You're LYING again.That's fine you don't have to respond, but I will point out that I never claimed that homosexuality is normal. So your whole contention with my argument was built upon your misunderstanding.
You're LYING again.
The whole purpose of your posting of Wiki's 'animal homosexuality' page was to show it's commonness/normality across the animal kingdom. A long listing of such.
and additionally/Consistently/Despicably you left off the Opening parts that explain it really isn't.
Your posts are not only poorly conceived, they are intentionally Deceptive and beneath contempt/debate.
And 'Homosexual' behavior in animals, isn't mainly about 'relationships', UNLIKE Humans, it's part (generally short) of a Repertoire of behavior that is Mainly Heterosexual.Uh, no it wasn't it was in response to Taylor who said animals do not form homosexual relationships. Try again buddy.
Did this about normal a few years ago, and decided it was time to try again. Was a fun and interesting thread at the time, so hopefully this will be as well. Two simple questions. Is Homosexuality "normal", and is homosexuality "natural"? If you would, please include your reasoning.
Poll will allow multiple choices, pick a choice for the "normal" question and for the "natural" question. Poll will be up in a couple minutes.
That period in history is appropriately referred to as the "dark ages" - most of our history and philosophy comes from the periods before and after where "society and the church" did not stifle recordkeeping, and there is in fact much that relates to sexuality.I would imagine that there is but I would seriously doubt that there is any evidence of this because, as it was seriously looked down upon by society and the church that no records would have been kept.
In many cultures, there was no need for "secret relationships" because homosexual sex was accepted. They would not have understood your view of the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy - conservative even by today's standards. In those cultures, a person may have engaged in mostly same-sex relations in their younger years, and mostly heterosexual relations for the bulk of their life, and never considered the need to conform to some culturally- fabricated label.I bet my life that there were homosexuals having secret relationships though and that, if they knew what the concept was, would have identified themselves as Homosexuals. You can't prove you are right and nobody can prove you wrong but that doesn't make your argument valid in the slightest either. As there are homosexuals now that claim that this was a natural thing for them and that they lived with women thinking it was right until they accepted their true self, always knew they were homosexual, etc. I would go with that as the default for human history.
Except there are such thing as animals who have an exclusive attraction to their own sex and who create exclusively homosexual coupling. This is confirmed not only by my quote in which the documented animals not only had sex with their own gender but stayed paired for years on after. But then there is also the evidence compounded by your own quote that you keep trying to dismiss, it was the part that you did not bother to bold.And 'Homosexual' behavior in animals, isn't mainly about 'relationships'
, UNLIKE Humans, it's part (generally short) of a Continuum of behavior that is Mainly Heterosexual.
but cases of homosexual preference and exclusive homosexual pairs are known.
Overwhelming - is not the same as "Absolutely not analogous" which means, as shown, that it can be interpreted as such.ExIt is overwhelmingly NOT analogous to the term as applied to humans.
lol. Not at all.Still wrong.
That period in history is appropriately referred to as the "dark ages" - most of our history and philosophy comes from the periods before and after where "society and the church" did not stifle recordkeeping, and there is in fact much that relates to sexuality.
In many cultures, there was no need for "secret relationships" because homosexual sex was accepted. They would not have understood your view of the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy - conservative even by today's standards. In those cultures, a person may have engaged in mostly same-sex relations in their younger years, and mostly heterosexual relations for the bulk of their life, and never considered the need to conform to some culturally- fabricated label.
That's correct.Except there are such thing as animals who have an exclusive attraction to their own sex and who create exclusively homosexual coupling. This is confirmed not only by my quote in which the documented animals not only had sex with their own gender but stayed paired for years on after. And then that evidence is compounded by your own quote that you keep trying to dismiss, it was the part that you did not bother to bold.
Overwhelming - is not the same as "Absolutely not analogous" which means, as shown, that it can be interpreted as such.
lol. Not at all.
Don't know where you got the idea that I've claimed that same sex relationships are something new.Well, wasn't it Sapphos (sp.?) from the island of Lesbos (Lesbians), the foundation of Western Culture, where same sex relationships became famous? Seems it has been around for a long time, contrary to your claim.
That's correct.
I said "overwhelmingly" instead of "absolutely" so some High School Strawman debater couldN'T use the old "all" on me.
So I could make a 99%+ TRUE generalization without Being refuted with the EXCEPTIONS you are using.
PREcisely why I used that language!
That's Right, YOU LOSE, because I didn't use "all" or "100%".
Because "Overwelmingly" is plenty good enough to show "abnormal"
So You're dropping my ACCURATE "Overwhelmingly".Why do you think I care if it is "abnormal"? I already explained to you that I never argued that it was normal. You silly goose.
You claimed you trumped me on an argument I never offered in the first place. Both my and your quote confirm that exclusive homosexual behavior & pairings do exist in the animal kingdom outside of humans. Which for me and taylor proves that it does happen, contrary to her claim that it does not.
You came in like a bat out of hell arguing a position I do not hold. But hey if makes you feel better. Then yes you are right it is abnormal.
So You're dropping my ACCURATE "Overwhelmingly".
And aren't going to try and 'strawman' man me with [Duh] "all"/"absolutely" any more.
Dropping that You sought to DISHONESTLY mischaracterize the Wiki entry which I Correctly characterized.
You put up a laundry list of so-called animal 'homosexual' behavior to show it was common/normal and Just Now ALSO Dropped the world 'relationships' from the behavior, after I elaborate it was Overwhelmingly just pat of the animal's repertoire, NOT a ling-lasting preference as in Humans.
Your are impossible to debate because your post are ALL Dishonest Deflections.
You get Nailed on every Contention and then its Drop what I said. At least now I've forced you to quote m whole posts even if yur can't address them.
ALL your posts re deflections, short-quotes, and the last few.. back-tracking.
Below is just More Lies.
Yes actually some of them do.
Don't know where you got the idea that I've claimed that same sex relationships are something new.
For the record:Why do you think I care if it is "abnormal"? I already explained to you that I never argued that it was normal. You silly goose.
You claimed you trumped me on an argument I never offered in the first place. Both my and your quote confirm that exclusive homosexual behavior & pairings do exist in the animal kingdom outside of humans. Which for me and taylor proves that it does happen, contrary to her claim that it does not.
You came in like a bat out of hell arguing a position I do Not hold. But hey if makes you feel better.
Then yes you are right it is abnormal.
For the record:
Perhaps you don't realize your votes in the poll are Visible. (like the rest of the Wiki link)
You voted Both "normal" and "natural".
Ooops
I hear yah and I have no idea what the disconnect is in accepting this... *shrugs*
but I don't think if you make a clone of a homosexual... the clone will also be homosexual. Most research points to it being a sort of development issue in the womb which chances can be increased by genes and the womb environment.
That's correct.
I said "overwhelmingly" instead of "absolutely" so some High School Strawman debater couldN'T use the old "all" on me.
I Never claimed "all", of course/Duh.
I mean really.
So I could make a 99%+ TRUE generalization without Being refuted with rare EXCEPTION/S.
PREcisely why I used that language.
That WAS Wiki's actual take.
So you try the strawman anyway!
YOUR Wiki Excerpt DISHONESTLY made 'Overwhelmingly Rare' look common/normal.
That's Right, YOU LOSE, because I didn't use "all" or "100%".
Because "Overwhelmingly" is plenty good enough to show something Isn't "normal", and was what Wiki Actually said about animal 'homosexuality'.
latest USA poll shows only 2.3% of the pop. is gay.
I think that makes it by DEFINITION, Abnormal(def.deviating from what is normal or usual)
That's science talk folks, and none of you ever question the mighty SCIENCE!!!!
Not so.
That's not an answer to the the condition's contrariness to the evolutionary design and purpose of sex and sexual organs.
It's merely stating that it isn't restricted to humans.
Your PC is overriding your very good science. This is true of the vast majority of similarly smart people.
Precisely.
It's frankly still motivated primarily by the intrinsic need to pass on one's genes even today. Pleasure is simply the incentive.
No. The term "lesbian" didn't refer to female homosexuals until about 100 years ago, the current connotation has nothing to do with how ancient Greeks conceptualized sexual relations.You are claiming that identifying as a homosexual is something new... it isn't. The very term Lesbian comes from the Greeks. Lesbians are female homosexuals. Females that identify as homosexuals.
You see, I do understand.
First of all, this is an entirely different statement then you've made previously. You seem to be shifting your words to suit the moment and it makes you appear inconsistent to me.
Also, I thought you were a Catholic and believed there is some divine plan behind and purpose for everything. How does your seeming acceptance of evolution and use of it to defend your position fit into that?
Lastly, we are more highly evolved creatures today then we were at (assuming you're right) whatever primitive level of our evolution we may have been at when we were driven purely by instinct. As higher functioning animals we have the capacity to override our instincts (ie: dieting, suicide) So the argument that at some point some kind of base instinct was driving our sexual behavior and there was no pleasure present seems irrelevant when arguing why more evolved humans seek it out today
"family values" / religious right is my guess
but at least they can accept homosexuality is no choice, if a "defect" still...progress!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?