| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2008 06:01:40 AM · #601 |
Sounds like Mom and Dad putting their child in the middle and using him as a proxy to fight each other. Unfortunately, there will be no winners and the real loser will be the kid. |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 06:41:42 PM · #602 |
"Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth."
Here is a great resource.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2008 12:10:28 PM · #603 |
| An interesting study reported today |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 12:22:18 PM · #604 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
"Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth."
Here is a great resource. |
I especially liked this reply to your link...
"By Laura H Graham, Phd
Thu Apr 17 23:16:35 BST 2008
Homosexual behavior (as understood by the general public) is NOT commonly observed in other species and you are misleading the public by saying so. Bisexual behavior is observed in other species and is not the same as homosexual behavior (the refusal to have sex with the opposite sex). Bisexual behavior is a 'no harm no foul' in terms of reproductive fitness. The only likely advantage of homosexual behavior to the reproductive fitness of an individual is the altruism theory and, as homosexual behavior is not observed in other species, this explanation has little weight behind it at present. As a source of scientific information to the general public you need to be more specific about your terminology. As you say earlier about evolutionary psychology, natural selection is not necessarily an adequate explanation for many of the unusual behaviors displayed by humans. As a comparative animal reproductive physiologist I'm very tired of people saying homosexuality is common in the animal world and using this as a way of calling homosexual behavior a 'natural' reproductive behavior. As a conservation biologist I am all for any non-violent way of reducing human population growth but don't call this uniquely human behavior normal in terms of animal behavior. As a respected scientific source I expect you to provide logical scientific arguments, not kowtow to what is considered 'politically correct' opinion. "
From this link associated to yours; [url=//www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html ]Homosexuality[/url] There were a number of "mights", "mays", "coulds", and other similar words that were a far cry from the definitive proof you so commonly refere to as evidence. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 12:29:04 PM · #605 |
Originally posted by Flash:
not the same as homosexual behavior (the refusal to have sex with the opposite sex). |
Well THERE'S a novel definition. Kinda like defining flight as the refusal to stay on the ground. :-/ |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 12:43:05 PM · #606 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
not the same as homosexual behavior (the refusal to have sex with the opposite sex). |
Well THERE'S a novel definition. Kinda like defining flight as the refusal to stay on the ground. :-/ |
As is common with your posting style, you conviently left out this passage from the fine Dr. "As a comparative animal reproductive physiologist I'm very tired of people saying homosexuality is common in the animal world and using this as a way of calling homosexual behavior a 'natural' reproductive behavior. As a conservation biologist I am all for any non-violent way of reducing human population growth but don't call this uniquely human behavior normal in terms of animal behavior. As a respected scientific source I expect you to provide logical scientific arguments, not kowtow to what is considered 'politically correct' opinion. "
|
|
|
|
04/18/2008 12:53:41 PM · #607 |
As is common with your posting style, the quote you reference has absolutely nothing to do with the error of her definition (which is why I left it out).
With love (defined as the refusal to hate),
Shannon |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 01:19:53 PM · #608 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
As is common with your posting style, the quote you reference has absolutely nothing to do with the error of her definition (which is why I left it out).
With love (defined as the refusal to hate),
Shannon |
Further ahead of Dr. Grahams comments were those of another Dr.
"By Chuck Stewart, Ph. d.
Thu Apr 17 17:07:58 BST 2008
In order for a species to survive, all you need is for the members to have sex. There does not need to be a preference for heterosexuality. For example, I am a gay male. Within my lifetime I will have thousands of sexual encounters with a few men. If I engage in heterosexual coupling just twice and each time a child is born, I will have helped continue the species. The point being is that all a species needs is random sex. Historically, there has been a bias in researchers to only identify heterosexual behaviors. Only recently have animal biologist begun to count same-sex sexual pairing. Lo and behold, what do they find? Most animals don't have a preference toward heterosexuality. They just bump each other and occasionally it is opposite-sex behavior. I believe we need to bring back the concept of "preference." I understand why it was pushed aside and replaced with "sexual orientation" as a political move. But, preference is the better descriptor. I am a gay male and have never had sex with a woman. Yet I live in a society that has fired me from jobs due to my sexual and social arrangements. It would be easier for me if I were heterosexual, but I am not. My preference for sex and social outlets is with men. It is so strong of a preference that I have been willing to put up with social and political condemnation. When it is claimed that only 6-10% of humans are homosexual, we are really claiming that only 6-10% have such a strong preference for same-sex sex and relations that we are unwilling to act heterosexual. Many researchers, going back as far as Kinsey, have shown that most humans will engage in homosexual behaviors. Further, anthropologist have found societies where everyone engage in homosexual relationships and sex for a majority of their lives. The point being, only a small percentage of humans have a strong "preference" toward same-sex or opposite-sex relations and sex. The rest of the population is not "bisexual," rather just sexual and their sexual selection is made by the factors of availability, customs and just plain horniness. Let's get away from the heterosexual prerogative. It is blinding researchers to what is going on. "
This Dr 1st argues "For example, I am a gay male. Within my lifetime I will have thousands of sexual encounters with a few men. If I engage in heterosexual coupling just twice and each time a child is born, I will have helped continue the species. The point being is that all a species needs is random sex." A similar point you/Louis were trying to make that last time we had this discussion. He then goes to state "My preference for sex and social outlets is with men." and even further to state "I am a gay male and have never had sex with a woman. "
On the one hand he argues that homosexuals need only impregnate someone (anyone) to prove the "promulgate the species" argument, yet then goes on to say that he hasn't and likely won't. Dr. Graham's use of the words "refuse to have sex with the opposite sex" was more in line with Dr. Stewart's claim that he has a very strong preference for the same sex, so much so that yhe has never had sex with a woman. Thus the use of the term "refuse". I might have chosen a different word.
No matter, the bottom line is that the evidence you presented on this topic months ago is at least questioned by one other scientist - and another beside me. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 01:37:43 PM · #609 |
Originally posted by Flash:
"[i]By Laura H Graham, Phd
Thu Apr 17 23:16:35 BST 2008
... Bisexual behavior is observed in other species and is not the same as homosexual behavior (the refusal to have sex with the opposite sex)... |
Isn't your source defining all priests and anyone else who takes a vow of chastity as homosexual ?
Just trying to understand. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 01:47:15 PM · #610 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
"By Laura H Graham, Phd
Thu Apr 17 23:16:35 BST 2008
... Bisexual behavior is observed in other species and is not the same as homosexual behavior (the refusal to have sex with the opposite sex)... |
Isn't your source defining all priests and anyone else who takes a vow of chastity as homosexual ?
Just trying to understand. |
In my opinion both you and Shannon are making a larger deal of the word "refuse" than the poster intended. Her intent as I understand it, was within the context of Dr. Stewarts's post which preceded her by nearly 6 hours.
Regardless, I still do not know what that has to do with her main point that called into question the common practice of arguing that homosexuality in man is "natural" based upon its observance in animals - when the evidence in animals is questionable - at least to this scientist.
[i]edit to add quote from the Dr. "As a source of scientific information to the general public you need to be more specific about your terminology. As you say earlier about evolutionary psychology, natural selection is not necessarily an adequate explanation for many of the unusual behaviors displayed by humans. As a comparative animal reproductive physiologist I'm very tired of people saying homosexuality is common in the animal world and using this as a way of calling homosexual behavior a 'natural' reproductive behavior. As a conservation biologist I am all for any non-violent way of reducing human population growth but don't call this uniquely human behavior normal in terms of animal behavior. As a respected scientific source I expect you to provide logical scientific arguments, not kowtow to what is considered 'politically correct' opinion. "
Message edited by author 2008-04-18 13:57:41. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:05:43 PM · #611 |
Originally posted by Flash:
[quote=Gordon] ... her main point that called into question the common practice of arguing that homosexuality in man is "natural" based upon its observance in animals - when the evidence in animals is questionable - at least to this scientist. |
dear scientist,
ever seen one male dog hump another male dog?
was there any evidence that any one or any thing TAUGHT the dog to do that?
seems pretty natural to me |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:10:29 PM · #612 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Originally posted by Flash:
[quote=Gordon] ... her main point that called into question the common practice of arguing that homosexuality in man is "natural" based upon its observance in animals - when the evidence in animals is questionable - at least to this scientist. |
dear scientist,
ever seen one male dog hump another male dog?
was there any evidence that any one or any thing TAUGHT the dog to do that?
seems pretty natural to me |
So a dog that tries to "hump" a persons leg is naturally predisposed to humans? Or one that trise to scoot along the floor is naturally predisposed to wood or carpet? Dogs will "hump" anything - one reason men are sometimes called... |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:19:48 PM · #613 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Originally posted by Flash:
[quote=Gordon] ... her main point that called into question the common practice of arguing that homosexuality in man is "natural" based upon its observance in animals - when the evidence in animals is questionable - at least to this scientist. |
dear scientist,
ever seen one male dog hump another male dog?
was there any evidence that any one or any thing TAUGHT the dog to do that?
seems pretty natural to me |
So a dog that tries to "hump" a persons leg is naturally predisposed to humans? |
Interspecies sex -- nearly always initiated by a human male -- is as old as recorded history, and probably exited before people could write too. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:20:47 PM · #614 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I still do not know what that has to do with her main point that called into question the common practice of arguing that homosexuality in man is "natural" based upon its observance in animals - when the evidence in animals is questionable - at least to this scientist. |
It's only questionable because her definition is questionable. Homosexuality is simply sexual behavior or attraction between members of the same sex, which CERTAINLY occurs in animals (including our own species). Refusal have sex with the opposite sex is NOT a definition of homosexuality as that would include vows of abstinence, insecurity, phobia and other reasons.
Message edited by author 2008-04-18 14:29:10. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:25:56 PM · #615 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In my opinion both you and Shannon are making a larger deal of the word "refuse" than the poster intended. Her intent as I understand it, was within the context of Dr. Stewarts's post which preceded her by nearly 6 hours. |
It's all you posted and given that she starts off by defining what she is talking about in a way somewhat contrary to how most people would I think define it, it then spins off from there.
I'm sure if I define 'green cheese' as meaning moon rock, that I could quite sensibly argue that the moon was made of green cheese and that anyone who disagreed was obviously wrong. Similarly if you want to redefine homosexuality as chastity, then you can make all sorts of interesting assertions. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:29:49 PM · #616 |
Here's a shocker. I think I find myself agreeing with Flash (with the usual caveats).
In my opinion, nobody is strictly homo- or heterosexual. I can't remember if it was Kinsey or Hite that presented a "sexuality graph", whereby any one individual's bisexuality was represented along a line that went from 0% to 100% predisposed to sexual exclusivity with the opposite sex. Their research found that statistically, nobody was either 0% or 100% hetero (or homo). Hef might be 99%, and, oh, I don't know, who's really gay, say, Harvey Fierstein might be 0.5%, but neither could be called exclusively one or the other.
The caveat: this does not indicate that homosexuality is a choice. There are still likely biological factors that determine where an individual sits on the sliding scale. (Sorry for the ever-so-slight innuendo.) If anything, Kinsey/Hite's scale strengthens the comparison of human sexuality with that of animals, further signifying that bisexuality with a stronger or weaker predispostion to opposite-sex attraction is natural, whether it represents an evolutionary advantage or not. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:34:17 PM · #617 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Originally posted by Flash:
[quote=Gordon] ... her main point that called into question the common practice of arguing that homosexuality in man is "natural" based upon its observance in animals - when the evidence in animals is questionable - at least to this scientist. |
dear scientist,
ever seen one male dog hump another male dog?
was there any evidence that any one or any thing TAUGHT the dog to do that?
seems pretty natural to me |
So a dog that tries to "hump" a persons leg is naturally predisposed to humans? |
Interspecies sex -- nearly always initiated by a human male -- is as old as recorded history, and probably exited before people could write too. |
Was just reading today that it is legal in Washington State to have sex with animals - as long as they weigh less than 40 pounds. I was saving that tidbit until another time when the arguments were turning toward legalizing gay marriage and then I was giong to ask where does it stop. If beastiality is legal (as it is in Washington), then why couldn't those practicing it claim discrimination and civil rights violations? |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:40:21 PM · #618 |
Originally posted by Louis:
In my opinion, nobody is strictly homo- or heterosexual... |
It's probably true that nobody is strictly right-handed or left-handed either, but the definition is still centered around a natural preference. If you define right-handedness as "people who refuse to eat with their left hand," then you get a glaringly inaccurate definition that precludes Muslims and injuries... and ignores that fact that some naturally right-handed people eat with their left hand too.
Message edited by author 2008-04-18 14:44:08. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:41:34 PM · #619 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Was just reading today that it is legal in Washington State to have sex with animals - as long as they weigh less than 40 pounds. |
May I ask where you read that? |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:43:20 PM · #620 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Flash:
Was just reading today that it is legal in Washington State to have sex with animals - as long as they weigh less than 40 pounds. |
May I ask where you read that? |
May I ask that you don't ask? Yeesh. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:44:41 PM · #621 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Flash:
Was just reading today that it is legal in Washington State to have sex with animals - as long as they weigh less than 40 pounds. |
May I ask where you read that? |
May I ask that you don't ask? Yeesh. |
Yours is more likely the wiser course. LOL! |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:47:42 PM · #622 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
In my opinion, nobody is strictly homo- or heterosexual... |
It's probably true that nobody is strictly right-handed or left-handed either, but the definition is still centered around a natural preference. |
Yeah, note "caveat" in my post. :P |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:47:59 PM · #623 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I was saving that tidbit until another time when the arguments were turning toward legalizing gay marriage and then I was giong to ask where does it stop. |
Really? You were saving that so you could make some boneheaded, misguided and offensive parallel between bestiality and homosexuality? What next, some chestnut about Adam and Steve? |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:49:00 PM · #624 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Was just reading today that it is legal in Washington State to have sex with animals - as long as they weigh less than 40 pounds. I was saving that tidbit until another time when the arguments were turning toward legalizing gay marriage and then I was giong to ask where does it stop. |
That's not merely a false argument, it's pretty offensive.
Edit: same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada for years, in the Netherlands even longer, and I defy you to show me one human/chicken, human/dog, human/orangutang, human/whatever couple clamouring for the same tax rights, benefits rights, deathbed rights, marriage rights, and social recognition rights that so-called "traditional" couples have. Sheesh.
Message edited by author 2008-04-18 14:53:55. |
|
|
|
04/18/2008 02:53:34 PM · #625 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Flash:
Was just reading today that it is legal in Washington State to have sex with animals - as long as they weigh less than 40 pounds. |
May I ask where you read that? |
Here |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 12:26:01 PM EDT.
