Homosexuality in Animals, and God (Page 4)

Corwin: "Further evolved"... again, there's that human prejudice.

You might think you're "further evolved" than a penguin, but try spending a Winter in Antarctica without shelter and see how much better you fared come Spring. You might think you're "further evolved" than a porpoise, but try spending a few weeks frolicking about in the ocean and see how well you do.

" humans have learned to override their instincts "... so if a man is instinctively attracted to the same sex, you feel he should "override" that instinct and live a life of celibacy? I guess that's fine and dandy for you to say, seeing how it's not an issue for you... but what gives you the right to decide that others should "override" instincts that you don't share with them?

I agree that if someone has an instinctive drive to murder innocents, or to set fire to buildings, or has a lust for genocide, there is good incentive to curb that... but I don't see how a same-sex couple poses a threat to public safety.
I don't see how allowing same-sex intimacy is going to create an Earth devoid of humans.

Interesting that you bring up being "offended by sexual advances from the same sex"... if a gay man made a pass at you, you would be offended?
That makes no sense to me. I don't find that offensive, and I'm heterosexual... I find it rather flattering to be honest.
I mean, Corwin is an attractive guy... why would I be less flattered if a gay man rather than a woman finds me attractive?

"My sense of morals"... okay... there's a can of worms right there.
So basically, you're saying that same-sex intimacy is "immoral".
I think of "morality" as term referring to "not doing wrong to your fellow man"... I don't see how you are being "personally wronged" by what two consenting adults decide to do with their erogenous zones (as long as it's not in public, but heterosexuals would get arrested for that too).

If you want so bad to "control the instinctive nature" of others, there are far bigger behavioral issues to address than how people express love to each other... like maybe "intolerance" or "social/racial prejudice" - I think those are actual threats to human survival, not just imaginary ones.
But if you can point out a historical account of homosexuals being responsible for the slaughter and genocide of millions of innocent people, then I will stand corrected.

But I don't think that intolerance and social/racial prejudice even qualifies as "instinct"... I think that's "learned behavior".

suchso: I have been approached by gay men in my adult years, and I wasn't offended, I was defensive though!
But as a naive sixteen year old I was propositioned by older horny men. Twice in that year. Now I suppose many children and youths suffer worse experiences than I have. - I had enough sense to escape.
And you think I ought to be flattered!
Pull the other one. I've get every red-blooded human right to be offended.
Some may give in. Many of us are not so submissive.

Imagine a male lion trying to mount another male lion, whatever happens next is natural eh.

I've got an animal right (not just a human right mind you), to be offended like most male animals would be.

Corwin: If your issue is with older adults who proposition children and youths, then you have an issue with pedophiles, not homosexuals.

Or are you suggesting that children submitting to a sexual predator is somehow one-in-the-same as intimacy shared between consenting adults??

Or perhaps you're suggesting that homosexuals are all pedophiles??

Like... seriously, dude. WTAF

LiptonCambell: I think he's saying he's got no problem with straight pedophiles propositioning children. If those grown men were chasing 16 year old girls, he'd feel that'd be 'natural'

calybonos: It is natural to want to chase 16 year old girls.

Why do you think they had to make a law against it?

suchso: No, I'm not saying what you guys have implied. But it sounds like pederasty is ok with you then, since it is only animal instinct?

I am sayimg that just because homosexuality happens in animals, that does not make it okay for humans. I've got no problem if people are gay like some animals, just keep it outta my (and my children's), face and don't try to shove it down our throat, pun intended. They're all over the media and politics, and I don't have to accept it. And I have every right to be defensive instead of submissive, because I am as natural an animal as you and the MSM.

How come feelings of same sex attraction are acceptable according to you but rejection of it is unatural?
I don't expect you apes to understand. But I'm sure NAMBLA would agree with you though.
Here, have a

suchso: And to make myself clearer, in response to:
"You might think you're "further evolved" than a penguin, but try spending a Winter in Antarctica ..."
I know I am more evolved because I have common sense not to go to Antarctica without provisions.

"so if a man is instinctively attracted to the same sex, you feel he should "override" that instinct and live a life of celibacy?"
No, but if a man seduces another man or youth to be submissive, I feel sorry for them both, as I do when that happens in any other kind of relationship.

LiptonCambell: >>>No, I'm not saying what you guys have implied.

You implied it, actually.

You presented an example of a pedophile trying to sleep with a child, and presented the problem with the situation as the man was gay- not that pedophilia is wrong but that homosexuality is wrong.

>>> I've got no problem if people are gay like some animals

No, you clearly do. You compare them to animals, say they're less evolved and less moral than you,and demand they stay away from you at all times.

>>>How come feelings of same sex attraction are acceptable according to you but rejection of it is unatural?

Are animals who express homosexual tenancies driven from the pack? Or do the other animals simply accept that someone in the group is gay?

This kind of mentality- racism, homophobia,ect- is a **human** construct. It's --not-- natural. It's based on social interactions, and not based on how our bodies work.

>>>But I'm sure NAMBLA would agree with you though.

See? You associate homosexuality with child molestation- but 5 sentences earlier, insist "Oh, i have nothing against homosexuals" and 8 sentences earlier, claimed you aren't associating homosexuality with child molestation.

You realize you sound like a crazy person, right?

>>>No, but if a man seduces another man or youth to be submissive

You realize there's no evidence that homosexuals = pedophilia, right? There are ---more--- grown men out there raping girls than grown men out there raping boys.

By irrationally associating gay men to pedophilia, all you're doing is trivializing the issue of pedophilia, and empowering straight pedophiles, since you're perpetuating the idea that only gays can be pedophiles, giving straight pedophiles the chance to rape more girls.

suchso: You seem to be confused, and are mis-interpretting my words into your own meaning. I never mentioned pedophilia, you did. The age of consent is 16 here. I said nambla woud agree with you. Not me.
You are the ones saying we are animals, and homosexuality is natural instinct, and morals are subjective.
So if you support homosexuality in humans because it is natural, why don't you support pederasty?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

And if my reaction to it is defensive, then it is also a natural animal reaction.
I'm sure us more evolved humans must sound crazy to the unthinking animals.
----------------------------------------------
Human or animal.
An analogy:
When riding a horse (I mean horseback riding), you are in control of an animal that will do as you wish, as long as it is trained and you take charge. The same is true with our conscious mind and our body.
We can direct our bodies to do what we want just like we'd direct a horse.
Otherwise the horse doesn't know what to do, becomes confused and lost, and follows a herd if it can find one.

Apparently, many humans prefer to identify with the animals and to be submissive to the herd mentality.
What can ya do

Same sex attraction and same sex repulsion are equally valid.
No one is right or wrong.
Yin Yang
we're all human, ain't we. ... to different degrees.

LiptonCambell: lets take a step back and look at the purpose of this thread; to point out to those who feel homosexuality is 'unnatural'. That is the basis of this thread.

Do you view homosexuality as natural?

suchso: Yes, I agree that homosexuality is natural and it has natural causes.
My view is that the purpose of sexuality is to procreate, and the reasons are self explanatory.
No need to go into detail.

But the causes and reasons for homosexuality and gender dysphoria in humans are still unknown.
No need to jump to conclusions.

I don't want to go on about it, I've said a mouthful already,
good discussion.

Corwin: So, Suchso... the only time you engage in sexual activity is when you intend to procreate?

calybonos: Paranormal Sexual Activity was the scariest of the series.

Whatever you do, don't sit in the front row of the theatre, or you might get slimed.

chronology: Caly one of the reasons Spiritualism fell into such a scandal in America was because so many women were being groped during seances. In the total darkness of the sitting room while both of the woman's hands were being held by other sitters ' invisible ' hands would slide between their legs. No further details needed. Maybe these were horny dead people, more likely the hands were of live people using some of the many secret holes in those rooms.

When some of the women collapsed onto the table shuddering in orgasm she would be presumed to be channelling.

In puritan 19th century America these women probably had no idea what masturbation was. No wonder Spiritualism was banned in many U.S. States.

Metaverseguy: You mean puritan 17th century America. 19th century america was just underdeveloped and broke as hell. Cars weren't even invented yet, but at least there were trains and some resemblance to modern cities like today. Of course most people think modern cities are a complete nightmare. I watched a documentary from I don't know where about Nashville being one of the biggest prostitution areas during the Civil War era. They shipped off most of the working girls up north on the Mississippi River to get rid of them, but most ended up returning.

I'm sure most women were probably caged and locked up in the attics by their fathers and stepfathers to worship god, and who knows probably molested, but in some areas where the gold rush was people had money so they wanted to take part in the oldest profession in the world and they could probably find it near San Francisco or Utah after spending weeks sifting through dirt and water looking for gold. Any saloon that sold alcohol probably doubled as a brothel and prostitution was still legal so you could go to those places just like you might browse a porn, or cam site today.

suchso: No Corwin, I'd use contraception to avoid unplanned pregnancy. That's another thing that seperates us humans from the animals - contraception. But what's that got to do with it? My point is: the reason for being attracted to the opposite sex is to procreate.

Cognitive dissonance can cause confusion in the human mind. Pederasty must be natural instinct according to this threads premise because we are animal.

I disagree.
I admit I don't know all there is to know about this topic (nobody does), the jury is still out on the causes. I just won't follow the media, and political, and the politically correct propaganda.
I'm entitled to my own conscience.

suchso: Reading through that wikipedia link I posted above, I was reminded of Chronology's post about the monks, previous page.
Quote:

Nonetheless, the practice continued to surface, giving rise to proverbs such as "With wine and boys around, the monks have no need of the Devil to tempt them", an early Christian saying from the Middle East.

LiptonCambell: >>>But the causes and reasons for homosexuality and gender dysphoria in humans are still unknown.

As are the causes of heterosexuality. What CAUSES that? Could it be society? genetics? Hormonal imbalance?

I wonder what turns a person straight?

>>> My point is: the reason for being attracted to the opposite sex is to procreate.

But what of the people who don't want kids? Or are physically unable?

Certainly the 'reason' is different for them. Theres no point in issuing absolutes on such a subjective experience, let alone disenfranchising and invalidating an entire minority based on a flawed premise.

People fuck cause it feels good, and they enjoy it. They don't do it to make babies- and the overwhelming use of contraceptives, as you've pointed out, proves that the vast majority of sexual activity is done with the intent to NOT make babies.


.

suchso: Ok then.
You've got the right to fuck like rabbits.

Go for it.

suchso: >>>>Me: But the causes and reasons for homosexuality and gender dysphoria in humans are still unknown.

Lipton: As are the causes of heterosexuality. What CAUSES that? Could it be society? genetics? Hormonal imbalance?

I wonder what turns a person straight? <<<<

Lipton, if you don't know how sexual reproduction works, I suggest you look it up. There is no mention of homosexuality in human sexual reprduction. How do two people of the same sex procreate?
It's impossible.

Corwin: "Pederasty must be natural instinct... "

(I had to look that word up) Odd how you constantly bring up the subject of preternatural relationships between men and adolescent boys... it gives the reader the impression that you have some kind of obsession with the topic... it isn't particularly relevant to the discussion.

Unless of course you're merely suggesting that certain deviant human behaviors are also a matter of some sort of animal instinct, then this much is probably true... but why constantly dwell on THAT one?

Why not use serial-killers as an example? I'm sure that serial-killers are also acting upon some kind of instinctive urge. But nowhere in this discussion did anybody imply that just because a behavior is instinctive that we feel it should be lawful and acceptable.

Where a fair and just society draws the line is where certain behaviors become a danger to that society, or to the public in general... this is why we have laws, to protect that society from behavior that is harmful to others, yet at the same time protecting individual rights and freedoms.

You feel that humans should "suppress their animal instincts"... certainly you can't mean ALL of them?? The instinct of self-preservation? The instinct to procreate? The instinct to protect our young? These are all examples of animal instinct inherent in humans, and ones we would do well not to suppress.

No... what you're saying is that humans should suppress instincts that YOU personally find offensive, irregardless of whether they are a danger to society or not.
Fortunately, it's not up to people like you to make those decisions, at least not anymore... this "Modern Mainstream Society" which you loathe so much has been cracking down on intolerance and social injustice.

suchso: Actually, it's the "Men who have Sex with Men" who are cracking down on intolerance.

What I am saying is people can't use animal instinct as an excuse for human behaviour.

But I get it,- the Social Justice Warriors are against intolerance, and won't tolerate another point of view.
How ironic.

LiptonCambell: But your "point of view" is that homosexuals are second class citizens, and should be both ostracized and denied things heterosexuals have full access to....It's not as if you're quietly humming to yourself "gay people are sinners" and we're busting into your house and forcing you to stop.....you, and your religion, has successfully pushed and continues to push for homosexuals to be treated as sinners and insist they're harmful to humanity as a whole. And act that this discrimination makes you 'cultured' and 'evolved'

Feel free to correct me, but that IS the basic stance of damn near every religious stance against homosexuality- homosexuality is evil, and the law should be used to discriminate against them, if not outright outlaw the act.

So its not just a simple personal belief. Theres centuries of legislature behind it....you're not asking for the simple right to hold an opinion- you're asking for the right to force your opinion onto others.

shadowline: It is a moral belief, a belief that homosexuality is immoral. It's not personal. It is the legacy of the moral thinking that was based in the Judaic inheritance of Christianity, the same legacy according to which polygamy is immoral - or, for that matter, that embezzling from your employer is immoral, or, that sending your goons out to break the legs of a guy who owes you money is immoral. Such things are hardly rights issues. Habitual perpetrators of them are not being done out of their rights because society disapproves of their behaviour.

At this point, because Western society is making its way out of the influence of the religion of its past, and therefore out of the moral thinking of that religion, and, no doubt, for a few other reasons, whether or not homosexuality can still be seen as immoral is a matter of dispute.

But some people maintain the older view of the matter, and doing that is not a desire to discriminate. It is not a desire to alienate anyone from their rights. Because immorality is not a right

LiptonCambell: lmao and morality isn't something to be forced on others. It's a personal issue. If someone chooses to be gay, their morals are frankly different than yours- and it is no more your place to force your morals on them than it is for people to force their moralities on you.

And before you say it, no, embezzlement, murder, rape, ect are not an issue of morality. It's an issue of protecting peoples rights- namely the victims or potential victims. People don't go to jail for embezzlement because they broke a moral code- they go to jail because they stole, defying another human beings rights.