LIfe in "Conservative Christian" America?

Damn Yankee said:
Is that your scientific evidence? A report titled: "Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate"? :)
Click to expand...

The article documents observations of homosexual activity in animals in their natural habitat. Would you care to refute what it says?
 
"There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks."

"The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category."

"On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff.""

"The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals."



I thought I'd post those just in case you were offended by the report title and closed the page without reading.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. Morality is defined by the world's major religions, all which state that homosexuality is immoral.
2. Since there is no procreation with homosexual relationships, that subset of society would simply die out. Natural relationships result in a sustainable species.
Click to expand...

1) Wrong. Morality is subjective and is defined by each individual. Those individuals can develop a consensus via majority and create laws to support their collective beliefs. Only the brain dead believe that we should cherry pick which 'moralities' to follow as defined by ancient texts and beliefs.

2) Wrong again. You are attempting to define natural by procreation. That is NOT the definition.

nat·u·ral
   [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals are indeed formed by nature as is evidenced by the appearance in numerous species.

2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

3.of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
Click to expand...

Hmm.... neither of these define it by procreation either. I wonder why?
 
“Additional charges against a priest facing numerous sex abuse charges against Inuit children include one count of bestiality. Court documents say the charge, one of five new ones laid this week against Eric Dejaeger, allegedly involved a dog. The new accusations bring to 28 the number of charges against Dejaeger. Almost all the counts are sex offenses allegedly committed against boys and girls in the remote Nunavut community of Igloolik between 1979 and 1982. Dejaeger, who was expelled earlier this year on immigration violations, is being held in custody awaiting bail in Iqaluit. He received a five-year sentence in 1990 after pleading guilty to nine counts of sex crimes against boys and girls in Baker Lake in the 1980’s.”​
 
WinterBorn said:
"There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks."

"The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category."

"On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff.""

"The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals."



I thought I'd post those just in case you were offended by the report title and closed the page without reading.
Click to expand...

Aren't all flamingos gay? :cof1:
 
Superfreak said:
1) Wrong. Morality is subjective and is defined by each individual. Those individuals can develop a consensus via majority and create laws to support their collective beliefs. Only the brain dead believe that we should cherry pick which 'moralities' to follow as defined by ancient texts and beliefs.

2) Wrong again. You are attempting to define natural by procreation. That is NOT the definition.

nat•u•ral
   [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective


Homosexuals are indeed formed by nature as is evidenced by the appearance in numerous species.



Hmm.... neither of these define it by procreation either. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

1. On one hand you are claiming that morality is an individual decision and then on the other you indicate that a majority does. Which is it?
2. Just because an individual develops a deviant behavior doesn't make that behavior natural.
 
http://www.livescience.com/2534-sex-couples-common-wild.html

"According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others.

If homosexuality is natural in the animal kingdom, then there is the question of why evolution hasn't eliminated this trait from the gene pool, since it doesn’t lead to reproduction.

It may simply be for pleasure.

"Not every sexual act has a reproductive function," said Janet Mann, a biologist at Georgetown University who studies dolphins (homosexual behavior is very common in these marine mammals). "That's true of humans and non-humans.""
 
You neglected to quote this portion of that non-scientific article:

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo, were a couple for about six years, during which they nurtured a fertilized egg together (given to them by a zookeeper) and raised the young chick that hatched.
Click to expand...

Until now I was unaware that zoos were natural habitats.
 
Damn Yankee said:
You neglected to quote this portion of that non-scientific article:



Until now I was unaware that zoos were natural habitats.
Click to expand...

You really have run out of arguments, haven't you.

If you think zoos are natural habitats then you are the only one who does. Of course I didn't quote that part of the article, you dolt. We have been discussing whether or not the behavior is natural. Observed behavior in a zoo would not be any indication (pro or con) of natural behavior.

That being said, it does not invalidate the observations in the wild and the statements of the scientists.
 
How ironic, you claiming that I have run out of argument. Then in the same post you blast on me for thinking that zoos are natural habitats, where it was you who completely missed the obvious sarcasm. Then you call me a name.

After three tries you are unable to cite a simple scientific article that justifies your opinion, so the debate is over.
 
Damn Yankee said:
How ironic, you claiming that I have run out of argument. Then in the same post you blast on me for thinking that zoos are natural habitats, where it was you who completely missed the obvious sarcasm. Then you call me a name.

After three tries you are unable to cite a simple scientific article that justifies your opinion, so the debate is over.
Click to expand...

First you want a citation, and now you want a scientific citation? The article from the National Geographic discusses scientific observations. The article from LiveScience quoted two scientists talking about their observations or research.

Yes, you are correct that the debate is over. I have shown that homosexuality is natural. You lost again.
 
How about Scientific American?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution

"Homosexual behavior seems pointedly un-Darwinian. An animal that doesn't pass along genes by mating with the opposite sex at every, well, conceivable opportunity, seems to be at an evolutionary disadvantage. So what’s in it for the 450-plus species that go for same-sex sex?"

"It's been observed a lot," says Nathan Bailey, a post-doctoral researcher at U.C. Riverside and lead study author, of same-sex sexual behavior in animals. "But it took people a long time to put it in an evolutionary context."



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356639,00.html
 
"Evidence where this exists in nature" obviously requires an original scientific citation, not an article about a debate, and not a discussion with researchers.
 
Damn Yankee said:
"Evidence where this exists in nature" obviously requires an original scientific citation, not an article about a debate, and not a discussion with researchers.
Click to expand...

So discussions of scientists about homosexual behavior in animals is not a citation that it happens? Let me guess, the APA used their powers of Gay Agenda to make them all lie?

SM, if you want to hate gays thats fine. But at least have the integrity to do so without this sort of bullshit. I have shown you numerous articles discussing homosexuality in nature. I have posted links to articles in respected scientific magazines. So don't try and pretend that no proof has been offered.
 
Now comes the "hate" accusations. Tally up all the debate points that I've scored here, and the conclusion is obvious...
 
Damn Yankee said:
Now comes the "hate" accusations. Tally up all the debate points that I've scored here, and the conclusion is obvious...
Click to expand...

LMAO!! You won? You posted Cameron's "research" as gospel, but you demand only original scientific citations, and you won? Too funny.

There is ample proof to show the behavior is natural.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top