05.pdf
As far as the bonobos go, this paper "The Social Behavior of Chimpanzees and Bonobos" points out that male/female sexual activity may actually be the minority of bonobo sexual activity.
http://hominid.uchicago.edu/cmalcom/BonoboChimpSocBehavior.pdf
Hyaaah! Truthsmack!
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Hey Knight,
If you're really interested in the diversity of your alleged deity's creation, I'd suggest reading "Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation" by Olivia Judson.
It's a humorous collection of "letters to the lovelorn", all of whom happen to be members of the animal kingdom. Judson covers quite a wide spread of animal biology in an easily read fashion. It also opens the layman's eyes to the huge variety of sexual expression amongst the animals that use sex for procreation and, sometimes, recreation.
:thumb:
If you're really interested in the diversity of your alleged deity's creation, I'd suggest reading "Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation" by Olivia Judson.
It's a humorous collection of "letters to the lovelorn", all of whom happen to be members of the animal kingdom. Judson covers quite a wide spread of animal biology in an easily read fashion. It also opens the layman's eyes to the huge variety of sexual expression amongst the animals that use sex for procreation and, sometimes, recreation.
:thumb:
Flipper = :dunce: Zakath = :zakath:
It is sort of strange that these two knuckleheads want to compare homosexuals to animals. You would think they would be more "loving" towards gays.
It is sort of strange that these two knuckleheads want to compare homosexuals to animals. You would think they would be more "loving" towards gays.
Flipper
New member
Your switch from assertion to ad hominem while avoiding any pretense of a counter argument only goes to show the stinging effectiveness of my backhanded truthsmack.
I suppose a humble admission of your mistake is out of the question? I guess the best I can hope for will be some Clintonesque quibbling about meaning. Still, any further wriggling on the hook will only make my victory sweeter.
I suppose a humble admission of your mistake is out of the question? I guess the best I can hope for will be some Clintonesque quibbling about meaning. Still, any further wriggling on the hook will only make my victory sweeter.
Counter argument???
Counter argument to what?
I didn't assert that homo's were animals. You did.
Flipper
New member
I think that anyone with the ability to read and remember the salient points of two pages on this thread will know what the terms of the argument were.
But just to remind those who have goldfish memories.
The paper I quoted proves you wrong as far as the frequency of Bonobo same sex vs heterosexual encounters go.
I'm not as emphatic as you are, as I don't feel so attuned to the bonobo mentality as to know what kind of sex they prefer. I can only go from scientific observations of animal behavior.
And apparently I need to remind you of your original statement which prompted my disagreement:
I think we've shown that this childishly black and white assertion is unsalvagably flawed. Read the Bonobo paper if you don't believe me.
And I dispensed with your "you're saying we should be more like animals" arguments some posts ago.
But for some reason you continued to hammer on this point, even though I readily agreed with the basic premise that just because something may be natural says nothing about its appropriateness for human beings.
Nevertheless, perhaps realizing that your position is untenable despite your assertion that I would "lose", this has been the point you have chosen to make, as if it were the argument I was disputing.
Once again, just as a reminder, I disputed your assertion that `gay' partnerships never occur in nature, and the incorrect notion that any same sex activity at all is a mistake on behalf of the animal; one that will lead to a fight. These handwavings are just plain wrong. In fact, they're wrong in 300 different colors. Fundamentally incorrect, whether you say it here in Colorado or shout it from the mountaintops in Bhutan. You are wrong. Mistaken. Misinformed. Admit it and move on, don't try and wriggle out by tainting my argument with one I wasn't even making.
Nice try. At best, I would agree that as humans, we are all animals and the evidence rather supports me on this one. However, we are highly intelligent, self-aware ones and that makes for significant differences. You can attribute that to the soul or divine creation if you like.
But just to remind those who have goldfish memories.
The paper I quoted proves you wrong as far as the frequency of Bonobo same sex vs heterosexual encounters go.
I'm not as emphatic as you are, as I don't feel so attuned to the bonobo mentality as to know what kind of sex they prefer. I can only go from scientific observations of animal behavior.
And apparently I need to remind you of your original statement which prompted my disagreement:
I think we've shown that this childishly black and white assertion is unsalvagably flawed. Read the Bonobo paper if you don't believe me.
And I dispensed with your "you're saying we should be more like animals" arguments some posts ago.
But for some reason you continued to hammer on this point, even though I readily agreed with the basic premise that just because something may be natural says nothing about its appropriateness for human beings.
Nevertheless, perhaps realizing that your position is untenable despite your assertion that I would "lose", this has been the point you have chosen to make, as if it were the argument I was disputing.
Once again, just as a reminder, I disputed your assertion that `gay' partnerships never occur in nature, and the incorrect notion that any same sex activity at all is a mistake on behalf of the animal; one that will lead to a fight. These handwavings are just plain wrong. In fact, they're wrong in 300 different colors. Fundamentally incorrect, whether you say it here in Colorado or shout it from the mountaintops in Bhutan. You are wrong. Mistaken. Misinformed. Admit it and move on, don't try and wriggle out by tainting my argument with one I wasn't even making.
Nice try. At best, I would agree that as humans, we are all animals and the evidence rather supports me on this one. However, we are highly intelligent, self-aware ones and that makes for significant differences. You can attribute that to the soul or divine creation if you like.
C
cattyfan
Guest
And even though I addressed Flipper's "points," he'll never know. If I remember correctly, he has me on ignore. :chuckle: