This discussion of whether homosexuality is a failure of natural selection - or not - is in it self at the risk of failing. The thing is, humans have evolved into very complicated societies. So complex we can only describe them with the broadest of strokes. I once held the beliefe that it woudl be Good if scientists discovered a Gene for homosexuality. It would solve a problem with persecution of g4y people world wide. Or maybe not. A g4y person I spoke with told me that he'd rather not have it that way. Maybe he preferred having CHOSEN to be homosexual. Or mentally prepared for it in some matter. Human nature is just as much being in the company of other humans, and having recreational sex with them if the opportunity arises. Most of us, apparantly 94%, prefer this with the opposite gender. This is probably an indication of nature, if you want to procreate you darn well better date women if you are a man - but there's also the notion that we can chose to not do what nature would make a non thinking being do.
The urge to procreate is not the only power governing the human being. Our very complex brains allows us to make many little twists to what we would like to call fundamental human nature. Ascetics starve themselves, counter to the Natural Selection hypothesis that the strongest survive. Corporations are allowed to pollute liek mad even thought it is clear it will cost many people their lives. People smoke, drink, drug, fornicate, drive recklessly, bungee jumps and move into metal cylinders that hurls them away at insane speeds way high up in the sky. All this due to our faculties.
If we had been true to our Natually Selected destiny, we would sooner eat the bloody throbbing hearts of polluters, car drivers and everyone else who act to imperil our lives and the lives of our offspring. But we aren't like that.
Gayness might just be a figment of the rich human nature, it might not have a lot to do with natural selection. We have already seen that humans do much that strides against "nature". Our rich, complex society allows for this. And who knows, perhaps g4y people are actually contributing to the overall well being of the human nature by their ability to channel their ancient procreative urges into other directions. I wonder if there's a coincidence between gayness and creativity.
They would be the anomalities. Humans by nature don't like hurting other human beings. It is counter productive to creating a safe environment for ourselves and our offspring. That humans have become masters of hurting other is just another sign of which strange ways our immensely capable faculties can be turned and twisted into almost any habit imaginable. If it can be done, there's a human that has tried to do it or thought of it at the very least.
They would not have to feel superior if they had realized the power of co-existence. There will always be leaders and followers, the smart leaders don't hurt their followers. The jungle law you speak of is the law that governs where civility has left. Usually where mad men rule - because it is mad to destroy what should be your foundation - or poverty is so immense that society is breaking down. On average it is in everyone's interest that we live in peace. It is the optimal climate for your offspring to grow up and carry on the power of creation. Human society came to where it is today not by war, but by cooperation. War is not the norm, but the exception. But as I said, the human brain is capable of the strangest things. If you give it bad input, it will process bad input and from bad conclusions.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited October 2003
What's funny is, if homosexuality is a gene, how did the gene get passed down to the homosexual? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> If homosexuality is not a gene it is'nt natural, but something went wrong on an emotionel plan during childhood <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Immacola, I agree with you <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
/Ignore my large amount of spelling errors <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Epidemic+Oct 21 2003, 01:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Oct 21 2003, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What's funny is, if homosexuality is a gene, how did the gene get passed down to the homosexual? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Could be recessive. Or that it's a combination of genes that need to be blended the right way at conception. E.g. you need both genes A and B for the right changes to take place... your mom has A on one of her chromosomes, your dad has the B on another. If when you're conceived you get your mom's copy of the chromosome with the A, and your dad's copy with the B, bam, **** kid born to straight parents.
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Oct 16 2003, 03:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 16 2003, 03:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What the hell is the point in this discussion? isn't this what we did with the Homosexuality Part II thread, and others? Why do we keep repeating the same arguments over and over since nobody is going to change their mind anyway? No, you don't have deja-vu I said this in the EvC thread too (it was ignored BTW, as I expect this to be).
The argument always goes as follows:
<span style='color:red'>Why is homosexuality wrong?</span> <span style='color:blue'>Because the Bible sa...</span> <span style='color:red'>And don't give me that "The Bible says so" BS, give me real reasons backed up by logic.</span> <span style='color:blue'>Um.... Its unnatural?</span> <span style='color:red'><i>1,000,000 examples as to why it is not unnatural</i></span> <span style='color:blue'>Well... um.... its still unnatural.</span> <span style='color:red'><i>More discussion on why its not unnatural</i></span>
Repeat ad infinitum.
Heres the deal people, there are only 2 reasons you think homosexuality is wrong:
1) Religious Reasons 2) Your a homophobe
If you fall into catagory 1, nothing anybody says is going to change your mind since your already a zealot anyway. If you fall into catagory 2, get your head examined, you've got some unresolved issues with your sexuality.
In short, I'm begging you, let these tired old arguments die so perhaps we can bring something new and interesiting into this forum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Warrents saying again. I mean, hell, all the homophobes and zealots keep reposting their same old ****, why can't I?
<b>This thread will NEVER GET ANYWHERE. Like the evolution vs creation threads it has been done like 4 times already, GIVE IT A FREAKING REST!</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Oct 21 2003, 04:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Oct 21 2003, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Epidemic+Oct 21 2003, 01:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Oct 21 2003, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What's funny is, if homosexuality is a gene, how did the gene get passed down to the homosexual? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Could be recessive. Or that it's a combination of genes that need to be blended the right way at conception. E.g. you need both genes A and B for the right changes to take place... your mom has A on one of her chromosomes, your dad has the B on another. If when you're conceived you get your mom's copy of the chromosome with the A, and your dad's copy with the B, bam, **** kid born to straight parents. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> News flash, g@y men often time have wives and children.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (Mercior @ Oct 21 2003, 08:25 PM) Regarding a gene for homosexuality, I firmly beleive that there is one, but when we do single it out, no research groups will be brave enough to come forwards and annoucne it because of the ethical implications.
think again. Some scientists are just that, scientists. Not bashful prudes. IF they find the gene for homosexuality, they will publish it. For better or for worse. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scientists are just that - people with bias. As the last g4y gene fiasco showed. When they find it (again) they will publish it, and it will be hyped by the media be it a joke or completely airtight.
Its been done before and it will be done again, but usually its not the same people posting. That said, I cant contribute again because of the forum rules, but feel free to carry on
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
Skulk, I'm not religious or a homophope. I'm just open-minded <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If homosexuality is not a gene it is'nt natural, but something went wrong on an emotionel plan during childhood<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would'nt explain why it is observed in animals.
Also, the whole nature vs nurture thing doesn't matter anyway. Would you think we have to 'fix' people who are goths (not that I'm trying to say all goths had terrible parents, just the best example I can think of off hand)?
Alright here is a comparision - one that has been made before and ALWAYS gets people up in arms.
Homosexuality and Beastiality.
Homosexuality is the attraction/mating between two animals of the same speicies and gender. Beastiality is the attraction/mating between two animals of different species.
Both occur in nature - but never/rarely with good results. We all agree that beastiality is filthy and disgusting, yet you will find dogs humping their masters legs. So beastiality happens in nature, homosexuality occurs in nature, following the logic of this thread then therefore beastiality is just as acceptable as homosexuality.
Goths have a dress preference. That is completely different to sexual confusion.
If animals were intelligent, and capable of communicating with us in the sense that they could give consent, then i would see no problem with beastiality :)
Beastiality is better compared to 'peadosexuality' than homosexuality. Homosexual humans can give consent, and know what they're getting into.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
I love it how Marine tends to end with a ding... 'sexual confusion'. Personally, I'm not confused at all as to my sexual preferences. They just happen to be for other men.
And as TeoH had stated, your comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is flawed. As is your definition of bestiality, actually... a lion and a tiger mating is not considered bestiality, as an example. However, the proper definition is an entire can of worms that-does-not-belong-in-this-thread-so-don't-even-start.
Well according to TeoH then, the only thing that actually justifies homosexuality (if it needs to be justified at all) is that its between two intelligent beings.
Are you sure a proper definition doesnt belong in this thread? It would help to clear out any confusion as to my example, and while I cant personally see anything wrong with that - I'll wait to hear from you again before I post it.
Some animals dont actually give consent, they START it. I work in a vet surgery, and I cant count the number of times a dog has started humping my leg.
Oh, and biologically speaking - that is confusion, at least in my opinion. If a being ends up attracted to something that wont propagate the species then it has lost its way somewhere, in pure biology terms.
what was all that a page back about frogs being homosexual? frogs are amphibians; they do not mate... though I guess some species do embrace to fertilize eggs as soon as they leave the female's body.
as for bestiality...<ul> <li>it transmits disease (one possible explanation for how AIDS originated) <li>animals, like children, cannot consent </ul> I'm sure there's more reasons, but that's enough for me.
Some people disapprove of homosexuals for having consentual same-sex relations. I disapprove of the catholic church for harboring pedophiles for decades (centuries? millenia?). I'm tired and bored. I'm going to go get a sandwich.
Okay, this should end it right here. What if you, the "being g4y isn't natural" guy, were g4y. That's right. What if you found out you liked other men and you were a guy?
You know what you are like. You know you're not all the stereotypes of g4y people. You just like men. What would you do? You could either accept that all g4ys are really not as you thought they were, or you could kill yourself thinking how horrible it was for you to be g4y. Which would you do?
Hopefully if you're not homophobic, you'd pick that maybe g4ys aren't as bad as you thought. Yes, it's true, you aren't g4y, but if you thought you would change your ideas of g4ys if you were, does it matter if you're g4y or not? They're different. That's why people are homophobic. Is it so hard to believe a g4y person could be just like you?
<!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Oct 22 2003, 11:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Oct 22 2003, 11:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> what was all that a page back about frogs being homosexual? frogs are amphibians; they do not mate... though I guess some species do embrace to fertilize eggs as soon as they leave the female's body.
as for bestiality...<ul> <li>it transmits disease (one possible explanation for how AIDS originated) <li>animals, like children, cannot consent </ul> I'm sure there's more reasons, but that's enough for me.
Some people disapprove of homosexuals for having consentual same-sex relations. I disapprove of the catholic church for harboring pedophiles for decades (centuries? millenia?). I'm tired and bored. I'm going to go get a sandwich. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Transmitts disease can be turn back onto homosexuality and heterosexuality, so its a bit of a moot point.
As for consent, a lot of animals will actually start trying to mate with you. That seems a bit like consent to me...
I also disapprove of the Catholic church, but they admit they have done the wrong thing and are trying to fix it, so I cant disapprove too much.
Hawkeye - I work with a lesbian nurse at work, and we get along great. I hold homosexuality in the same light as swearing, its the wrong thing to do, but its your issue not mine. I am discussing here merely to try and prove a point - not to"save" anyone from their homosexuality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for consent, a lot of animals will actually start trying to mate with you. That seems a bit like consent to me... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, but being driven by instinct more than humans when it comes to sex, they aren't really making a concious descision. Its sort of like the idea that a drunk woman can't give consent (ignoring that she made the choice to get drunk in the first place).
And besides, if animals could give consent, who is to say that bestiality would be wrong? No one gets hurt, both parties are consenting, so it really wouldn't be.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Little known fact: In many states in the US, bestiality actually is not illegal. Though in most of said states there are restrictions... the most common of which being that you must own the animal in question.
<!--QuoteBegin--Talesin+Oct 22 2003, 07:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Oct 22 2003, 07:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Little known fact: In many states in the US, bestiality actually is not illegal. Though in most of said states there are restrictions... the most common of which being that you must own the animal in question. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Whats even more ironic is that many of these same states had anti-homosexuality laws...
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Correction: Still *have* anti-homosexuality laws. Or at least 'anti-sodomy' laws, though that technically applies to both g*y and straight couples. They remain on the books, and usually are not enforced so people forget about them.
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Oct 22 2003, 06:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 22 2003, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for consent, a lot of animals will actually start trying to mate with you. That seems a bit like consent to me... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, but being driven by instinct more than humans when it comes to sex, they aren't really making a concious descision. Its sort of like the idea that a drunk woman can't give consent (ignoring that she made the choice to get drunk in the first place).
And besides, if animals could give consent, who is to say that bestiality would be wrong? No one gets hurt, both parties are consenting, so it really wouldn't be. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So if a drunk chick starts kissing you, drags you into her room, pulls off her clothes and hands you a condom, and then says "Lets have sex" - thats still not consent?
Well known fact - in ALL states in Australia, screwing an animal will land you in jail, and a savage beating if I happen to see you doing it. Illegal or not, I think we all agree that that is WRONG!
So despite the fact that if you crouched down in front of an animal and didnt do anything, and the animal mated with you, its still wrong because the animal cant give consent because it isnt sentient? Is that the idea?
Lord, this beastiality slant is starting to sicken even me.... I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this up.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Oct 23 2003, 02:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 23 2003, 02:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Oct 22 2003, 06:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 22 2003, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for consent, a lot of animals will actually start trying to mate with you. That seems a bit like consent to me... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, but being driven by instinct more than humans when it comes to sex, they aren't really making a concious descision. Its sort of like the idea that a drunk woman can't give consent (ignoring that she made the choice to get drunk in the first place).
And besides, if animals could give consent, who is to say that bestiality would be wrong? No one gets hurt, both parties are consenting, so it really wouldn't be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So if a drunk chick starts kissing you, drags you into her room, pulls off her clothes and hands you a condom, and then says "Lets have sex" - thats still not consent?
Well known fact - in ALL states in Australia, screwing an animal will land you in jail, and a savage beating if I happen to see you doing it. Illegal or not, I think we all agree that that is WRONG!
So despite the fact that if you crouched down in front of an animal and didnt do anything, and the animal mated with you, its still wrong because the animal cant give consent because it isnt sentient? Is that the idea?
Lord, this beastiality slant is starting to sicken even me.... I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You'll notice that I preprepared an argument in the even that animals are deemed able to give consent. Basically, if no body is getting hurt, and its consentual, then why is it wrong? Its disgusting, I'll grant you that, but so is **** eating, and far more people enjoy that particualr activity than anybody really wants to know about. So in effect, if the animal can consent, then I don't see anything inherently 'wrong' about it.
However I still would argue that animals cannot consent because when it comes to sex, their id will win, every time (there may be animal species in which this is not true, however I can not think of any offhand. If you find one, see paragraph I). And yes, if that drunk girl were practically begging me to give it to here on the bar, it would still be wrong. An intoxicated being simply cannot be trusted to make a conscientious(sp?) discision.
BTW, I fail to see how this
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well known fact - in ALL states in Australia, screwing an animal will land you in jail, and a savage beating if I happen to see you doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Oct 23 2003, 03:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 23 2003, 03:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Oct 23 2003, 02:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 23 2003, 02:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Oct 22 2003, 06:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 22 2003, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for consent, a lot of animals will actually start trying to mate with you. That seems a bit like consent to me... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, but being driven by instinct more than humans when it comes to sex, they aren't really making a concious descision. Its sort of like the idea that a drunk woman can't give consent (ignoring that she made the choice to get drunk in the first place).
And besides, if animals could give consent, who is to say that bestiality would be wrong? No one gets hurt, both parties are consenting, so it really wouldn't be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So if a drunk chick starts kissing you, drags you into her room, pulls off her clothes and hands you a condom, and then says "Lets have sex" - thats still not consent?
Well known fact - in ALL states in Australia, screwing an animal will land you in jail, and a savage beating if I happen to see you doing it. Illegal or not, I think we all agree that that is WRONG!
So despite the fact that if you crouched down in front of an animal and didnt do anything, and the animal mated with you, its still wrong because the animal cant give consent because it isnt sentient? Is that the idea?
Lord, this beastiality slant is starting to sicken even me.... I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You'll notice that I preprepared an argument in the even that animals are deemed able to give consent. Basically, if no body is getting hurt, and its consentual, then why is it wrong? Its disgusting, I'll grant you that, but so is **** eating, and far more people enjoy that particualr activity than anybody really wants to know about. So in effect, if the animal can consent, then I don't see anything inherently 'wrong' about it.
However I still would argue that animals cannot consent because when it comes to sex, their id will win, every time (there may be animal species in which this is not true, however I can not think of any offhand. If you find one, see paragraph I). And yes, if that drunk girl were practically begging me to give it to here on the bar, it would still be wrong. An intoxicated being simply cannot be trusted to make a conscientious(sp?) discision.
BTW, I fail to see how this
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well known fact - in ALL states in Australia, screwing an animal will land you in jail, and a savage beating if I happen to see you doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
has anything to do with the discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That was just a small rant in response to Talesins "little known fact". It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in the slightest.
Well, unfortunately, you and I are in complete agreement Skulk, write the date down, because it prolly wont happen again. That chick still hasnt given complete consent imho either.
I see that EVERYTHING is inherantly wrong in screwing animals, both using religious reasons and my pure humanity, my entire being revolts against the idea. But at least you are being honest, following through with your reasoning to the point at which you come to the conclusion that it is impossible for you to claim beastiality wrong.
I still think there is more I can say here, but as I said before, this topic disgusts me so much that I'm not going to continue discussing in terms of beastiality.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited October 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Oct 21 2003, 11:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 21 2003, 11:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Alright here is a comparision - one that has been made before and ALWAYS gets people up in arms.
Homosexuality and Beastiality.
Homosexuality is the attraction/mating between two animals of the same speicies and gender. Beastiality is the attraction/mating between two animals of different species.
Both occur in nature - but never/rarely with good results. We all agree that beastiality is filthy and disgusting, yet you will find dogs humping their masters legs. So beastiality happens in nature, homosexuality occurs in nature, following the logic of this thread then therefore beastiality is just as acceptable as homosexuality.
Goths have a dress preference. That is completely different to sexual confusion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But wait, Marine01... didn't you bring UP the topic of bestiality in the first place? Or was that more of a foil to attempt people to associate homosexuality with a far more widely reviled method of sexual gratification? You bring it up, and now refuse to discuss it, citing disgust?
In short, if you can't take the heat, don't start the fire.
In case people haven't noticed, I do tend to play devil's advocate. I'm almost tempted to start an entirely new thread (so as not to lead this one even further off topic) to debate this latest development... maintaining the scientific-rationale basis that has been defined for this particular thread. It'd certainly lead to some interesting conversation, as well as being a horrific flame magnet. Hopefully the 'disgust level' would be high enough to make reactionary posters veer off to safer waters.
Comments
The urge to procreate is not the only power governing the human being. Our very complex brains allows us to make many little twists to what we would like to call fundamental human nature. Ascetics starve themselves, counter to the Natural Selection hypothesis that the strongest survive. Corporations are allowed to pollute liek mad even thought it is clear it will cost many people their lives. People smoke, drink, drug, fornicate, drive recklessly, bungee jumps and move into metal cylinders that hurls them away at insane speeds way high up in the sky. All this due to our faculties.
If we had been true to our Natually Selected destiny, we would sooner eat the bloody throbbing hearts of polluters, car drivers and everyone else who act to imperil our lives and the lives of our offspring. But we aren't like that.
Gayness might just be a figment of the rich human nature, it might not have a lot to do with natural selection. We have already seen that humans do much that strides against "nature". Our rich, complex society allows for this. And who knows, perhaps g4y people are actually contributing to the overall well being of the human nature by their ability to channel their ancient procreative urges into other directions. I wonder if there's a coincidence between gayness and creativity.
Jungle law baby!
If homosexuality is not a gene it is'nt natural, but something went wrong on an emotionel plan during childhood <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Immacola, I agree with you <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
/Ignore my large amount of spelling errors <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Could be recessive. Or that it's a combination of genes that need to be blended the right way at conception. E.g. you need both genes A and B for the right changes to take place... your mom has A on one of her chromosomes, your dad has the B on another. If when you're conceived you get your mom's copy of the chromosome with the A, and your dad's copy with the B, bam, **** kid born to straight parents.
The argument always goes as follows:
<span style='color:red'>Why is homosexuality wrong?</span>
<span style='color:blue'>Because the Bible sa...</span>
<span style='color:red'>And don't give me that "The Bible says so" BS, give me real reasons backed up by logic.</span>
<span style='color:blue'>Um.... Its unnatural?</span>
<span style='color:red'><i>1,000,000 examples as to why it is not unnatural</i></span>
<span style='color:blue'>Well... um.... its still unnatural.</span>
<span style='color:red'><i>More discussion on why its not unnatural</i></span>
Repeat ad infinitum.
Heres the deal people, there are only 2 reasons you think homosexuality is wrong:
1) Religious Reasons
2) Your a homophobe
If you fall into catagory 1, nothing anybody says is going to change your mind since your already a zealot anyway.
If you fall into catagory 2, get your head examined, you've got some unresolved issues with your sexuality.
In short, I'm begging you, let these tired old arguments die so perhaps we can bring something new and interesiting into this forum. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Warrents saying again. I mean, hell, all the homophobes and zealots keep reposting their same old ****, why can't I?
<b>This thread will NEVER GET ANYWHERE. Like the evolution vs creation threads it has been done like 4 times already, GIVE IT A FREAKING REST!</b>
Could be recessive. Or that it's a combination of genes that need to be blended the right way at conception. E.g. you need both genes A and B for the right changes to take place... your mom has A on one of her chromosomes, your dad has the B on another. If when you're conceived you get your mom's copy of the chromosome with the A, and your dad's copy with the B, bam, **** kid born to straight parents. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
News flash, g@y men often time have wives and children.
Regarding a gene for homosexuality, I firmly beleive that there is one, but when we do single it out, no research groups will be brave enough to come forwards and annoucne it because of the ethical implications.
think again. Some scientists are just that, scientists. Not bashful prudes. IF they find the gene for homosexuality, they will publish it. For better or for worse. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scientists are just that - people with bias. As the last g4y gene fiasco showed. When they find it (again) they will publish it, and it will be hyped by the media be it a joke or completely airtight.
Breathe Skulk, breathe <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Its been done before and it will be done again, but usually its not the same people posting. That said, I cant contribute again because of the forum rules, but feel free to carry on
That would'nt explain why it is observed in animals.
Also, the whole nature vs nurture thing doesn't matter anyway. Would you think we have to 'fix' people who are goths (not that I'm trying to say all goths had terrible parents, just the best example I can think of off hand)?
Homosexuality and Beastiality.
Homosexuality is the attraction/mating between two animals of the same speicies and gender. Beastiality is the attraction/mating between two animals of different species.
Both occur in nature - but never/rarely with good results. We all agree that beastiality is filthy and disgusting, yet you will find dogs humping their masters legs. So beastiality happens in nature, homosexuality occurs in nature, following the logic of this thread then therefore beastiality is just as acceptable as homosexuality.
Goths have a dress preference. That is completely different to sexual confusion.
Beastiality is better compared to 'peadosexuality' than homosexuality. Homosexual humans can give consent, and know what they're getting into.
Personally, I'm not confused at all as to my sexual preferences. They just happen to be for other men.
And as TeoH had stated, your comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is flawed.
As is your definition of bestiality, actually... a lion and a tiger mating is not considered bestiality, as an example. However, the proper definition is an entire can of worms that-does-not-belong-in-this-thread-so-don't-even-start.
Are you sure a proper definition doesnt belong in this thread? It would help to clear out any confusion as to my example, and while I cant personally see anything wrong with that - I'll wait to hear from you again before I post it.
Some animals dont actually give consent, they START it. I work in a vet surgery, and I cant count the number of times a dog has started humping my leg.
Oh, and biologically speaking - that is confusion, at least in my opinion. If a being ends up attracted to something that wont propagate the species then it has lost its way somewhere, in pure biology terms.
as for bestiality...<ul>
<li>it transmits disease (one possible explanation for how AIDS originated)
<li>animals, like children, cannot consent
</ul>
I'm sure there's more reasons, but that's enough for me.
Some people disapprove of homosexuals for having consentual same-sex relations. I disapprove of the catholic church for harboring pedophiles for decades (centuries? millenia?). I'm tired and bored. I'm going to go get a sandwich.
Okay, this should end it right here.
What if you, the "being g4y isn't natural" guy, were g4y. That's right. What if you found out you liked other men and you were a guy?
You know what you are like. You know you're not all the stereotypes of g4y people. You just like men. What would you do? You could either accept that all g4ys are really not as you thought they were, or you could kill yourself thinking how horrible it was for you to be g4y. Which would you do?
Hopefully if you're not homophobic, you'd pick that maybe g4ys aren't as bad as you thought. Yes, it's true, you aren't g4y, but if you thought you would change your ideas of g4ys if you were, does it matter if you're g4y or not? They're different. That's why people are homophobic. Is it so hard to believe a g4y person could be just like you?
as for bestiality...<ul>
<li>it transmits disease (one possible explanation for how AIDS originated)
<li>animals, like children, cannot consent
</ul>
I'm sure there's more reasons, but that's enough for me.
Some people disapprove of homosexuals for having consentual same-sex relations. I disapprove of the catholic church for harboring pedophiles for decades (centuries? millenia?). I'm tired and bored. I'm going to go get a sandwich. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Transmitts disease can be turn back onto homosexuality and heterosexuality, so its a bit of a moot point.
As for consent, a lot of animals will actually start trying to mate with you. That seems a bit like consent to me...
I also disapprove of the Catholic church, but they admit they have done the wrong thing and are trying to fix it, so I cant disapprove too much.
Hawkeye - I work with a lesbian nurse at work, and we get along great. I hold homosexuality in the same light as swearing, its the wrong thing to do, but its your issue not mine. I am discussing here merely to try and prove a point - not to"save" anyone from their homosexuality.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, but being driven by instinct more than humans when it comes to sex, they aren't really making a concious descision. Its sort of like the idea that a drunk woman can't give consent (ignoring that she made the choice to get drunk in the first place).
And besides, if animals could give consent, who is to say that bestiality would be wrong? No one gets hurt, both parties are consenting, so it really wouldn't be.
Whats even more ironic is that many of these same states had anti-homosexuality laws...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, but being driven by instinct more than humans when it comes to sex, they aren't really making a concious descision. Its sort of like the idea that a drunk woman can't give consent (ignoring that she made the choice to get drunk in the first place).
And besides, if animals could give consent, who is to say that bestiality would be wrong? No one gets hurt, both parties are consenting, so it really wouldn't be. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if a drunk chick starts kissing you, drags you into her room, pulls off her clothes and hands you a condom, and then says "Lets have sex" - thats still not consent?
Well known fact - in ALL states in Australia, screwing an animal will land you in jail, and a savage beating if I happen to see you doing it. Illegal or not, I think we all agree that that is WRONG!
So despite the fact that if you crouched down in front of an animal and didnt do anything, and the animal mated with you, its still wrong because the animal cant give consent because it isnt sentient? Is that the idea?
Lord, this beastiality slant is starting to sicken even me.... I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this up.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, but being driven by instinct more than humans when it comes to sex, they aren't really making a concious descision. Its sort of like the idea that a drunk woman can't give consent (ignoring that she made the choice to get drunk in the first place).
And besides, if animals could give consent, who is to say that bestiality would be wrong? No one gets hurt, both parties are consenting, so it really wouldn't be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if a drunk chick starts kissing you, drags you into her room, pulls off her clothes and hands you a condom, and then says "Lets have sex" - thats still not consent?
Well known fact - in ALL states in Australia, screwing an animal will land you in jail, and a savage beating if I happen to see you doing it. Illegal or not, I think we all agree that that is WRONG!
So despite the fact that if you crouched down in front of an animal and didnt do anything, and the animal mated with you, its still wrong because the animal cant give consent because it isnt sentient? Is that the idea?
Lord, this beastiality slant is starting to sicken even me.... I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'll notice that I preprepared an argument in the even that animals are deemed able to give consent. Basically, if no body is getting hurt, and its consentual, then why is it wrong? Its disgusting, I'll grant you that, but so is **** eating, and far more people enjoy that particualr activity than anybody really wants to know about. So in effect, if the animal can consent, then I don't see anything inherently 'wrong' about it.
However I still would argue that animals cannot consent because when it comes to sex, their id will win, every time (there may be animal species in which this is not true, however I can not think of any offhand. If you find one, see paragraph I). And yes, if that drunk girl were practically begging me to give it to here on the bar, it would still be wrong. An intoxicated being simply cannot be trusted to make a conscientious(sp?) discision.
BTW, I fail to see how this
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well known fact - in ALL states in Australia, screwing an animal will land you in jail, and a savage beating if I happen to see you doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
has anything to do with the discussion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah yes, but being driven by instinct more than humans when it comes to sex, they aren't really making a concious descision. Its sort of like the idea that a drunk woman can't give consent (ignoring that she made the choice to get drunk in the first place).
And besides, if animals could give consent, who is to say that bestiality would be wrong? No one gets hurt, both parties are consenting, so it really wouldn't be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if a drunk chick starts kissing you, drags you into her room, pulls off her clothes and hands you a condom, and then says "Lets have sex" - thats still not consent?
Well known fact - in ALL states in Australia, screwing an animal will land you in jail, and a savage beating if I happen to see you doing it. Illegal or not, I think we all agree that that is WRONG!
So despite the fact that if you crouched down in front of an animal and didnt do anything, and the animal mated with you, its still wrong because the animal cant give consent because it isnt sentient? Is that the idea?
Lord, this beastiality slant is starting to sicken even me.... I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'll notice that I preprepared an argument in the even that animals are deemed able to give consent. Basically, if no body is getting hurt, and its consentual, then why is it wrong? Its disgusting, I'll grant you that, but so is **** eating, and far more people enjoy that particualr activity than anybody really wants to know about. So in effect, if the animal can consent, then I don't see anything inherently 'wrong' about it.
However I still would argue that animals cannot consent because when it comes to sex, their id will win, every time (there may be animal species in which this is not true, however I can not think of any offhand. If you find one, see paragraph I). And yes, if that drunk girl were practically begging me to give it to here on the bar, it would still be wrong. An intoxicated being simply cannot be trusted to make a conscientious(sp?) discision.
BTW, I fail to see how this
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well known fact - in ALL states in Australia, screwing an animal will land you in jail, and a savage beating if I happen to see you doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
has anything to do with the discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was just a small rant in response to Talesins "little known fact". It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in the slightest.
Well, unfortunately, you and I are in complete agreement Skulk, write the date down, because it prolly wont happen again. That chick still hasnt given complete consent imho either.
I see that EVERYTHING is inherantly wrong in screwing animals, both using religious reasons and my pure humanity, my entire being revolts against the idea. But at least you are being honest, following through with your reasoning to the point at which you come to the conclusion that it is impossible for you to claim beastiality wrong.
I still think there is more I can say here, but as I said before, this topic disgusts me so much that I'm not going to continue discussing in terms of beastiality.
Homosexuality and Beastiality.
Homosexuality is the attraction/mating between two animals of the same speicies and gender. Beastiality is the attraction/mating between two animals of different species.
Both occur in nature - but never/rarely with good results. We all agree that beastiality is filthy and disgusting, yet you will find dogs humping their masters legs. So beastiality happens in nature, homosexuality occurs in nature, following the logic of this thread then therefore beastiality is just as acceptable as homosexuality.
Goths have a dress preference. That is completely different to sexual confusion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But wait, Marine01... didn't you bring UP the topic of bestiality in the first place? Or was that more of a foil to attempt people to associate homosexuality with a far more widely reviled method of sexual gratification? You bring it up, and now refuse to discuss it, citing disgust?
In short, if you can't take the heat, don't start the fire.
In case people haven't noticed, I do tend to play devil's advocate. I'm almost tempted to start an entirely new thread (so as not to lead this one even further off topic) to debate this latest development... maintaining the scientific-rationale basis that has been defined for this particular thread. It'd certainly lead to some interesting conversation, as well as being a horrific flame magnet. Hopefully the 'disgust level' would be high enough to make reactionary posters veer off to safer waters.