homosexuality in the animal kingdom

[Merlin1047]

Hey jimmy...have you ever eaten a hamburger? How about a nice, juicy steak? Maybe a big piece of ham or turkey at Thanksgiving? That my friend is eating another animal. Once again, the point of this post is that homosexuality is natural. It's been natural since life existed. BTW, my understanding is that most animals do not have a "family" as we understand it, and so would have no concept of incest. Dogs are often bred to related dogs by humans, so we force them to engage in "incest". If you haven't read the article, please do.

acludem

Okay, now you've done it.

Next time I go to the zoo, I'm packing a '45 just in case any of those little black and white perverts come waddling up behind me.

 

[Merlin1047]

It probably never occurred to many of you that homosexuality is common even among fruits and vegetables.

So how can you tell if the orange you're sucking on is homosexual?





If it's sucking back.

 

[Merlin1047]

In that same general vein - everyone knows that Sweden has been the haven for sex-change operations for men who want to be women. But in recent years many women have wanted to become men. Swedish doctors finally figured out a procedure. Matter of fact it's become common enough that they have named it.

It's called an addadictomy.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Y'alls ignorance defies description.

 

[Merlin1047]

Oh maaaannnn! That was some of my better stuff - off the "A" list even and you go and disparage it.

I'm hurt.

 

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h2><a href=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/08/31/politics1053EDT0552.DTL&type=printable>Republican Rep. Ed Schrock of Virginia announces retirement following claims he is gay</a></h2></center>

<blockquote>- BOB LEWIS, Associated Press Writer


(08-31) 07:53 PDT RICHMOND, Va. (AP) --

Republicans were scrambling to find a replacement candidate after U.S. Rep. Edward L. Schrock announced his retirement amid claims that he is gay.

Republicans from Schrock's conservative district, which includes Norfolk and Virginia Beach, planned to choose a nominee to oppose Democratic lawyer David B. Ashe after a hastily arranged meeting Tuesday night.

The party has just three days left to get names on the Nov. 2 ballot, state GOP spokesman Shawn M. Smith said. Two state senators and two delegates were among those mentioned.</blockquote>

And this from a man who voted to ban same-gender marriage. Those who protest loudesthave the most to hide.

 

[insein]

<center><h2><a href=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/08/31/politics1053EDT0552.DTL&type=printable>Republican Rep. Ed Schrock of Virginia announces retirement following claims he is gay</a></h2></center>

<blockquote>- BOB LEWIS, Associated Press Writer


(08-31) 07:53 PDT RICHMOND, Va. (AP) --

Republicans were scrambling to find a replacement candidate after U.S. Rep. Edward L. Schrock announced his retirement amid claims that he is gay.

Republicans from Schrock's conservative district, which includes Norfolk and Virginia Beach, planned to choose a nominee to oppose Democratic lawyer David B. Ashe after a hastily arranged meeting Tuesday night.

The party has just three days left to get names on the Nov. 2 ballot, state GOP spokesman Shawn M. Smith said. Two state senators and two delegates were among those mentioned.</blockquote>

And this from a man who voted to ban same-gender marriage. Those who protest loudesthave the most to hide.

What does that say about same gender marriage? Even a gay guy won't support it.

 

[Merlin1047]

What does that say about same gender marriage? Even a gay guy won't support it.

Damn. Ya reckon he was hanging out with one of those penguins?

 

[Avatar4321]

What does that say about same gender marriage? Even a gay guy won't support it.

How the heck would Bully know? he doesnt stop to think about what he is posting. If he did hed be a conservative.

 

[8236]

Since apes shit anywhere they want maybe humans we should try that too. OMG we are so much more evolved than other animals, its called critical thinking.

I though humans did shit everywhere. Just ask all the species weve driven to extinction - oops soz, forgot, they're not here anymore.

 

[8236]

3-Headed Frog Found
Frog Also Has 6 Legs

Wildlife experts in Britain are stunned by the apparent discovery of a frog with three croaking heads and six legs, Local 6 News will report Friday night.

The frog was reportedly found at a children's day nursery in the English village of Weston Super-Mare in Somerset, according to the report.

The staff at the Green Umbrella nursery first thought it was three frogs huddled together but after closer inspection they realized the frogs were joined together.

A wildlife biologist said a reason for the three-headed frog’s development could have been damage to the embryo, according to a report.

Watch Local 6 News for more on this story
link

I remember a case in the Fortean Times: A frog found in a back yard, also in the UK, that had its eyelids on the inside of its mouth - i.e. it had to open its mouth to see. Where its eyelids were meant to be was just covered with skin.

Frogs are weird, they fuck up so easily - maybe they are gay?

I mean, surely, pesticides and pollution can't be to blame.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

This matter of what the presence of homosexuality in nature proves seems to be causing trouble because a distinction was not made. The argument is:

There are homosexuals in the animal kingdom
That which is in the animal kingdom is natural

Therefore homosexuality is natural; by implication, homosexuality in humans, since we are biologically a part of the animal kingdom.

This argument merely refutes the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural. It is not an affirming argument claiming that homosexuality is right because it is natural. The attempt is to show that the dichotomy between right and wrong should not even come into play.

 

[Merlin1047]

This matter of what the presence of homosexuality in nature proves seems to be causing trouble because a distinction was not made. The argument is:

There are homosexuals in the animal kingdom
That which is in the animal kingdom is natural

Therefore homosexuality is natural; by implication, homosexuality in humans, since we are biologically a part of the animal kingdom.

This argument merely refutes the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural. It is not an affirming argument claiming that homosexuality is right because it is natural. The attempt is to show that the dichotomy between right and wrong should not even come into play.

Not so. Simply because homosexuality occurs among animals, that is not a sufficient basis for proclaiming it "natural". That is out and out baloney. If homosexuality were "natural" as you claim, then it would be the predominant behavioral pattern among animals.

But homosexuality does NOT predominate. It is, in fact, aberrant behavior among animals. Same as in humans.

Equivocate and rationalize as you will, this line of reasoning will get you nowhere.

 

[nakedemperor]

I can't help but think of my gooefy dog a couple of weeks ago when I went over to my buddy's house. My dog try to hump my buddy's dog, another male dog. I have also seen my dog eat our cat's poop(yuck), so to compare animal behavoir with human behavoir is laughable.

The salient point here that acludem is trying to make is that homosexuality is natural. A few weeks ago a couple of people were arguing that homosexuality is a choice that is made by gays, which just isn't true. Its actually a belief held by a large number of Americans. Likewise, many view homosexuality as "unnatural", which it certainly is not. It is found in nature among animals with no reason (or ability) to have chosen to mate with animals of the same gender.

Merlin argues that this isn't so, on logic that is about as shaky as Kerry's senatorial voting record. He said: anything that isn't a predominant behavioral pattern ISN'T "natural". :huh: I don't get it either. Among members of a type of chimpanzee (I'm looking for the article), about one quarter of them use tools during their daily life. This is obviously not a predominant behavioral pattern, but is NATURAL. Incidentally, it is also a beneficial recessive behavioral pattern. What about genes that are not dominant? Are they unnatural? People with blue eyes display a PHYSICAL (not behavioral) trait that is recessive (i.e. not dominant), and somehow Merlin's logic would preclude that blue eyes are unnatural.

Face it. It's natural. It's a behavioral trait that occurs in about 2% of human beings. The only salient argument I've ever heard for the idea that "homosexuality = bad" is that God says its bad. And kudos to he who can argue with that.

 

[KarlMarx]

The salient point here that acludem is trying to make is that homosexuality is natural. A few weeks ago a couple of people were arguing that homosexuality is a choice that is made by gays, which just isn't true. Its actually a belief held by a large number of Americans. Likewise, many view homosexuality as "unnatural", which it certainly is not. It is found in nature among animals with no reason (or ability) to have chosen to mate with animals of the same gender.

Merlin argues that this isn't so, on logic that is about as shaky as Kerry's senatorial voting record. He said: anything that isn't a predominant behavioral pattern ISN'T "natural". :huh: I don't get it either. Among members of a type of chimpanzee (I'm looking for the article), about one quarter of them use tools during their daily life. This is obviously not a predominant behavioral pattern, but is NATURAL. Incidentally, it is also a beneficial recessive behavioral pattern. What about genes that are not dominant? Are they unnatural? People with blue eyes display a PHYSICAL (not behavioral) trait that is recessive (i.e. not dominant), and somehow Merlin's logic would preclude that blue eyes are unnatural.

Face it. It's natural. It's a behavioral trait that occurs in about 2% of human beings. The only salient argument I've ever heard for the idea that "homosexuality = bad" is that God says its bad. And kudos to he who can argue with that.

Actually, the author of the Bible might agree with you. Homosexuality is natural, as is murdering others, adultery, cheating, lying, stealing and so forth. That isn't why it was forbidden.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an sin unto God.

1 Corinthians 9 verses 9 and 10
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Leviticus 18:22
'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

That's why it's wrong. People who have faith in the Bible call it a sin.

 

[OCA]

The salient point here that acludem is trying to make is that homosexuality is natural. A few weeks ago a couple of people were arguing that homosexuality is a choice that is made by gays, which just isn't true. Its actually a belief held by a large number of Americans. Likewise, many view homosexuality as "unnatural", which it certainly is not. It is found in nature among animals with no reason (or ability) to have chosen to mate with animals of the same gender.

Merlin argues that this isn't so, on logic that is about as shaky as Kerry's senatorial voting record. He said: anything that isn't a predominant behavioral pattern ISN'T "natural". :huh: I don't get it either. Among members of a type of chimpanzee (I'm looking for the article), about one quarter of them use tools during their daily life. This is obviously not a predominant behavioral pattern, but is NATURAL. Incidentally, it is also a beneficial recessive behavioral pattern. What about genes that are not dominant? Are they unnatural? People with blue eyes display a PHYSICAL (not behavioral) trait that is recessive (i.e. not dominant), and somehow Merlin's logic would preclude that blue eyes are unnatural.

Face it. It's natural. It's a behavioral trait that occurs in about 2% of human beings. The only salient argument I've ever heard for the idea that "homosexuality = bad" is that God says its bad. And kudos to he who can argue with that.

No its not natural in humans keep comparing yourself to animals who lack common sense and the ability to reason. Y'all don't realize this argument does more damage to your case.

 

[Merlin1047]

Merlin argues that this isn't so, on logic that is about as shaky as Kerry's senatorial voting record. He said: anything that isn't a predominant behavioral pattern ISN'T "natural". :huh: I don't get it either. Among members of a type of chimpanzee (I'm looking for the article), about one quarter of them use tools during their daily life. This is obviously not a predominant behavioral pattern, but is NATURAL. Incidentally, it is also a beneficial recessive behavioral pattern. What about genes that are not dominant? Are they unnatural? People with blue eyes display a PHYSICAL (not behavioral) trait that is recessive (i.e. not dominant), and somehow Merlin's logic would preclude that blue eyes are unnatural.

I knew better than waste time arguing with you guys over this one. The only part of your statement that isn't a distortion is your admittance that you "don't get it". Likely you never will.

"Natural" in reference to any species is meant to convey the manner in which that species was INTENDED to behave. Blue eyes, use of tools, left-handed people, etc which you referenced are recessive traits. Homosexual behavior is an aberrant trait. It is not in keeping with the way that species was DESIGNED or INTENDED to behave.

Tap dance all you like. You STILL can't get off the starting line with this old horse.

 

[007]

The salient point here that acludem is trying to make is that homosexuality is natural. A few weeks ago a couple of people were arguing that homosexuality is a choice that is made by gays, which just isn't true. Its actually a belief held by a large number of Americans. Likewise, many view homosexuality as "unnatural", which it certainly is not.

Well here we go again with the bullshit old faggot humpin' tale of pole smoking and bean packing being "natural". Even when they KNOW they have NO CHANCE IN HELL, which I might add is where queerness originates, of convincing ANYONE HERE of that stale old line of crap. Once again, the NORMAL people in society need to explain to these sick fuckers that the PENIS'S INTENDED USE is to be INSERTED INTO A WOMAN'S VAGINA, and for urination. A MAN inserting his penis into another mans anus is as UNNATURAL OF AN ACT as any other by a living creature. It's wrong, perverse, and goes DIRECTLY AGAINST ALL LAWS OF NATURE AND MORALITY.

You queers are the most disgusting group of human beings on earth. You need to take your promiscuous, deviant, perverse, disgusting behavior, and go back in the damn closet where fucking belong. You have no place in a society among decent people. You're sick and should be seeking psychiatric help, NOT trying to convince people that you sucking your boyfriends dick, and humping him up the ass is NATURAL. NO ONES BUYING IT SHIT FOR BRAINS!!!

You all make me sick to my stomach.

 

[nakedemperor]

No its not natural in humans keep comparing yourself to animals who lack common sense and the ability to reason. Y'all don't realize this argument does more damage to your case.

No, you're just too dense to understand the salient point of the argument. There are lots and lots of ways to "compare" humans to animals. We are very very similar in a variety of ways. To say, "OH GOD YOU'RE COMPARING YOURSELVES TO ANIMALS!?" is to ignorantly miss the point. SO. I will SPELL IT OUT for you.

Some conservatives on this board say homosexuality is natural but abhorrent. Some say its unnatural and its abhorrence is based on its being unnatural. For those who say it is unnatural: homosexuality is found in nature. In nature, animals lack a sense of self. They have no ego, in that they do not have self-awareness that people do. That's what seperates us from them (one of the things). Therefore, external social pressures wouldn't apply to animals. They wouldn't (and COULDN'T) CHOOSE to be homosexual. If it happens in NATURE, completely independant of the "NURTURE" aspect of being exposed to other people, that means it is NATURAL.

So yeah. Its natural. I can't really argue with God, so I'm not going to make a case for it being not a bad thing. However, homosexuality = natural.

 

[Merlin1047]

For those who say it is unnatural: homosexuality is found in nature. In nature, animals lack a sense of self. They have no ego, in that they do not have self-awareness that people do. That's what seperates us from them (one of the things). Therefore, external social pressures wouldn't apply to animals. They wouldn't (and COULDN'T) CHOOSE to be homosexual. If it happens in NATURE, completely independant of the "NURTURE" aspect of being exposed to other people, that means it is NATURAL.

So yeah. Its natural. I can't really argue with God, so I'm not going to make a case for it being not a bad thing. However, homosexuality = natural.

Your entire argument is illogical and unscientific. You conclude that simply because an act or condition is found in nature, it is therefore "natural". That conclusion cannot be based on the occurence of isolated behavior or conditions and then extrapolated to a species or objects as a whole. A three-headed frog is not "natural", it is a freak of nature. It is correct to say that homosexuality is an aberrant condition that occurs in nature. However, to proclaim it "natural" in the sense you seek to use the word, is specious, unfounded and reaching. It is correct to say that homosexuality is an aberrant condition that occurs among humans. Anything more than that is simply dressing up the argument to suit your politically correct agenda.

I suppose that's the thing I find most distressing about you libs. Whenever facts do not support your argument, you camouflage it in euphemisms or in politically correct rhetoric. You seize upon small facts and distort them and stretch them to enable you to make sweeping pronouncements which you then claim to be fundamental truth. It's like saying that because you found a kernel of rice in Montana, that Montana is therefore a rice farm. Science doesn't work that way and if you seek to use science as the basis for your argument, you have to play by the rules.

Let me get out the crayons and paint the picture for you. Males have little pointy thingies on the front of their bodies, located approximately six inches below the belly button. On liberals, these thingies are about an inch and a half long. On conservatives they are considered small if shorter than six inches. These pointy thingies are meant to be inserted in the female orifice located on the female body in approximately the same location as the male's "thingie". Two people with pointy thingies are not intended, by nature, to do that which a male and a female are intended to do.

But hey, if you libs want to be homosexuals that's fine with me. Knock yourselves out. It just means that your voter base is going to be getting smaller all the time and I don't object to that one little bit.