More on the British sniper...er, homosexuality

#26
#26
I believe IP was blowing a hole in the "homosexuality isn't natural" argument. He was not saying that gay marriage should be allowed simply because animals are gay in nature, just pointing out the stupidity of that argument.
 
#27
#27
CSpindizzy said:
Let's look at that logic - "Homosexuality exists in nature"....so does cancer and other diseases and negative issues. If we're using the logic that just because it exists in nature that therefore it is 'right', we're treading on thin logic if any logic at all. The logic that two male animals mount and therefore homosexuality exists and therefore it is 'natural' is far fetched as well. A male dog will mount a male human's leg. Does that logic mean that bestiality is permissive as well?

And for the kneejerk reactionaries I am not saying homosexuality is the same as cancer....
Click to expand...

Yes, cancer and many diseases exist in nature. They are "natural." All I am saying is homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature. The logic is air-tight, whether you want to accept it or not.
 
#28
#28
IPorange said:
Yes, cancer and many diseases exist in nature. They are "natural." All I am saying is homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature. The logic is air-tight, whether you want to accept it or not.
Click to expand...

I'll play along. Is it that "Homosexuality" occurs in nature or that animals with the urge to reproduce or the drive and impulse for sex just do so with whatever is nearby? Do you have scientific evidence that there are other animals that will have exclusive 'relations' with only their own gender? Or is it just more along the lines of random acts more befitting the definition of 'bisexual' rather than homosexual?
 
#29
#29
There are chinstrap penguins that have been documented to have been in an "exclusive" (which isn't something most species even do) homosexual relationship for 6 years, for one.
 
#33
#33
Of course animals reproduce with everyone in sight, so the whole concept of 'marriage' isn't natural.
 
#34
#34
lumberjack4 said:
Of course animals reproduce with everyone in sight, so the whole concept of 'marriage' isn't natural.
Click to expand...

I know you are just kidding, but you touch on an interesting point. Nature is very diverse. There are cranes in Japan and other species elsewhere that mate for life. There are extremely promiscuous species that mate with multiple partners.
 
#35
#35
IPorange said:
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
Click to expand...

I figured this was the example. And it is a bad one. Silo has since been with a female. Animals in the example seem to express more of a bisexual behavior if anything. And is this in the same level of what is displayed in human behavior or are these actions attributable to something else? Are these random examples truly meeting the classic definition of homosexuality or is the behavior just random, caused by some other factor, etc?
 
#36
#36
My example is a bad one because... He mated with a female eventually? Most homosexuals have been with someone of the opposite sex at one time or another.

I said it occurs with animals and in nature. You said "link." I provided one that referenced multiple examples besides the penguin, and someone else also provided several. Now you are saying that they're describing "bisexual behavior." Okay, let's say that all cases 100 % of the time describe bisexual behavior (which isn't the case, but we'll go with it). So what? Will you allow to men to get married together if they are both bisexual?

I have no way of knowing what makes two animals of the same gender "hook up", any more than I know why two dudes could possibly be excited by each other. In the end, it doesn't bother me or affect me. What factor could there be with the se animals or with people that would be able to justify telling two adults from doing what they choose freely to do?
 
#37
#37
What was "bad" about the flamingo example? That one seems to be slam dunk homosexuality, and also beneficial to the species.
 
#38
#38
He built a nest and tried to hatch a rock with another male. Where is the homosexual behavior in that? Did he try to mate with the other male? I didn't see any references to that. All I see in the articles is that two males tried to hatch a rock and did in a paired effort. The human equivalent would be two guys trying to raise a child. Where does that equate to homosexuality?

Where did I bring up marriage? Or gay rights for that matter? I just merely stated that the logic of justifying an act because it happens in nature is flawed logic. You suddenly get defensive as if this was personally directed at you. I'm asking an in general question about people using the defense of "because it happens in nature". Pedophilia, bestiality, canibalism, and numerous other things happen in nature as well. I'm asking where the connect is that just because something happens in nature what makes it acceptable? And just because there are examples in lower lifeforms, what makes it acceptable for humans? I mean "well dogs do it" is sort of a lousy logical argument. And again, this is not directed at you but just an in general comment. I'm asking about the logic of a specific argument used. Since you brought up the penguins I merely said how that particular example was flawed since no reference to attraction and sex were involved and one of the penguins clearly did the same thing with a female penguin (not to mention no research done on what was observed prior to this observation).
 
#39
#39
The male penguins definitely had some sort of sexual activity, if that is what you are referring to.

The male flamingos had some sort of sexual activity, built a nest together, and adopted and raised hatchlings (it's in the same article).

I never justified an act because it happens in nature. I merely said one can't say it is unnatural.

I fail to see why I would need to justify any act between two consenting adults. I mean, freedom right?

Not sure where I got defensive...
 
#40
#40
They definitely did? Because in every link I saw, nothing mentioned sexual activity for the penguins. Maybe I missed something.

So are we going from natural to "consenting adults"? Again, not arguing with you but trying to define your standard. I'm trying to make sure what you are using. If I see your point correctly, you are going from what exists in nature to "consenting adults" which is a legal and societal definition - example: "two willing people over the age of 18" rather than whatever occurs in nature.

I am making sure why a society/species/fill in the blank is wrong to define what type of intercourse is permissible but then turn around and define what "consenting adult" is which restricts as well. If you are arguing consent and freedom, why would you impose a legal barrier such as age?
 
#41
#41
CSpindizzy said:
They definitely did? Because in every link I saw, nothing mentioned sexual activity for the penguins. Maybe I missed something.

So are we going from natural to "consenting adults"? Again, not arguing with you but trying to define your standard. I'm trying to make sure what you are using. If I see your point correctly, you are going from what exists in nature to "consenting adults" which is a legal and societal definition - example: "two willing people over the age of 18" rather than whatever occurs in nature.

I am making sure why a society/species/fill in the blank is wrong to define what type of intercourse is permissible but then turn around and define what "consenting adult" is which restricts as well. If you are arguing consent and freedom, why would you impose a legal barrier such as age?
Click to expand...

They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.
Click to expand...
From the article I linked, bottom of the third paragraph.

I'm not speaking in a vacuum here. I have been responding to things I have read in this thread.

My point earlier was that one couldn't honestly say homosexuality was "unnatural", in the sense of it not occurring in the natural world, when it does.

As a separate point, I fail to see what bearing that even has on human behavior, since most of human behavior is exceptional in regards to the natural world anyway.

And since you now evoke society setting rules, I am not sure how one can justify denying two consenting adults an action based solely on their gender, in our society of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as equality.

Feel free to move the argument to yet another arena if you wish.
 
#42
#42
IPorange said:
And since you now evoke society setting rules, I am not sure how one can justify denying two consenting adults an action based solely on their gender.

Feel free to move the argument to yet another arena if you wish.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one evoking setting of rules. It was YOU who gave the disclaimer of consenting adults. What is that definition? Who determines that? And it was you who use 'freedom' but yet limit the freedom by a specific standard. Just asking you for clarification. I'm not moving to any other arena that you haven't already listed.
 
#43
#43
Common sense defines consenting adult. Yes there is an age limit based on maturity associated with what is an adult. Sure that is a 'limit' on a freedom just like 'freedom of speech' has a common sense limit.
 
#44
#44
Common sense is not the way society is run though. We have a law that establishes this. My point is that it is a restriction just the same. One minute we advocate 'freedom' but the next we define a limit to that freedom with a legal restriction like 'consenting adult'. What defines an 'adult' legally and who determines that? Clearly our own definition of 'adult' is skewed since the minimum threshold for consenting sex, smoking, drinking, voting, serving in the military, child labor, gambling, etc all do not match.
 
#45
#45
CSpindizzy said:
I'm not the one evoking setting of rules. It was YOU who gave the disclaimer of consenting adults. What is that definition? Who determines that? And it was you who use 'freedom' but yet limit the freedom by a specific standard. Just asking you for clarification. I'm not moving to any other arena that you haven't already listed.
Click to expand...

Semantics traps are the lamest. I don't even really need the term "consenting adults," except that then one could argue that I am advocating allowing 12 year olds to get married, or a 40 year old to marry a 10 year old, which I am obviously not as that is a separate matter entirely. it's a frivolous clarification, that is just requested in the hopes that you can ask, "well who determined age x?", while ignoring western history's lack of "age of consent" until very recently, despite a long tradition of persecuting homosexuals.

People should be given the same options by their government, regardless of the genders involved in their relationship. Perhaps you should be advocating for an end to government involvement in the concept of "marriage" all together?

How do you feel about hermaphrodites or androgynous individuals? Are they forbidden from ever marrying anyone?
 
#46
#46
CSpindizzy said:
Common sense is not the way society is run though. We have a law that establishes this. My point is that it is a restriction just the same. One minute we advocate 'freedom' but the next we define a limit to that freedom with a legal restriction like 'consenting adult'. What defines an 'adult' legally and who determines that? Clearly our own definition of 'adult' is skewed since the minimum threshold for consenting sex, smoking, drinking, voting, serving in the military, child labor, gambling, etc all do not match.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this only reinforce the arbitrary and unjust idea of deciding gays can't marry is wrong?
 
#47
#47
IPorange said:
Doesn't this only reinforce the arbitrary and unjust idea of deciding gays can't marry is wrong?
Click to expand...

So because the definition of something varies, standards in general are wrong? Where are you going with this? You're avoiding the question altogether. You on one hand advocate complete freedom but then on the other hand throw out a limit to freedom. Who is to say what is just and unjust here? Why draw the line anywhere? If a 50 year old male teacher wants to be in a relationship with a 16 year old student, it's consensual right? I can go on and on with endless examples. Where do you draw the line? Answer that - where do you draw the line and who are you to draw the line? Someone is always left out of the 'freedom' argument somewhere.
 
#48
#48
CSpindizzy said:
So because the definition of something varies, standards in general are wrong? Where are you going with this? You're avoiding the question altogether. You on one hand advocate complete freedom but then on the other hand throw out a limit to freedom. Who is to say what is just and unjust here? Why draw the line anywhere? If a 50 year old male teacher wants to be in a relationship with a 16 year old student, it's consensual right? I can go on and on with endless examples. Where do you draw the line? Answer that - where do you draw the line and who are you to draw the line? Someone is always left out of the 'freedom' argument somewhere.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Aren't you the one drawing the line as to who can and can't marry?

The problem with a lot of people is they couldn't care less if all the gays in the world have all the benefits of marriage as long as its not called 'marriage' but if you call it a 'civil union' everything is kosher. I'm simply advocating calling a spade a spade.
 
#50
#50
lumberjack4 said:
Wait a minute. Aren't you the one drawing the line as to who can and can't marry?
Click to expand...

Not sure where you got that. Can you find the post telling me where I said who can and cannot marry? I'm inquiring to someone else's logic. I'm asking questions and following through others' logic. I'm not making a stand one way or another.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top