| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2008 12:14:03 PM · #651 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Most of the posts in this thread and others on DPC that are attacking scientific knowledge do so from a position of either ignorance or woeful misunderstanding of basic scientific tenets and methods. |
Amen! |
|
|
|
04/19/2008 12:45:14 PM · #652 |
Another sad story about the ugly side of religion:DNA tests on Texas sect children
|
|
|
|
04/19/2008 02:13:19 PM · #653 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Guns are offensive |
Using the statement Guns are offensive is not a strong argument for your position and is purely subjective opinion. What may be offensive to you might not be for others and vise-versa. I point this out because I'm surprised that you would actually use this as a basis in an argument. If we went by what was offensive to people then I would shudder to think what little rights we would have, and what rights we might not achieve in the future. |
|
|
|
04/19/2008 03:27:21 PM · #654 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Guns are offensive |
Using the statement Guns are offensive is not a strong argument for your position and is purely subjective opinion. |
Perhaps it's meant in the sense that guns are an offensive weapon, in the same sense that the batter in baseball or the quarterback in football is on offense -- guns are generally a means of attacking someone; they do little to shield you from the attack of another.
Or perhaps the thought of possessing an object whose primary purpose is killing another human being is inherently offensive to those whose philosophy includes the idea of loving and caring for fellow humans ...
Message edited by author 2008-04-19 15:27:56. |
|
|
|
04/19/2008 04:05:12 PM · #655 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Guns are offensive |
Using the statement Guns are offensive is not a strong argument for your position and is purely subjective opinion. |
Perhaps it's meant in the sense that guns are an offensive weapon, in the same sense that the batter in baseball or the quarterback in football is on offense -- guns are generally a means of attacking someone; they do little to shield you from the attack of another. |
Maybe that's what he meant but since he used the same word in the context of being repulsed or disgusted in the same thread I assumed he was using it in the same context. I'm sure he'll come in and clear it up and back up his statement, however he meant it
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Or perhaps the thought of possessing an object whose primary purpose is killing another human being is inherently offensive to those whose philosophy includes the idea of loving and caring for fellow humans ... |
I'm sure this is the context for which he intended. I disagree with the statement but that's for another thread since this is for Science and Theology.
Message edited by author 2008-04-19 16:06:32. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 11:11:42 AM · #656 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Louis's argument was basically since homosexual unions (marriage) has been legal in Canada and the Netherlands for some time and no crys for equal rights of beastiality practitioners has been heard from, then the position suggesting a link between homosexual practices and any other immoral act is false. |
I never called any particular act "immoral". And your logic is still circuitous, and attributes things to me I never said.
Originally posted by Flash:
You subscribe to the false argument of irresponsibility of gun owners.... |
That's a fabrication. I never once said that. I never once hinted that all gun owners are irresponsible, so your point's moot. What I will say is that gun ownership as some kind of protected right is an offence, and I, like the mayor of Toronto, Canada's largest city, and many other politicians and citizens' groups, support a federal ban on handgun ownership in Canada. Guns are offensive. The populace does not need to be armed.
And as far as "wild west shootings" not happening, you would be patently wrong about that, because that recently has occurred here, leading to tragedy, and the call from the Mayor for the federal ban on handguns. That gun was legally owned by the shooter, registered, and above-board. So legal gun ownership certainly does lead to nightmare scenarios, "wild west shootings", irresponsible behaviour, and loss of life. There's no need for anyone to own a handgun in this country.
Further, to suggest that a valid comparison can be made between the general public having a right to "unfettered access" to weapons created for the sole purpose of taking human life, and the ability of same-sex couples who have been in long-term relationships for decades to have the same legal protections as opposite-sex couples who have been in long-term relationships for decades, is, again, base, self-serving, and offensive. |
It does not surprise me at all to read your reply. It very specifically makes my point that you can and will use ignorant arguments to suppress anothers right to own firearms while proclaiming your indignation that anyone else would call into question your decision to practice homosexuality. I could easily go to a number of right wing christian websites and post a miraid of links on the evils of homosexuality. That would not prove anything - as your posting a leftist diatribe does nothing to sway me on the FACTS of gunownership. I can provide enourmous research and scientific studies proving the defensive use of handguns to thwart and survive an assault. Yet you conviently ignore that research to promote your given agenda - the same agenda that I proclaim anti-homosexual zealots have against your behavior. So you cannot be FAIR and thus your positions carry little to no weight with me. You can choose to relpy to any of my posts in the future - however whatever you say is so tainted with a twisted double standard that it literally is useless to me.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2008 11:45:47 AM · #657 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It does not surprise me at all to read your reply. It very specifically makes my point that you can and will use ignorant arguments to suppress anothers right to own firearms while proclaiming your indignation that anyone else would call into question your decision to practice homosexuality. |
I note (with some satisfaction) your complete inability to do two things: divorce your personality sufficiently from your argument so that you don't come across as frothing at the mouth, and argue from a position of grounded fact. Instead of assiduously pointing out my ignorance with each post I make, you prefer bluster in a single post, destroying your credibility. And how you come to assume that I "practice homosexuality" from anything I've said in these threads is beyond me.
Originally posted by Flash:
I can provide enourmous research and scientific studies proving the defensive use of handguns to thwart and survive an assault. Yet you conviently ignore that research to promote your given agenda... |
What research? You haven't provided a single thing for me to ignore. I'll happily ignore anything you post, but you'll actually have to do some work, instead of quipping and grousing with no actual data to back up your claims.
Originally posted by Flash:
...the same agenda that I proclaim anti-homosexual zealots have against your behavior. |
What behaviour? Arguing in defence of human rights? Or do you think you have some kind of special information about me, never having seen me, met me, or heard me speak?
Originally posted by Flash:
You can choose to relpy to any of my posts in the future - however whatever you say is so tainted with a twisted double standard that it literally is useless to me. |
Careful -- this kind of thing usually just makes people look ridiculous later on. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 11:48:28 AM · #658 |
| Is gun ownership correlated to religious belief, or is this just another wild tangent for this thread ? |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 11:49:44 AM · #659 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is gun ownership correlated to religious belief, or is this just another wild tangent for this thread ? |
A little of both, I would think.
[thumb]671597[/thumb]
Message edited by author 2008-04-21 11:51:27. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 01:16:43 PM · #660 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is gun ownership correlated to religious belief, or is this just another wild tangent for this thread ? |
Let me tie it together for you. The discussion was on Homosexuality and how it was offensive to some to have any mention of beastiality along with homosexuality. The argument was put forth that since none have come clamouring forward with âequal rightsâ claims from the beastiality practioners, then any mention of a comparison was both offensive and false. The gun argument came in as a comparative, specifically that since adoption of concealed carry laws in over 30 states in the US, none of the irresponsible actions that the anti-gun crowd was claiming was sure to happen â happened, thus if one is going to use as a defense the notion that no beastiality practioners were asking for equal civil rights, then one would also have to admit that the evidence from the concealed carry states would equally require support from the antiâs. Louis was given an opportunity to fairly admit this fact â yet chose to put forth the very kind of offensive and false arguments he was accusing others of using against homosexuality and its neighbor beastiality.
The tie in with the thread is as follows: It has been argued by some that homosexuality is both moral and natural. The basis for this position is that homosexual behavior is observable in animals. Since we evolved from animals then homosexuality in man is normal/moral/natural. Given that we evolved from animals, then why would it not also be normal/natural/moral to have sex with our ancestors â animals? Additionally, since the animals we evolved from have sex not only within the same gender, but they also engage the opposite sex at the point of it being sexually mature. Likewise then, we as extensions of our animal ancestors should embrace young girls in sexual unions as soon as they begin ovulating (near 11, 12, 13 years old) like the Warren Jeffers sect has practiced in Texas/Colorado and was customary in centuries past and is still practiced in some countries today. In other words â If our link to animals is the proof of homosexual ânatureâ of man, then beastiality should also be natural as well as having sex with 12 year old girls. All of which is evidenced in our animal cousins.
If those on the âproâ homosexual side of this debate do not support equal rights for pedofiles and beastiality practioners, then they need to use some other defense than that of our evolutuionary ancesters.
Claiming an argument offensive or false, does not change the facts of our evolution from fish to animals to man. Homosexuality is not any different from an evolution standpoint that pedofilia or beastiality. Regardless of how it reads. I would expect proponents of evolution to be supportive of the 416 children recently torn from their mothers, who gave birth at early ages but were simply following the natural course of things â just like our animal ancestors have done and do.
If these arguments are false and offensive and cannot be used, then neither can arguments using other false and offensive data points â like anti gun BS. That is the correlation. Not another wild tangent.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2008 01:39:05 PM · #661 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Claiming an argument offensive or false, does not change the facts of our evolution from fish to animals to man. Homosexuality is not any different from an evolution standpoint that pedofilia or beastiality. |
First off, a news flash, Flash: we didn't evolve from animals. We ARE animals. No matter how much you may wish to aggrandize humans, we have not transcended the animal kingdom.
Secondly, your proposed comparison is patently absurd and an affront to humanity. The direct outcome of more guns (concealed or otherwise) is feared to be more gun violence. This is both self-evident and obvious from the daily news. The direct outcome of gay rights has absolutely nothing to do with bestiality or pedophilia. They are no more related than interracial marriage or divorce, and to even suggest a connection is shamefully stark homophobia. Not very Christian of you.
Message edited by author 2008-04-21 13:40:17. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 01:49:54 PM · #662 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If these arguments are false and offensive and cannot be used, then neither can arguments using other false and offensive data points â like anti gun BS. That is the correlation. Not another wild tangent. |
Okay, so if I'm following your line of reasoning, if you are in favor of concealed carry laws, you also must be in favour or laws supporting bestiality and also be pro pedophilia ? Or if you are not pro-gun and pro-beastiality at the same time, you are intellectually dishonest ?
I'll take a stand here and say I'm not really a fan of increased access to guns or concealed carry laws.
I'm also not a big proponent of bestiality.
Hopefully that helps.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2008 01:52:35 PM · #663 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The direct outcome of more guns (concealed or otherwise) is feared to be more gun violence. This is both self-evident and obvious from the daily news. |
This is absolutely wrong. No amount of "self evidence" or "obviousness" will make it so. I strongly encourage you to be the "fair and balanced" researcher you claim and do some hard review of the truth of concealed carry states.
Originally posted by scalvert:
The direct outcome of gay rights has absolutely nothing to do with bestiality or pedophilia. They are no more related than interracial marriage or divorce, and to even suggest a connection is shamefully stark homophobia. Not very Christian of you. |
No homophobia here. I support homosexual unions for a number of reasons (none of which has to do with christianity). 1. Homosexuals as a general group tend to be educated, thus employed. 2. As an employed group they tend to pay taxes. 3. As being unable to procreate within the same sex union, they tend to reduce (or at least not add) to the growing population burden of the world and that is a good thing. So much for you thinking you know my position on homosexuality. However, it seems logical to me, that if our ancestry is the basis for our acceptance of homosexual behavior, then we must also support beastiality and pedofilia as they too are by definition part and parcel of our evolved makeup. To deny those rights are akin to falling victim to the very narrowminded arguments you charge the other side with - making your own arguments meaningless due to hypocracy.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2008 02:06:53 PM · #664 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
If these arguments are false and offensive and cannot be used, then neither can arguments using other false and offensive data points â like anti gun BS. That is the correlation. Not another wild tangent. |
Okay, so if I'm following your line of reasoning, if you are in favor of concealed carry laws, you also must be in favour or laws supporting bestiality and also be pro pedophilia ? Or if you are not pro-gun and pro-beastiality at the same time, you are intellectually dishonest ? |
Not even close.
1."if you are in favor of concealed carry laws, you also must be in favour or laws supporting bestiality and also be pro pedophilia ? " No. If you are going to base your agreement or disagreement with an argument based on the premise that such and such did or did not happen, then you must be consistent in that application.
2. "Or if you are not pro-gun and pro-beastiality at the same time, you are intellectually dishonest ?" No. Consistent application is the point. Not the picking and choosing - one time this next time that.
3. "I'll take a stand here and say I'm not really a fan of increased access to guns or concealed carry laws.
I'm also not a big proponent of bestiality. " Why? If your reasons for being against gun ownership are based on the false and misleading propaganda from HCI and others - then you are being dishonest with the scientific data. If you are opposed for some personal reason like you don't want the responsibility that comes with the ownership, then that is being genuine and honest wiith yourself. On beastiality, if you are opposed based on some moral position, then I would claim that you also need to be opposed to any from of sexuality that deviates from man on woman sex. If on the other hand you support trhe argument that homosexuality is normal/natural based upon its observance in the animal (our ancestors) realm, then you are being hypocritical if you do not also support beastiality and having sesx with girls upon their sexual maturity. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 02:10:46 PM · #665 |
Originally posted by Flash:
No homophobia here. |
Yes, you are the paragon of tolerance, including in your rants what sound suspiciously like accusations when commenting on someone's "decision [sic] to practice homosexuality", calling it "behaviour", and finding the best thing about it to be that said "behaviour" reduces the surplus population. How wonderfully Dickensian.
Message edited by author 2008-04-21 14:11:30. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 02:14:28 PM · #666 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Claiming an argument offensive or false, does not change the facts of our evolution from fish to animals to man. Homosexuality is not any different from an evolution standpoint that pedofilia or beastiality. |
First off, a news flash, Flash: we didn't evolve from animals. We ARE animals. |
All the more reason to support beastiality - since it is simply a matter of having sex with our own kind. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 02:43:27 PM · #667 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The direct outcome of more guns (concealed or otherwise) is feared to be more gun violence. This is both self-evident and obvious from the daily news. |
This is absolutely wrong. No amount of "self evidence" or "obviousness" will make it so. |
So more gun violence is the result of less guns? Dang... what if nobody had guns- there would be shootouts everywhere!
Originally posted by flash:
it seems logical to me, that if our ancestry is the basis for our acceptance of homosexual behavior, then we must also support beastiality and pedofilia as they too are by definition part and parcel of our evolved makeup. |
It would. "âSo the church and state are separate⦠next thing you know theyâll be outlawing religion entirely.â
âSo women want to vote⦠next thing you know theyâll have caucuses of crying babies.â
âSo black people want civil rights⦠next thing you know weâll be giving them to cattle.â
And on, and on, until, âso gay people want to get married. Next thing you know theyâll be marrying dogs.â
All shining examples of logic. :-/
Message edited by author 2008-04-21 14:47:06. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 03:45:03 PM · #668 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Claiming an argument offensive or false, does not change the facts of our evolution from fish to animals to man. Homosexuality is not any different from an evolution standpoint that pedofilia or beastiality. |
First off, a news flash, Flash: we didn't evolve from animals. We ARE animals. |
All the more reason to support beastiality - since it is simply a matter of having sex with our own kind. |
Whenever I have the pleasure of reading wonderful quotes of this ilk, I tend to remember a comment made by some astute vice president who, if I recall correctly said: "what a waste it is to lose one's mind".
I stand here dumbfounded.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 03:51:51 PM · #669 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The direct outcome of more guns (concealed or otherwise) is feared to be more gun violence. This is both self-evident and obvious from the daily news. |
This is absolutely wrong. No amount of "self evidence" or "obviousness" will make it so. |
So more gun violence is the result of less guns? Dang... what if nobody had guns- there would be shootouts everywhere!
Originally posted by flash:
it seems logical to me, that if our ancestry is the basis for our acceptance of homosexual behavior, then we must also support beastiality and pedofilia as they too are by definition part and parcel of our evolved makeup. |
It would. "âSo the church and state are separate⦠next thing you know theyâll be outlawing religion entirely.â
âSo women want to vote⦠next thing you know theyâll have caucuses of crying babies.â
âSo black people want civil rights⦠next thing you know weâll be giving them to cattle.â
And on, and on, until, âso gay people want to get married. Next thing you know theyâll be marrying dogs.â
All shining examples of logic. :-/ |
You are intentionally or unintentionally confusing the issue - regardless you are not addressing the key point. You very specifically argued (in past posts) that the reason homosexuality is "normal/natural" is due to it being observable in various animal species. A certain monkey (perhaps the macau) comes to mind in which you posted that due to this behavior in our ancestors, then this behavior in humans was "natural/normal". Bear_Music further went on to use a kind of bee as even more evidence that homosexuality in the animal world is natural/normal and thus since humans are part of this continuum, then homosexuality is natural/normal for us as well. So be it. If that is true, as you claim it is, then it is also true that animals breed upon sexual maturity and they certainly have sex with other animals. Since that is a FACT, then your reasoning for adoption of homosexuality in humans as normal and natural, must then conclude that other animal behaviors would also be natural/normal in man. We know that some humans practice sex with animals and some engage in sex with youngsters upon their sexual maturity. Now either homosexuality in humans is not directly linked to our animal cousins behavior (which I would argue), or it is. If it is, then so must other animal/man behaviors be normal/natural.
If on the other hand you now want to claim that homosexuality in man is normal/natural for some other reason, then please make that argument. But don't try to paint your argument for the naturalness of homosexuality as observed in humans as some caricature for a smartass comparison from a slanted weighted comparison that does not address the point. My argument is very straightforward. The fact that it implies any uncomfortable conclusions between homosexuality and pedofilia and beastiality is solely based upon your argument that our actions are natural/normal due to our common ancestry.
If you do not believe that it is natural/normal for man to have sex with his cousin the animal or with the opposite sex upon their sexual maturity, then you will need to offer reasons on why. I certainly hope you are not going to call them immoral. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 04:13:26 PM · #670 |
| Flash, if you can't see the illogic and abhorrence of equating private, adult, consensual conduct to child abuse and bestiality, then you really must be considered clueless. That you can also make such comparisons while claiming not to be homophobic is pathetic. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 04:16:01 PM · #671 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The direct outcome of more guns (concealed or otherwise) is feared to be more gun violence. This is both self-evident and obvious from the daily news. |
This is absolutely wrong. No amount of "self evidence" or "obviousness" will make it so. |
So more gun violence is the result of less guns? Dang... what if nobody had guns- there would be shootouts everywhere! |
This is actually basically true. A couple of definitions are in order though.
"So more gun violence is the result of [i]less guns in the hands of the law abiding? Dang... what if nobody no law abiding had guns- there would be shootouts everywhere![/i]" As the criminals would be the only ones armed
The only persons who follow the laws of disarmamanet are the law abiding. The criminals don't follow those laws. If as you imply that more guns (lawfully concealed) cause more crime/death/muder/assault, then why hasn't Vermont who has the most liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendmanet been awash in gunplay. What happened to all those feared rampages on the armed civilians in Florida, Michigan, Texas, or a host of other states that adopted "shall issue" instead of "may issue". Why is it that the places with the highest restrictions on gun ownership (Washington DC, Chicago, LA) have the highest crime/assault/murder rates? They don't have any guns as they are against the law. So here we see a perfect example of the very argument style I was making my point on. It is perfectly OK for you to use false facts. The transparency of your arguments are illuminating. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 04:20:14 PM · #672 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Flash, if you can't see the illogic and abhorrence of equating private, adult, consensual conduct to child abuse and bestiality, then you really must be considered clueless. That you can also make such comparisons while claiming not to be homophobic is pathetic. |
This is an argument. Plain and simple. Why is sex with a youngster (even a consenting youngster) wrong? Why is sex with an animal wrong. They are both duplicated within the very group that some here have argued displayed evidence of proof of mans homosexual nature and its normalcy. My pint is you can't change the argument in midstream. Which many here are trying to do, especially when it appears to show association with behaviors that some here find offensive. I am simply surprised and asking why is one behavior not acceptable and another is?
Shutterpuppy - regarding homosexuality and its practice. It is of absolutely no personal consequence to me what you or any of your neighbors do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I don't care if you like guys, girls, blow up dolls, professional sex workers or you simply enjoy your own company. I don't even care if you buy one of those $7000 robots that are available in japan and will likely transorm into our own personal droids within the next couple of decades complete with skin, voice and allthe other accroutements. Please do not confuse my argument with a position. The argument stands on its own. My positions may or may not be evident - unless you ask - however sometimes I do not even know what my position is as I'm actually working through it.
Message edited by author 2008-04-21 16:34:16. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 04:39:08 PM · #673 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I am simply surprised and asking why is one behavior not acceptable and
another is? |
Is that really the question? Are you truly, genuinely asking why bestiality is not acceptable and homosexuality is? Is this really an important question for you?
If so, are you arguing for bestiality, or against homosexuality?
If neither, what's your ultimate point?
If you mean to say, "You can't claim that homosexuality is natural simply because homosexual behaviour is observed in animals," why is that? Because you feel we must also admit that pedophilia, bestiality, devouring our own feces, and eating our young must also be natural, and therefore acceptable? That's an absurd argument.
There is no comparative argument that must be universal 100% of the time. We are not required to accept each and every behaviour observed in animals as a correspondent, "natural" behaviour in human beings. It may be expedient for your argument, but it's an easily dismissed absurdity. For example, sleeping is a characteristic observed in all mammals. I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that because all mammals sleep, and all humans are mammals, and we consider this a natural behaviour, we must also concede that whenever two people meet on the street, it should be perfectly acceptable to sniff each other's anuses because it's the natural thing for dogs to do. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 04:40:05 PM · #674 |
Originally posted by Flash:
[quote=shutterpuppy] Flash, if you can't see the illogic and abhorrence of equating private, adult, consensual conduct to child abuse and bestiality, then you really must be considered clueless. That you can also make such comparisons while claiming not to be homophobic is pathetic. |
This is an argument. Plain and simple. Why is sex with a youngster (even a consenting youngster) wrong? Why is sex with an animal wrong. They are both duplicated within the very group that some here have argued displayed evidence of proof of mans homosexual nature and its normalcy. My pint is you can't change the argument in midstream. Which many here are trying to do, especially when it appears to show association with behaviors that some here find offensive. I am simply surprised and asking why is one behavior not acceptable and another is?
Shutterpuppy - regarding homosexuality and its practice. It is of absolutely no personal consequence to me what you or any of your neighbors do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I don't care if you like guys, girls, blow up dolls, professional sex workers or you simply enjoy your own company. I don't even care if you buy one of those $7000 robots that are available in japan and will likely transorm into our own personal droids within the next couple of decades complete with skin, voice and allthe other accroutements. Please do not confuse my argument with a position. The argument stands on its own. My positions may or may not be evident - unless you ask - however sometimes I do not even know what my position is as I'm actually working through it.
Furthermore, your post "of equating private, adult, consensual conduct" reads to me as having an element of "choice" in it. An element which I wholeheartedly agree with. The point earlier was that there is no choice in homosexuality behavior as it is base in its animal origin - just like the behavior of macau monkeys or bees. If that is true, then other base animal behaviors must also be inherent in man or the animal claimis BS to start with. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 04:53:44 PM · #675 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
I am simply surprised and asking why is one behavior not acceptable and
another is? |
Is that really the question? Are you truly, genuinely asking why bestiality is not acceptable and homosexuality is? Is this really an important question for you?
If so, are you arguing for bestiality, or against homosexuality?
If neither, what's your ultimate point?
If you mean to say, "You can't claim that homosexuality is natural simply because homosexual behaviour is observed in animals," why is that? Because you feel we must also admit that pedophilia, bestiality, devouring our own feces, and eating our young must also be natural, and therefore acceptable? That's an absurd argument.
There is no comparative argument that must be universal 100% of the time. We are not required to accept each and every behaviour observed in animals as a correspondent, "natural" behaviour in human beings. It may be expedient for your argument, but it's an easily dismissed absurdity. For example, sleeping is a characteristic observed in all mammals. I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that because all mammals sleep, and all humans are mammals, and we consider this a natural behaviour, we must also concede that whenever two people meet on the street, it should be perfectly acceptable to sniff each other's anuses because it's the natural thing for dogs to do. |
1. I am not the one claiming a direct link of justification to human behavior from animals.
2. If we can avoid sniffing each others anuses, eating our own feces and avoid other animal behaviors, then we can certainly avoid actions consistent with homosexuality.
3. You cannot both claim that homosexuality is natural because animals behave homosexually, and then claim that only those traits that support your choices are valid. What about those who choose beastiality or even the most basic of reproductive actions ovulating. At what age a woman is "ready" for procreation is a matter of biology and manmade attitudes/laws. |
|
