- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 9/4/14 at 9:16 pm to DawgfaninCa
Posted on 9/4/14 at 9:16 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:No, having sex exclusively with members of the opposite sex is proof that the animals are homosexual. Which is the case with roughly 8% of rams.
Even if some of the animals you mentioned display signs of affection for another animal of the same sex rather than one of the same sex that isn't proof those animals are in fact homosexual.
quote:Which is proof positive that you have yet to read any of links, and are arguing against what you imagine them to say instead of what they actually say. Unless you and your buddies are engaging in "reciprocal homosexual mountings and copulation" (penguins) or "genital stimulation with pelvic thrusting" (gorillas) while you're hanging out at the sports bar then no, they probably would conclude no such thing.
Even though I am a heterosexual male, I am not sexually attracted to 95% of the women I meet or see and I would rather hang out with other males and male bond with them than hang out with or have a sexual relationship with any of the women I am not sexually attracted to.
I am exhibiting some of the same types of behavior that their so-called homosexual animals are exhibiting.
You and your so-called scientists would erroneously conclude that proves I am a homosexual.
This post was edited on 9/4/14 at 9:35 pm
2
Posted on 9/4/14 at 9:19 pm to Iosh
quote:
No, having sex exclusively with members of the opposite sex is proof that the animals are homosexual. Which is the case with roughly 8% of rams.
No, it's not. They're homosexual in the literal sense of the word. There's nothing there beyond that. Every zoologist will say something along the lines of "it is difficult to analogize this behavior to human sexuality" or something approximating that. Because they're smart and stuff.
Posted on 9/4/14 at 9:26 pm to the808bass
quote:As opposed to the what? The figurative sense of the word? LINK
No, it's not. They're homosexual in the literal sense of the word.
quote:You're welcome to find such a disclaimer in the sheep paper I linked, the first sentence of which explicitly refers to them as an experimental model. Or, you know, explain what you think homosexuality really means.
There's nothing there beyond that. Every zoologist will say something along the lines of "it is difficult to analogize this behavior to human sexuality" or something approximating that. Because they're smart and stuff.
This post was edited on 9/4/14 at 9:34 pm
Posted on 9/4/14 at 9:32 pm to Iosh
quote:
No, having sex exclusively with members of the opposite sex is proof that the animals are homosexual. Which is the case with roughly 8% of rams.
Rams having sex exclusively with members of the opposite sex is proof that the animals are homosexual?
Am I reading this correctly?
quote:
Which is proof positive that you have yet to read any of links, and are arguing against what you imagine them to say instead of what they actually say. Unless you and your buddies are engaging in "reciprocal homosexual mountings and copulation" (penguins) or "genital stimulation with pelvic thrusting" (gorillas) while you're hanging out at the sports bar then no, they probably would conclude no such thing.
Whose to say that in those particular penguin and gorilla worlds those acts aren't just ways of showing male affection and bonding?
Posted on 9/4/14 at 9:34 pm to Iosh
quote:
Young would never use the phrase “straight couples.” And she is adamantly against calling the other birds “lesbians” too. For one thing, the same-sex pairs appear to do everything male-female pairs do except have sex, and Young isn’t really sure, or comfortable judging, whether that technically qualifies them as lesbians or not. But moreover, the whole question is meaningless to her; it has nothing to do with her research. “ ‘Lesbian,’ ” she told me, “is a human term,” and Young — a diligent and cautious scientist, just beginning to make a name in her field — is devoted to using the most aseptic language possible and resisting any tinge of anthropomorphism. “The study is about albatross,” she told me firmly. “The study is not about humans.” Often, she seemed to be mentally peer-reviewing her words before speaking.
Here's an example.
LINK
Posted on 9/4/14 at 9:45 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:No, I wrote it backwards. It's correct now, though.
Rams having sex exclusively with members of the opposite sex is proof that the animals are homosexual?
Am I reading this correctly?
quote:I dunno, the ejaculation? I mean, if you just insist that every homosexual act in the animal kingdom is "male affection and bonding" then what's your standard of proof? The animal has to say "I am gay" or some other bar that only humans can meet? Probably should've seen this coming from the conservapedia citation.
Whose to say that in those particular penguin and gorilla worlds those acts aren't just ways of showing male affection and bonding?
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:05 pm to the808bass
quote:Bruce Bagemihl is quoted in the same article using the term freely. I'm the first to admit that Bagemihl is more of an activist and Young is probably right that it's not an appropriate label for the gulls. But the rams? They are as close a model as you can possibly get in the animal kingdom. The paper I linked doesn't use the term "homosexual" outright, but it uses the term "male-oriented rams." In terms of plain English, it's six of one, half-dozen of the other. And you can find several other journal articles on Google Scholar referring to "homosexual rams," here's two I dug up and a third paper outright analogizing it to human sexual orientation.
Here's an example.
LINK
LINK
LINK
Again, I'm fully aware that a lot of what people think of as "lol lots of animals are gay" is either dominance or sexually fluid play, but if there's any animal that deserves a spot at the front of the pride parade, it's the ram. Too bad they cut Michael Sam
This post was edited on 9/4/14 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 9/4/14 at 10:12 pm to Iosh
quote:
Rams having sex exclusively with members of the opposite sex is proof that the animals are homosexual?
Am I reading this correctly?
quote:
No, I wrote it backwards. It's correct now, though.
So you meant to say rams having sex exclusively with members of the same sex is proof that the animals are homosexual.
Are those particular rams watched 24/7 to determine for certain that they are having sex exclusively with members of the same sex?
quote:
I dunno, the ejaculation? I mean, if you just insist that every homosexual act in the animal kingdom is "male affection and bonding" then what's your standard of proof? The animal has to say "I am gay" or some other bar that only humans can meet? Probably should've seen this coming from the conservapedia citation.
The fact that they ejaculate isn't proof that they are homosexual. It is only proof that in the course of showing male affection and bonding with each other they are getting themselves off.
Just because something happens that may at first appear to reinforce the biased belief of a scientist doesn't mean the scientist's biased belief is correct.
There could be other reasons why it happened.
Hell, I have seen things that scientists say are impossible for me to have seen. Nevertheless, I am 100% certain about what I've seen and I even had another witness with me who saw the same things so I know for a fact that just because a scientist claims something that doesn't prove it's a fact.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 3:30 am to SG_Geaux
quote:
Some are born gay.
Correct. I knew a guy that no matter what he couldn't be straight if his life depended on it. Simple as that. I remember asking him when he knew he was gay he simply stated always. He said he has always been that way. And he had a normal mom dad brother and sister household.
quote:
Some are driven to it due to some form of trauma from the opposite sex. I personally know three women who were molested or raped by their fathers/brothers.
I don't have any experience with any of these kinds. But it seems like a valid point. I would since this one is more of women turning gay after being done wrong by a man.
quote:
Some just experiment and like it.
This is prolly the largest group now. A lot of people just choose to be gay. Partly cause they are rebelling or other reasons. But they are the ones that have a choice. New a guy that was this way too. He would bang bad bitches all the time then decide to smoke a pole. Like seriously wtf?
But for people that don't think some people are born that way I mean come on wake the frick up its obvious.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 9:33 am to GatorReb
quote:
But for people that don't think some people are born that way I mean come on wake the frick up its obvious.
I agree. Some homosexuals like the guy you knew are definitely born homosexual.
That form of homosexuality is natural but it is still not normal.
It is some form of mutation.
A mutation is natural but it is not normal.
Some mutations are helpful to the survival of the species and some mutations are harmful to the survival of the species.
Homosexuality is an example of the latter.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 10:24 am to DelU249
I don't think it's actually very important whether or not it's something they're born with or something they "become" through a mix of environmental factors and less-than-conscious choices.
Regardless of the reason they are different, every person should be treated with respect and dignity as a person. It's an objectively good thing that we are more tolerant now of people with homosexual attraction.
That's not to say we should try to normalize the behavior itself. Even if it's scientifically proven that there is a "gay gene", that clearly wouldn't preclude someone not born with that gene from living a homosexual lifestyle.
It seems far more likely that there is a spectrum of human sexuality and that we all sit somewhere on that spectrum. Some of us very straight up the middle, some of us towards the edge.
The more we try to normalize the "edge" behavior and basically encourage it as popular culture does today, the more people on the borderline will be pushed to that lifestyle. If you are a confused 12 year old boy who girls really like but in only a platonic way, and boys shun you because you're sensitive, not good at sports, etc., who is to say at that point, if left to your own devices, you would choose a lifestyle based around sexual relationships with males. Now he is likely to self-identify as gay and live the consequences of that for his entire life.
A man who 100 years ago may have had a secret teenage dalliance with a friend but then went on to marry a woman, have children, and live a happy life (and please don't show your ignorance by pretending that life couldn't be happy for him) would now categorize himself as gay and base his identity around that. It can be argued whether that's good for that individual (and I would say the evidence is decidedly mixed based on the numerous gay people I know), but it can't be argued that it's better for the whole to have fewer and fewer sensitive-type males reproducing.
Regardless of the reason they are different, every person should be treated with respect and dignity as a person. It's an objectively good thing that we are more tolerant now of people with homosexual attraction.
That's not to say we should try to normalize the behavior itself. Even if it's scientifically proven that there is a "gay gene", that clearly wouldn't preclude someone not born with that gene from living a homosexual lifestyle.
It seems far more likely that there is a spectrum of human sexuality and that we all sit somewhere on that spectrum. Some of us very straight up the middle, some of us towards the edge.
The more we try to normalize the "edge" behavior and basically encourage it as popular culture does today, the more people on the borderline will be pushed to that lifestyle. If you are a confused 12 year old boy who girls really like but in only a platonic way, and boys shun you because you're sensitive, not good at sports, etc., who is to say at that point, if left to your own devices, you would choose a lifestyle based around sexual relationships with males. Now he is likely to self-identify as gay and live the consequences of that for his entire life.
A man who 100 years ago may have had a secret teenage dalliance with a friend but then went on to marry a woman, have children, and live a happy life (and please don't show your ignorance by pretending that life couldn't be happy for him) would now categorize himself as gay and base his identity around that. It can be argued whether that's good for that individual (and I would say the evidence is decidedly mixed based on the numerous gay people I know), but it can't be argued that it's better for the whole to have fewer and fewer sensitive-type males reproducing.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 10:49 am to uway
The issue is the normalization of it. It's not that people are not born with that tendency. Research clearly shows that it's:
1- very small part of the population
2- thus not the norm
3- that expecting moms can do things that will "mark" a child.
4- that the mom's body does not function properly that causes the the "mark"
1- very small part of the population
2- thus not the norm
3- that expecting moms can do things that will "mark" a child.
4- that the mom's body does not function properly that causes the the "mark"
Posted on 9/5/14 at 10:51 am to darkhorse
quote:
3- that expecting moms can do things that will "mark" a child.
Say what? Like what? Link?
Posted on 9/5/14 at 11:14 am to uway
quote:
Say what? Like what? Link?
Like smoking.. amphetamines. Both increase the risk.
I don't have the link in front of me, but Swaab is a neuroscientist that you can look up.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 7:10 pm to uway
quote:
I don't think it's actually very important whether or not it's something they're born with or something they "become" through a mix of environmental factors and less-than-conscious choices.
It's very important from a legal point of view.
The pro same sex marriage people on this site can explain to you why that is the case.
quote:
...but it can't be argued that it's better for the whole to have fewer and fewer sensitive-type males reproducing.
There are a lot of "sensitive-type" heterosexual males out there.
If there are fewer and fewer "sensitive-type" males reproducing then you can blame that on the women who pick the "non sensitive-type" guys because they like "bad boys".
This post was edited on 9/5/14 at 7:21 pm
Posted on 9/5/14 at 7:20 pm to Sentrius
It's not natural. Humans are at the pinnacle of evolution so don't compare us to two male dogs humping in the yard. Honestly I see homosexuality as a form sexual abnormality and I compare it to pedophilia. Please understand I'm not saying its as bad as pedophilia, just saying its an abnormal sexual urge that you either act on or you don't. That's where the choice comes in.
This post was edited on 9/5/14 at 7:23 pm
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News