So do you win? Homosexual behavior is abnormal now because gay animals don't get gay married?
---
Maybe Roy and Silo had a fight and Silo swore off men.
I'm a bitch. Look out. I'm here to start drama.
Please take everything I say seriously.
Alexis wrote:Maybe Roy and Silo had a fight and Silo swore off men.
LMAO!! Thats good I like that idea!
AGuSTiN, no I win cause you can't seem to stay on topic. The topic was homosexuals are freeks of nature, now I said that was harsh to say and then I said that they weren't freeks just not the NORM. Then you guys went on a tangent trying to justify homosexuality through animal behavior. However the problem with that logic is that then ALL Animal behavior should be exceptable for humans as well seeing how after all we are animals too. So then it should be fine for men to go up to any woman and have sex with her even if she doesn't want it, hey animals do it but in our world its called rape. It should be ok for a male to leave directly after the sex and never return to the female again, again fine in the animal kingdom but here in our world these types of men are locked up as dead beat dads. Female animals, once she has the baby and finds it to have a health problem will kill the baby rather then let it live with the problem, in the human world thats called murder. In the animal kingdom its perfectly fine for a animal to canibalize another of its own for food, hello Jeffry Dalhmer anyone?
The fact of the matter is that you can not justify human behavior though the comparison to that of animals. We are higher then they are in our thinking and rationalizing. We know the consiquences of our actions we are self awair and know one day we will die, animals do not.
And to the topic of if homosexuals are the norm you already stated they comprise less then 2% of the total population, that alone means its not the norm. But as I've said from the start IT DOES NOT MAKE IT WRONG!
Check mate my friend.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
^^^if we look as sheer numbers of life forms, then by the same logic, males are either freaks of nature or just not the norm.
personally, i'm strangely comfortable with that conclusion.
However, SOMEONE would be insulted by that--likely someone that would think gays are freaks of nature.
a double standard is two too many.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Jackalope wrote:Alexis wrote:Maybe Roy and Silo had a fight and Silo swore off men.
LMAO!! Thats good I like that idea!
AGuSTiN, no I win cause you can't seem to stay on topic. The topic was homosexuals are freeks of nature, now I said that was harsh to say and then I said that they weren't freeks just not the NORM. Then you guys went on a tangent trying to justify homosexuality through animal behavior.
No, sigh, I have to quote MYSELF here...
AGuSTiN wrote:
^^ It is not ignorant when the statement being refuted is "Homosexuality is against nature"
To refute the argument, one must turn to... you guessed it... nature.
AGuSTiN wrote:
The second link doesn't question the existence of gay animals. It questions using gay animals to justify human gay behavior. It says so in the second paragraph,
"Good science makes it abundantly clear that anthropomorphizing is quite bad science. The issue is this: What might we infer about human beings from animal behavior? The answer is not much. "
Which is fine.. except this whole thread is whether it's abnormal on a biological level, not a moral level, which is what that site is about based on it's own URL.
I've made it perfectly clear that I've always knew what the topic was and stuck to it. Never once did I make any moral justification for homosexuality. So I guess you don't win!
BTW that 2% figure, I don't even know where that came from. Someone else used it and I just ran with it to see just how many HUMANS 2% is, and turns out it's a lot. There also some animals that have an almost 100% bisexuality rate, so on a nature-level argument, that'd refute every claim it's against nature that could be made.
---
Jack: your argument has changed from post to post.... stay on target.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
There aren't going to be any winners in here. It's like the abortion debate. No winners. Therefore, don't claim yourself as one.
I'm a bitch. Look out. I'm here to start drama.
Please take everything I say seriously.
stay on target... STAY ON TARGET!!
and to add, i don't see why we need to say that homosexuals are abnormal or freaks of nature
i mean, to call someone a homo, or homosexual, or fag, now-a-days comes with a bad taste in your mouth because its been so "morally wrong" over the years that calling them abnormal or freaks of nature is pouring salt into an already open wound
just because you think it is morally wrong does not make it abnormal
that would be like saying that American is not the language spoken by the greatest number of people on this Earth, therefore, we are abnormal for speaking it
no, we are just different, and other people don't give a @!#$ what language you speak
why can't we do that for sexuality? seriously, this country is so @!#$ up its more worried about something natural like sex and sexuality instead of important things like poverty, national debt, energy consumption, which are all things we can actually make a difference on if we focused our energy into that instead of trying to change people's minds about stupid @!#$ that matters not to you or i because we are not in that same-sex relationship with them.
i really think that before you put stupid and unnecessary labels on people like this you should walk even just a half mile in their shoes and maybe you wouldn't be such dicks about it
this message is aimed at those who call homosexuals freaks. anyone getting offended by these comments can go straight to hell. do not pass go, do not collect $200. Furthermore, your get out of hell free cards are null and void. have a pleasant day.
Don't worry about it. people that usually call gays freaks take a moral stance to it. Hence, they claim a moral high ground. Anyone on the moral high ground i take as seriously as I take speech therapy from Porky Pig.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
I'll tell you guys who's a freak... ^^^^
wink wink
---
<--takes a bow.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
AGuSTiN so your using someones elses bad figures to base your arguement on? WOW! LMAO! And how exactly is bouncing to gay animals from homosexuals are freaks of nature staying on topic? GAM, same could be asked of you. I do find it funny how even your attempts to justify human behaivior by that of animals has evaporated. A side note for you on Roy and Silo, if penguins mate for life and Silo left Roy for a female then I guess they were never mates huh? GAM, your gay wolves, LOL!, wolves mate for life and only the alpha male picks a mate and then she is the alpha female. All other wolves in the pack take an "A" sexual role as they are not allowed to breed by the alphas.
Its been fun guys but your clearly out of gas.
BTW guys I never said anyone was a freak of nature, that would be just mean hearted. I may come off harsh at times but I'm not diliberatly mean to anyone.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Jack: see my previous conclusion of males.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Jackalope wrote:AGuSTiN so your using someones elses bad figures to base your arguement on? WOW! LMAO!
I went ahead and used 2% because it's a low #. It's obviously low enough to demonstrate how many 2% can really be. It wasn't about using "bad figures", it was about demonstration. A quick google search reveals a few #'s, this one is 5%..
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=2277
So my #'s are low, not high. So instead of gays ranking only below 12 countries in population, they rank below only 5 at 250,000,000 people..
http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/population_0.html
Which, by the way, if you follow that link and do the math, the US only makes on 5.552% of the world population. So we're almost as freaky. How's them apples?
Quote:
And how exactly is bouncing to gay animals from homosexuals are freaks of nature staying on topic?
I think you have a basic symantical problem, Jack.
When talking about "freaks of nature", again, you must define what nature is first. What is nature, Jack? Well to me nature is plants and animals. So when talking about gays being "freaks", we must figure out if an animal being gay is out of the ordinary or not. Unless you have a different definition of "nature". Do you?
Quote:
A side note for you on Roy and Silo, if penguins mate for life and Silo left Roy for a female then I guess they were never mates huh?
That's a good question, but I don't think this thread is about gay marriage in nature. It's about homosexual activity, is it not? So we've demonstrated that lots of animals have gay sex. So doing gay things isn't out of the ordinary, meaning not "freakish".
Now this following statement might offend someone, usually gay people, but if a buddy of mine goes and has sex
just once with another guy, he's gay to me, at least bisexual. My bar is pretty low for who's and who's not, mostly because I'm incapable of being gay even for a night. I bet you feel the same way about it. But yet you seem to be arguing that an animal has to be EXCLUSIVELY gay to be considered gay.
So what are we talking about exactly, Jack?
---
Jack: wolves do pair bond, and Alpha males are NOT the only ones to mate with females. Beta males are usually supplicant to the Alphas mainly because they have to be, and Gamma Males are the ones that are supposed to smooth things between Alpha's and Beta's, er go, they are the ones that are homosexual, Alpha's have no need of the Gamma's sexually, so the Beta's bugger the Gamma's as long as they have no mate. Gamma's usually stay Gamma's, Alpha's can descend to Beta or Gamma, and Beta's can rise to Alpha or descend to Gamma...
They have a hierarchical social group in the pack, and it's all based on dominance.... Gamma's don't go near females, and Beta's go either way.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Ok GAM I'm sorry but to the topic of wolves and who breeds with whom I'm more apt to listen to the experts then you. The Discovery channel this past weekend had a documentary on the Sawtooth pack, great program! Might I suggest you watch it as it may show you a few things. Anyway the man who started the pack and lived with them for over 6 years and has helped with the reintroduction of wolves to the wild said that ONLY the alpha male and ALPHA female breed. The others take on roles of babysitter, teacher, friend, playmate and protector but according to him NONE do any breeding. Sorry GAM but on this one I've heard what the expert has to say and it differs from your version, he's the expert thats lived with them and observed them in the wild for over 6 years! You've what googled it? Sorry bud but no dice, I believe HIM.
AGuSTiN, Why are you continueing to argue with me? I've shown that it seems you and I are mostly on the same page. We both agree that they are in the minority, we both agree that animals may exhibit behaivior that could be labeled as homosexual but that that behaivior does not continue threw its entire life. As for calling them bi-sexual I still think thats a stretch. Bi-sexual or homosexual would imply that the animals are awair of thier sexuality and evean the experts admit they have no answer if the animals are. Me IMo since they are not awair of thier own mortality a signifigantly bigger isue then they're sexuality then its not a srech to see where they have no sence of their sexuality on a level that would be able to imply anything beyond that of instinct.
And STOP calling them freaks of nature! Geeez guys!
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
And about the Gammas?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Found you another one GAM it explains about alpha males and females and thier roles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_male
It even names wolves individualy as the best example of how the alphas are the only ones to breed, Oh and they eat first too.
Nothing so far on the gama but I'll keep looking for you.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Sorry, It's omega wolves, bottom rung of the pack.
I was thinking about greek alphabet and Gamma is the 3rd letter.... anyhow...
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
no matter how much anybody trys to justify it or pretend its ok homosexals and lesbians give me the creeps.
They probably think the same about you... it's okay.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
You are a very sheltered man.
I'm a bitch. Look out. I'm here to start drama.
Please take everything I say seriously.
