The Beef on abortion, gay rights, and religion

[trex]

What is interpreted as homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom should not be confused with a  human homosexual orientation. A homosexual instinct (i.e. a homosexual orientation) would preclude heterosexual activity. It is rare for this to occur outside our species. Grumpy is correct in noting that homosexuality would appear to be in conflict with Nature's design.

I will agree with you that human homosexuality is normal. It is as normal as Down's Syndrome and pedophilia.

Homosexual behavior is homosexual behavior, regardless of whether the animal in question is human or not. A discussion of orientation is a separate issue. The fact remains that bisexual and homosexual behavior are common in humans and non-humans alike.

Down Syndrome is a chromosomal disorder and pedophilia is a psychological disorder. An animal with an extra chromosome would not survive in the wild. Neither would an animal that breaks a pack taboo.  Wolves, apes, and other species are known to kill their own if one of them violates an "instinctive law". None of these kill their own for homosexual or bisexual behaviors.

Humans have engaged in homosexual and bisexual behavior for all of our recorded history, from all cultures known.

How bout we return to the love of liberals SCIENCE.

The cornhole (ass canal) was scientically designed for feces (crap) to exit the body.  It is a waste portal plain and simple.  The vagina was designed perfectly to accept the male and with a purpose other than pleasure.

So one can conclude through science and logic that homosexuals cannot reproduce (good or bad?.....uuuhhhhh  good) therefore one can conclude that because they cannot reproduce they probably were meant to be here in the first place...LOGIC at its best.

[trex]

Adoption by gays would be the only means of perpetuating a way of life that a vast majority deplore.

[spunkloaf]

Adoption by gays would be the only means of perpetuating a way of life that a vast majority deplore.

"Vast majority" 
Whatever

[trex]

Whats you definition of vast lefty?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

What is interpreted as homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom should not be confused with a  human homosexual orientation. A homosexual instinct (i.e. a homosexual orientation) would preclude heterosexual activity. It is rare for this to occur outside our species. Grumpy is correct in noting that homosexuality would appear to be in conflict with Nature's design.

I will agree with you that human homosexuality is normal. It is as normal as Down's Syndrome and pedophilia.

Homosexual behavior is homosexual behavior, regardless of whether the animal in question is human or not. A discussion of orientation is a separate issue. The fact remains that bisexual and homosexual behavior are common in humans and non-humans alike.

Down Syndrome is a chromosomal disorder and pedophilia is a psychological disorder. An animal with an extra chromosome would not survive in the wild. Neither would an animal that breaks a pack taboo.  Wolves, apes, and other species are known to kill their own if one of them violates an "instinctive law". None of these kill their own for homosexual or bisexual behaviors.

Humans have engaged in homosexual and bisexual behavior for all of our recorded history, from all cultures known.

I disagree. Based on what I have read on the subject (admittedly, not much) scientists warn that we can at this time only interpret this behavior. What is interpreted as homosexual behavior proves nothing beyond the fact that animal sexuality may embrace more than mere reproduction. It can become entangled with dominance and other urges. A discussion of orientation is at the very heart of the issue. I stand by my earlier statement that there exists no homosexual instinct. Animals may indeed engage in homosexual behavior but not to the exclusion of heterosexual activity (i.e. reproduction). Animals thus engaged are not homosexual. The difference between orientation and behavior is what I was driving at. Gunit had once suggested that widespread homosexual activity in the Animal Kingdom (or what is interpreted as such) is proof that homosexuality is normal/natural. This is a specious claim for the reason stated above but also because it is not possible to draw a conclusions regarding human homosexuality based upon observations of animal behavior.

I think homosexuality is normal in the same way any other disorder or disease is. Hence, my comparison to Down's Syndrome etc. I do not for one second believe that that is the way any sexual organism was intended to function. I do not hate gays (or Blacks for that matter when discussing racial differences in intellect) but I will call a spade a spade. Discussing homosexuality as a disorder of some kind does not presuppose any bigotry on my part.

Now, you brought up an interesting point regarding built-in population control. That is reasonable speculation and it's quite intriguing. I enountered this claim when i researched the topic. Perhaps, further research will validate this claim. Perhaps, not. In the meantime, the available scientific research and logic dictate that humans as sexual creatures were not meant to function as homosexuals.

[SDML]

true and this behavior has been both discouraged and shunned.  has not pedophilia been represented historically???  why do you judge that pedophilia is a psychological disorder but homosexuality is not?? 

Yes, homosexual (and bisexual) behavior has been shunned - but only in some societies. In others, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the behavior was not shunned, but thought of as the norm or at least respected. Classical Greece and hot chicks in American 20/21 century film come immediately to mind.

Yes, pedophilia has been represented historically (though not in every culture, and to my knowledge has nowhere been considered acceptable behavior). However, as we use the term in modern society, pedophilia is a violent act against an un-consenting partner (rape or sexual assault of a minor). When the partner is near the age of consent (but not quite there yet), we give it a different term: statutory rape.

Bisexual and homosexual behaviors that we are discussing are consensual, and thus do not constitute a criminal act....or fit any meaningful criteria for "psychological disorder".

[SDML]

How bout we return to the love of liberals SCIENCE.

The cornhole (ass canal) was scientically designed for feces (crap) to exit the body.  It is a waste portal plain and simple.  The vagina was designed perfectly to accept the male and with a purpose other than pleasure.

So one can conclude through science and logic that homosexuals cannot reproduce (good or bad?.....uuuhhhhh  good) therefore one can conclude that because they cannot reproduce they probably were meant to be here in the first place...LOGIC at its best.

Yes, you already posted this swill. The logic is seriously flawed (hardly logic at it;s best) and you  demonstrate a gender bias (ignoring female homosexual behavior entirely).

Mr. D said:

What is interpreted as homosexual behavior proves nothing beyond the fact that animal sexuality may embrace more than mere reproduction. It can become entangled with dominance and other urges. A discussion of orientation is at the very heart of the issue. I stand by my earlier statement that there exists no homosexual instinct.

Are you asserting that human sexual behavior is ONLY about reproduction? Are you asserting that human sexual behavior is free of dominance & other urges?

Humans are more than mere sexual creatures, Mr. D.

Animals may indeed engage in homosexual behavior but not to the exclusion of heterosexual activity (i.e. reproduction). Animals thus engaged are not homosexual. The difference between orientation and behavior is what I was driving at....it is not possible to draw a conclusions regarding human homosexuality based upon observations of animal behavior.

Animals thus engaged are bisexual, generally speaking, but are clearly engaged in homosexual behavior. Are you asserting that all heterosexuals are free from homosexual encounters? Are you asserting that all homosexuals are free from heterosexual encounters? You seem to be making an argument that bisexual behavior is normal, but spurring the opposite sex is not.

As for the it being "not possible to draw a conclusions regarding human homosexuality based upon observations of animal behavior", that's a bit spurious, too, would you say? Given that humans ARE animals.

In the meantime, the available scientific research and logic dictate that humans as sexual creatures were not meant to function as homosexuals.

Not true, unless you are prepared to make the patently ridiculous assertion that the whole of human sexuality encompasses nothing but reproduction. Humans, on the whole, function sexually quite well, regardless of whether it's homo-, bi-, or heterosexual behavior (and when they don;t, Viagra is always just a phone call away).

[trex]

The logic is not flawed .... and is supported by science, nature, anatomy, and society as a whole.  Females would be included in my argument as not being able to reproduce and have corn holes too.

If you want to be gay.....do it on your time...don't try to make it the norm because it isnt the norm and nor will it be respected. PERIOD

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

SDML

Are you asserting that human sexual behavior is ONLY about reproduction? Are you asserting that human sexual behavior is free of dominance & other urges?

Neither. I am asserting that a homosexual orientation is very rare if it exists at all in the Animal Kingdom.

Animals thus engaged are bisexual, generally speaking, but are clearly engaged in homosexual behavior. Are you asserting that all heterosexuals are free from homosexual encounters? Are you asserting that all homosexuals are free from heterosexual encounters? You seem to be making an argument that bisexual behavior is normal, but spurring the opposite sex is not.

I am doing none of those things. Again, animals engaged in what may be interpreted as homosexual behavior are not homosexual. There is no homosexual instinct. It does not exist. "Spurring the opposite sex", as you say, runs contrary to the fundamental purpose of sexuality.

Not true, unless you are prepared to make the patently ridiculous assertion that the whole of human sexuality encompasses nothing but reproduction. Humans, on the whole, function sexually quite well, regardless of whether it's homo-, bi-, or heterosexual behavior (and when they don;t, Viagra is always just a phone call away).

I am fully prepared to make the assertion that reproduction is the core purpose behind sexuality whatever else may be involved. The sexuality of homosexuals does not encompass reproduction at all. I say, something is wrong.

[Peter1469]

However, as we use the term in modern society, pedophilia is a violent act against an un-consenting partner (rape or sexual assault of a minor).

This is not entirely accurate: many prepubescent children are groomed by pedophiles to become interested in sex.  It is not all violent actions against “unconsenting” partners.  Of course the children cannot consent in a legal sense because they don’t really know the gravity of what is being done- and taken- from them.  I do agree that, to my knowledge, no nation has ever sanctioned pedophilia. 

Note- my knowledge of the subject comes from prosecuting pedophiles or supervising other attorneys doing so.     

[SDML]

Peter, I think the issue turns on my use of the word "violence".

For clarification, please expound on your point.

[trex]

being a pedophile is illegal.

[conley]

However, as we use the term in modern society, pedophilia is a violent act against an un-consenting partner (rape or sexual assault of a minor).

This is not entirely accurate: many prepubescent children are groomed by pedophiles to become interested in sex.  It is not all violent actions against “unconsenting” partners.  Of course the children cannot consent in a legal sense because they don’t really know the gravity of what is being done- and taken- from them.  I do agree that, to my knowledge, no nation has ever sanctioned pedophilia. 

Note- my knowledge of the subject comes from prosecuting pedophiles or supervising other attorneys doing so.     

you prosecute pedophiles in the military? or this was beforehand?

[SDML]

SDML

Are you asserting that human sexual behavior is ONLY about reproduction? Are you asserting that human sexual behavior is free of dominance & other urges?

Neither. I am asserting that a homosexual orientation is very rare if it exists at all in the Animal Kingdom.

Animals thus engaged are bisexual, generally speaking, but are clearly engaged in homosexual behavior. Are you asserting that all heterosexuals are free from homosexual encounters? Are you asserting that all homosexuals are free from heterosexual encounters? You seem to be making an argument that bisexual behavior is normal, but spurring the opposite sex is not.

I am doing none of those things. Again, animals engaged in what may be interpreted as homosexual behavior are not homosexual. There is no homosexual instinct. It does not exist. "Spurring the opposite sex", as you say, runs contrary to the fundamental purpose of sexuality.

Mr. D - I am aware that you were doing none of these things. My point is that UNLESS you are making these assertions, your points are meaningless. To say "animals engaged in what may be interpreted as homosexual behavior are not homosexual" is meaningless, UNLESS you are prepared to say, for example, that the Wide Stance Senator Larry Craig was NOT engaged in homosexual behavior (or, more to the point, attempting to engage in homosexual behavior) in the bathroom. Or maybe those guys in prison raping other guys are not engaged in homosexual behavior? Certainly you are not prepared to say either.

Regardless of establishing the pecking order in the prison scenario or the fact that Senator Craig has a wife & kids, I think you'd be in for a real argument trying to convince your pal Trex that a guy getting a blowjob from another guy or one guy pounding the "cornhole" of another aren't engaged in homosexual behavior.

I am fully prepared to make the assertion that reproduction is the core purpose behind sexuality whatever else may be involved. The sexuality of homosexuals does not encompass reproduction at all. I say, something is wrong.

I am fully prepared to say that MOST sex among humans is for the purpose of pleasure, not reproduction. I would find it somewhat humorous to learn that anyone would disagree. Given that (unless someone would care to argue with my assertion), it hardly matters that homosexual activity isn't engaged in for reproductive purposes at all, since the same can be said of MOST heterosexual activity.

[trex]

The purpose of intercourse is reproduction, pleasure is a by product. Based on the writings of early literature (DANTE),  the prevailing attitudes of a VAST MAJORITY of the population, anatomy and physiology I would say that we as humans were not designed to have anal sex. END OF STORY