- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidIf I gave an example of a monogamous female-female pairing, would you be convinced that homosexual animals do exist and that such activity is not random sexual behaviour? Such behaviour is documented. There are many known cases of male penguin or swan pairings which hatch eggs together.
One last point bbarr...
When my dog humps the visitor's leg, does that necessarily mean my dog is into bestiality and physically attracted to humans? The obvious answer is no. So why then when an animal humps another male animal conveniently within close proximity, is that animal automatically a bona fide homosexual?
I'm just asking because you have ...[text shortened]... ious and quote me and take me to task for it. You know I don't really think that)
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by Conrau KSince when hatching eggs together is homosexuality.
If I gave an example of a monogamous female-female pairing, would you be convinced that homosexual animals do exist and that such activity is not random sexual behaviour? Such behaviour is documented. There are many known cases of male penguin or swan pairings which hatch eggs together.
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidTake it however you want. It's pretty clear that you're not inclined to do the very minimal amount of research required to figure this out for yourself. I even pointed you to a site with references! But here is a fact sheet on bonobos from the Primate Research Center at UW-Madison:
I'll take that as a big, fat "NO," to my request for links that show lesbian relationships exist in the animal kingdom.
You yourself made a claim that homosexual activity is rife in the animal kingdom. Homosexuality (as has been made painfully clear in this very thread) is not defined as same sex sex. Homosexuality is a condition of the mind.
Again, ...[text shortened]... MO, but, as I said probably in my first post to you. For some reason I just expect better.
http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/behav
And, as a more comprehensive introductory summary, here is an excerpt from a Cambridge book on homosexual behavior in animals:
http://www.cambridge.org/servlet/file/store6/item5726161/version1/9780521864466_excerpt.htm
You'll want to read this second one carefully, since it explicitly eschews talking of homosexual orientation as it is understood among humans, and focuses on homosexual behavior, which the authors construe as relating to "courtship displays, mounting and/or genital contact and stimulation between same-sex individuals".
And, please, be clear. It is your tradition that takes homosexual activity to be sinful and unnatural, not the orientation (as you've all repeated, time and time again). The orientation itself can't be unnatural, since it naturally happens to a consistent proportion of the population of human beings! So it is homosexual sexual activity that is here at issue. If you want to claim that such activity is unnatural, then the refutation is the prevalence of homosexual sexual activity throughout the animal kingdom (between 1,000 and 1,500 species do it!). That you think these behaviors are most accurately modeled on male-male rape indicates just how profoundly ignorant you are about the range, variation, and functional roles in securing affection and cooperation to which homosexual sexual activity in the animal kingdom conduces.
Now this is the point where you can either gerrymander your definitions of 'homosexuality', or 'homosexual activity', or 'natural', in order to get your desired results. That's what you do; it is the one tool in your arsenal. Here in these fora we've seen this so often we have a name for it: It's called the 'Theistic Secret Decoder Ring'.
And it is simply stupid to infer that if homosexual relationships are prevalent in the animal world, that we should expect to find equivalent rates of male-male and female-female relationships. We do see a whole lot of both. But you have to look at the functions sexual activity serves in different species in order to predict the rates of typical types of homosexual sexual relationships. Bonobos have a matriarchal structure, and "lesbian" relationships are there more prevalent than gay relationships.
But, whatever. I'll do your research for you, since you obviously can't be bothered, and because you've already made up your mind. Now it's your turn to take out your trusty Theistic Secret Decoder Ring and allege that I'm using these terms incorrectly. What a farce!
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by bbarreven so, one cannot equate animal behaviour with human as a justifying principle for
Take it however you want. It's pretty clear that you're not inclined to do the very minimal amount of research required to figure this out for yourself. I even pointed you to a site with references! But here is a fact sheet on bonobos from the Primate Research Center at UW-Madison:
http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/behav
And, as a mo ...[text shortened]... Ring and allege that I'm using these terms incorrectly. What a farce!
clearly there are animal behavioural patterns that if adopted by humans would prove to
be disastrous.
09 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI'll look up those links and glean what I can from them.
Take it however you want. It's pretty clear that you're not inclined to do the very minimal amount of research required to figure this out for yourself. I even pointed you to a site with references! But here is a fact sheet on bonobos from the Primate Research Center at UW-Madison:
http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/behav
And, as a mo Ring and allege that I'm using these terms incorrectly. What a farce!
But it's pretty telling that you are so bent out of shape for having to back up a claim with something more substantive than "Google it yourself," going as far as to claim you are doing my research for me, i.e. I'm pathetically lazy.
I'll remember this well as we continue to lock horns. I'm glad that you believe claims don't need to be backed up with anything more then "Google it." I could have lots of fun with that. And I plan to, when the mood strikes.
Thanks for your well-thought-out, mature reply, your research and expertise, and your kind words.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999Could you explain what sumydid would consider to be an example of homosexuality in the animal kingdom? So far he has denied that same-sex activity would be considered a sign of homosexuality. If not a monogamous pairing and raising of young in a same-sex couple, what else could qualify?
Since when hatching eggs together is homosexuality.
09 Nov 11
1 edit
Before we do any further, I think we need to here a succinct but satisfactory definition of "homosexual" as in what it means to have a state of homosexuality.
We've already discussed (see prison rape, etc) that by commiting a homosexual act, it does not necessarily mean that the perpetrators are homosexuals.
There is obviously much more to being homosexual than what you do. It's a state of being.
Can someone please define this state of being (fairly and seriously)?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidThere is obviously much more to being homosexual than what you do. It's a state of being.
Before we do any further, I think we need to here a succinct but satisfactory definition of "homosexual" as in what it means to have a state of homosexuality.
We've already discussed (see prison rape, etc) that by commiting a homosexual act, it does not necessarily mean that the perpetrators are homosexuals.
There is obviously much more to being homose ...[text shortened]... s a state of being.
Can someone please define this state of being (fairly and seriously)?
This is definitely true. However, as far as we are concerned with ethics, you have said that only sexual activity matters. You have explicitly said that a homosexual orientation is not immoral and you have also said that a homosexual relationship, so long as intimacy is restricted to chaste handholding, is morally permissible. So why, when it comes to the animal kingdom, do you stipulate that we provide examples of a homosexual orientation, when you have said that this is irrelevant to Christian ethics?
bbar has said as much but I thought to reiterate it.
09 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrNot necessarily. In your rebuttal vs. the "natural" argument, you failed to mention the actual context of "natural."
Facts about homosexual activity in the animal kingdom are not used as a "yardstick"; that's not the dialectical role these facts play. Rather, they are used to rebut arguments against homosexual activity that start with the premise that it is unnatural and conclude that it is therefore immoral or, minimally, that its being unnatural is a reason against it. B t of 'natural' is itself a moral notion, and so ends up being question-begging.
The argument that homosexual sexual relationships and more directly, homosexual acts are "unnatural" is meant to simply say it is neither by design, nor does it serve an ultimate higher purpose. And only as an aside, Christians are consistent in that we do not support casual, premarital heterosexual sex either--and it also serves no greater purpose. So Christians aren't just singling out homosexual sex in a spiteful, bigoted fashion.
Looking at animal behavior from a purely scientific point of view, which I'm sure you are in favor of as it removes any moral arguments; the observer can identify most any action as instinctive and meant to serve a greater purpose. Behavior of insects, plant life, and all of nature can typically be boiled down to serving a greater purpose. That purpose is raising young ones and teaching them to survive, or, hunting for survival of the species, and procreation for survival of the species. Most any action, no matter how insignificant it may seem on the surface, boils down to species surival and "instincts." Just about the only justification for a homosexual act within the animal kingdom is to sexually gratify one of the animals (the 'pitcher' as it were). Though animals do have an instinctive desire to be physically pleasured, the act of doing so in quote-unquote homosexual fashion, is at the very best, a one-sided pleasuring of the dominant perpetrating animal and in no way serves any other purpose.
Now if we want to talk about "natural" in the context of design: It is quite obvious and deserves nothing more than a casual observation. The anus is "is the external opening of the rectum. ... its closure is controlled by sphincter muscles. Feces are expelled from the body through the anus during the act of defecation..." [wiki "anus"] In other words, the anus functions to expel toxins and spent fuel cells in the form of food. The act of sex by use of this orifice is clearly not using it the way it was designed.
On the other hand, the act of heterosexual sex, and our physical pleasure from it, can be clearly boiled down to design and survival of the species. Why do both parties gain such intense physical pleasure from heterosexual sex? Because if it weren't so pleasurable, we would not be inclined so strongly to do it, and the species would suffer from stunted or zero population growth. That's a round peg in a round hole, no pun intended. It meshes perfectly with design via species survival. Homosexual sexual acts, be they by human beings or within the animal kingdom, serve absolutely no purpose other than physical pleasure and typically by just one party.
We've heard the argument that the catcher is equally gratified. That is not true. Anal sex for the catcher does not promote orgasm without the catcher concurrently stimulating his genitals in some other fashion. The "massaging" of the prostate during sex may augment physical gratification in certain individuals but it does not in and of itself cause orgasm. The reason for the orgasm is again, by design and meant to promote species survival.
And something tells me that certain individuals will argue that the massaging of a prostate can induce orgasm... but I'm sorry... if that were true, then we'd have endless documented cases in human history of men achieving "accidental orgasm" on the toilet, wouldn't we?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidbbar has already acknowledged several times the multivalency of 'natural'. He mentioned at the outset the teleological interpretation, i.e. that the human person was designed for such and such an end. He has already objected to that as question-begging because the idea of 'design' already presupposes moral commitments. If you had read his posts, you would know this.
Not necessarily. In your rebuttal vs. the "natural" argument, you failed to mention the actual context of "natural."
The argument that homosexual sexual relationships and more directly, homosexual acts are "unnatural" is meant to simply say it is neither by design, nor does it serve an ultimate higher purpose. And only as an aside, Christi ...[text shortened]... ory of men achieving "accidental orgasm" on the toilet, wouldn't we?
We've heard the argument that the catcher is equally gratified. That is not true. Anal sex for the catcher does not promote orgasm without the catcher concurrently stimulating his genitals in some other fashion. The "massaging" of the prostate during sex may augment physical gratification in certain individuals but it does not in and of itself cause orgasm. The reason for the orgasm is again, by design and meant to promote species survival.
Ummm...you are so wrong.
And something tells me that certain individuals will argue that the massaging of a prostate can induce orgasm... but I'm sorry... if that were true, then we'd have endless documented cases in human history of men achieving "accidental orgasm" on the toilet, wouldn't we?
Um...no, we wouldn't. Anal sex does not feel like defecation.
09 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloYes, one basic point I wanted to be shown directly is this: (although it has been inferred by many posts already) , There isa HUGE difference between sins like murder,theft,etc. (sins that hurt other people )and so called sins that only affect the individual making those decisions.
[b]Is it your opinion that Christians know all of Gods reasons and plans for everything under the sun?
Of course not. It is my opinion that some Christians are stunted in their moral development and exhibit childlike deliberations well into their adulthood, where they simply uncritically swallow stuff they take to be handed down by God, even if it t about you and your ilk, though, and the bad and harmful practices that you reinforce.[/b]
How Rajk or anyone else for that matter can lump homosexual activity together with those other sins is silly really.
Can you christians not see the difference between hurting oneself (if it is hurting at all) to hurting others? I think their is a major difference here. Sins that hurt others need to be legislated against but "sins" that dont hurt anyone except potentially the individual should be put into a different basket.
Rajk has mentioned a couple of times that he thinks homosexuality is just as much of a sin as theft or murder.
This is ridiculous thinking in my book, not to mention that prohibition has never worked.
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelka,
Yes, one basic point I wanted to be shown directly is this: (although it has been inferred by many posts already) , There isa HUGE difference between sins like murder,theft,etc. (sins that hurt other people )and so called sins that only affect the individual making those decisions.
How Rajk or anyone else for that matter can lump homosexual activity ...[text shortened]... r.
This is ridiculous thinking in my book, not to mention that prohibition has never worked.
A broken promise to God is one of the most aggregious sins a Christian can commit; and yet, no one is hurt by it. Right?
A lie where no one is hurt, is no big deal to some people, but it's a big deal to Christians.
Adultery, if never discovered and never ending in a broken family, is a big deal to Christians.
Jesus said just fantasizing about adultery is a sin. To others, it's no harm no foul.
The point is only that Christians believe it is wrong to commit a lot of different actions, whether anyone is directly hurt or not.
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by Conrau KAs far as your first point, I carefully read bbarr's comments and he did not specifically mention 'by design' that I recall, plus he put a moral clause in his argument where I argued from a purely scientific viewpoint.
bbar has already acknowledged several times the multivalency of 'natural'. He mentioned at the outset the teleological interpretation, i.e. that the human person was designed for such and such an end. He has already objected to that as question-begging because the idea of 'design' already presupposes moral commitments. If you had read his posts, you would k ...[text shortened]... , wouldn't we?
Um...no, we wouldn't. Anal sex does not feel like defecation.[/b]
As for the other stuff, I was arguing from what I think is a common sense standpoint but admittedly I don't have any experience nor did I initiate a google search to study the matter in detail. If my argument was wrong, I can take that.
09 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidOk, but there is no lying and no one is hurt through consensul sex/love.
ka,
A broken promise to God is one of the most aggregious sins a Christian can commit; and yet, no one is hurt by it. Right?
A lie where no one is hurt, is no big deal to some people, but it's a big deal to Christians.
Adultery, if never discovered and never ending in a broken family, is a big deal to Christians.
Jesus said just fantasizing abou ieve it is wrong to commit a lot of different actions, whether anyone is directly hurt or not.
I am not talking about adultery , which clearly harms others ,(most of the time)
Fantasizing about adultery is neither here nor there. Again, we are not talking about adultery, we are talking about homosexuality, which does not harm anyone.
Please note the difference between actions that hurt others and actions that dont.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidAs far as your first point, I carefully read bbarr's comments and he did not specifically mention 'by design' that I recall, plus he put a moral clause in his argument where I argued from a purely scientific viewpoint.
As far as your first point, I carefully read bbarr's comments and he did not specifically mention 'by design' that I recall, plus he put a moral clause in his argument where I argued from a purely scientific viewpoint.
As for the other stuff, I was arguing from what I think is a common sense standpoint but admittedly I don't have any experience nor did I ...[text shortened]... e a google search to study the matter in detail. If my argument was wrong, I can take that.
So basically you are committing the fundamental error of the naturalistic fallacy.