Superbelt

Tell that to the 450 other species that like to have homosexual sex.

Life's purpose is survival, reproduction is a byproduct of that.
Survival can be achieved in several ways.
A happy, stress free individual lives longer. Lots of sex can reduce your stress.
A species that doesn't overpopulate it's habitat stays stable longer. Homosexual sex fulfils the need to hump, but results in no babies.


Really, explain away the hundreds of other species that can go gay. Why would this develop so widespread in nature if it's wrong?

NCB

SB, we're the only species that has sex for pleasure. Dogs, wombats, mice, ect....do not. Animals do not "like" homosexual sex. It seems to me that the answer to why is obvious. It's just that you don't like it.

In fact, knowing what we know about 450 species having homsexual sex (and knowing that they do not engage in sex for pleasure), you can make a pretty strong argument that homosexuality is a genetic thing. A genetic malfunction in nature, but genetic nonetheless.

Now, that's not my argument. I still feel that homosexuality amongst humans is a choice or a behavioral mechanism that is onset by abuse/rape/molestation or whatever. However, the fact remains that there is no conclusive proof either way. I may be wrong, you may be right. Or vice-versa.

__________________

Manx

Bigot:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are strongly partial to a group defined by sexual orientation, your so-called "normal" group, and you are intolerant of those who differ, the non-"normal" group.So, better safe than sorry: just in case you're right, we must discriminate against gays.

You have a long list of justifications for your need to discriminate, but in the end, you have no idea if you're right. And so by default, you discriminate. Otherwise .... something catastrophic will happen?

That's not the "normal", default behavior of a human being. Your behavior is a sociological by-product of your environment. Maybe brought about by latent homosexual feelings to which you have been programmed to feel shame, maybe brought about by sexual abuse when you were younger - I can't possibly know - but I do know it's not normal.

Superbelt

Wrong, again.

Dolphins have sex for pleasure, bonobos (a chimp) do as well.
what we know about these species that distinguishes them from other animals is that they also have sex when the female is not at a point in her gestation cycle suitable for successful impregnation.

Those are just two others that we know of for a fact because of the gestation cycle. Others most assuredly do, we just can't PROVE IT.

NCB

OK, assuming your above assement is true, how does that help explain homosexuality in other animals? Since animals have sex for pleasure and they make the choie to engage in it, does that mean that the same animals choose to have homosexual sex?

__________________

Superbelt

Just like homosexual male humans choose to have homosexual sex with other males.

And just like you and I choose to have heterosexual sex with women.

It's wired in our brains. I can't imagine having sex with a man, neither can you. it's wired for us just like homosexuality is wired for others.

raveneye

I thought this thread was in dire need of a little humor . . . . .

raveneye

Seriously, I think it might be useful to try to unfathom the unstated assumptions that the two sides have in this debate, which are in conflict and are preventing any kind of meaningful resolution.

The core question is whether marriage should be redefined. Now think about what I just wrote. Why is this such a heated question? Who cares how a word is defined? Seriously. Who cares? It’s just a word.

This is really what it all boils down to. It’s not an issue about any specific legal rights. I haven’t seen any anti-gay-marriage people object to any specific legal rights that “marriage” would confer on gay couples. They’re all in favor of gays visiting each other in hospitals, sharing health insurance, sharing estates, etc. None of that is a problem.

What they object to all boils down to a single English word, and that is “marriage”.

Why?

Here’s why (IMO): many of us have a personal relationship with or understanding of God. That relationship is the core, defining, unifying principle of our lives, out of which the totality of our ethical, political, spiritual life flows. And for many of us, the idea of marriage is closely intertwined with the idea of God. God sanctions our marriage, blesses it, makes it spiritually right and legitimate, gives it purpose and meaning far beyond just two individuals. So “marriage” is a lot more than that list of legal rights. It is a spiritual entity in and of itself.

So why then is gay marriage bad under this view of marriage? It is bad because God does not sanction it. In God’s eyes, homosexuality is a sin. It is depraved. So it is inconceivable that two same-sex people could enter this sanctified state of union. It is almost blasphemy merely to suggest it.

So that’s the unstated assumption, namely: gayness is depraved, sinful behavior that can never be sanctified.

No argument is ever going to refute this, because it is a primitive assumption of the anti-gay-marriage position.

Is there a gay gene? So what. There are genes that cause criminal behavior too, does that mean being a criminal is OK?

Miscegenetion? Irrelevant. Being black is not depraved. Being gay is depraved.

Gay animals? Irrelevant. Animals can't get married either.

It looks to me that this is essentially the reason this debate goes around and around in circles. The unstated assumptions are in conflict, and they never get touched. This is a theological debate, where the theology is well concealed.

I don't see any other conclusion, given that the legal rights question is never an issue. It's all about "redefining" that one word.

For the record: Paul Martin is a great human being.

Antikarma

OOOOOOOOOOOH we needed that joke...... Like a breath of fresh air

__________________

"Whoever you are, go out into the evening,
leaving your room, of which you know each bit;
your house is the last before the infinite,
whoever you are."

NCB

Nice one, Raven! We all needed that!!

__________________

filtherton

You can't win this argument by completely oversimplifying biology. First of all, you can't pretend to speak on behalf of nature. Second of all, everything that a human has ever done has been the direct result of nature at its finest. Whether homosexuality is normal or not really depends on how you choose to define "normal". I assure that homosexuality is just as "normal" as your average successful* marriage.

Perhaps you could tell me how homosexuality isn't "normal".

*successful meaning not ending in divorce(that other threat to marriage which no one cares about)