Its not non-sense in that it proves homosexual behavior occurs in animals. As I have said for the um-teenth time, nobody here is claiming that.
Its non-sense in that it is hardly evidence that exclusive, life-long, homosexual relationships occur in natural environments within the animal kingdom.
It is non-sense in that the argument to use it to justify homosexuality in human is non-sequitur because animal behavior is irrelkvant when discussing sociological behaviors.

 

Yes, RevengeofShredder is my sock.

Non-sense. There is plenty of other homosexual behavior is natural environements. (you thought it only happened at the zoo? )

Other primites like apes have been known to consistently prefer the same sex over the opposite sex. And while I don't know if there is a record of these apes forming life-long relationships, if your more attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite, why wouldn't you form a life-long relationship?

I have to go, so I'll post more later.

 

You say I have no proof that they are doing no more that "attempting, yet you expect me to believe your oppinion that they have relationships... also with no proof... go figure.

 

Fair enough.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_animal_sexuality]This Wikipedia article[/link] talks about animal homosexuality in general, and briefly talks about penguins forming life-long homosexual relationships.

Many male penguins that mate for life have been observed in homosexual pairs and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.

[link=http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/marine-gay.html]Dolphins forming life-long homosexual relationships.[/link]

Male Bottlenose Dolphins often form lifelong pair-bonds with each other....

That's really just touching the surface...if you need more, just ask.

 

It seems as if Mr. "homosexuality is a choice, I can stand a debate" has backed away.

And I have one more thing to add:

The genetic interference turned the flies, with regards to sex drive, into the opposite sex.

Also, with the other set of flies, it showed that the flies were not homosexual -- they chose to pursue the same sex only when there was no other alternative.

The study that implanted the opposite sex's sex drive was only one study, and with the other study, once again, you have it wrong. They only pursued the opposite sex when there was no alternative, not the other way around. So the flies were indeed homosexual.

 

So you mean their manifested (performative) gender differs from their physical sex? Hmm...

-Paul

 

It seems as if Mr. "homosexuality is a choice, I can stand a debate" has backed away.

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but if it was, please do not infer from my absence that I have "backed away". Unfortunately, I have been very busy over the past few days. Since I value proper consideration and integrity within discussions such as this, I did not want to post a half-hearted, not fully thought out response, due to constraints on my time. I will respond (hopefully) soon, but it was out of respect and consideration for your time, as well as the value that I recognize in this discourse and in your participation in it, that I have not posted.

I apologize for my temporary absence, and hope to return soon. I wish you the best until then, and encourage you to keep the discussion going, and your minds working. I hope you all are well.

Take care,
Sojourn

 

Sojourn, that wasn't directed at you.

I was actually refering to Darth-Inferno. He asked me to provide proof that long-term homosexual relationships occur in natural envronments in nature and when I did, he never responded...

[hl=black]shred edit:[/hl] Yes, waiting some time to make a very well-tought-out post is very respectable.

 

If you spent more time listening to other peoples' side of the story instead of loving to listen to the sound of your own voice.../keyboard and getting pissed off at the fact someone disagrees with you, people might actually get a word in edge-wise. Did it ever occur to you that I don't have the internet and can only get on at certain times and places? hmmmm...



*cools down*


As for "science*, do you realize how many times in history science has proven itself wrong?

 

It's not science. It's nature. MANY animals have been witnessed consistenly prefering the same sex over the opposite (without genetic interference) and yes, even forming life-long homosexual relationships. I even provided you proof of this. That's hard-core proof that homosexuality is not a choice.

And I'm sorry I didn't know that you didn't have internet. Although in my defense, I saw you post in a couple other threads, and even start one, so I just figured that you had backed away...

 

Apology accepted. Though as for the "not science" comment, both of the links were to scientific studies or pages referring to them. I believe that this subject is just something you have to have an oppinion on. Frankly, I think science when dealing with subjects such as these is quite unreliable, because, as I said, it has proved itself wrong numerous times.



... Kill Bill Nye

 

The studies may be scientific, but they are still just observations, not scientific theories.

Are you seriously trying to suggest the scientists are just making up all of these observations of numerous homosexual animals? Many people, not just scientists, have seen homosexual animals in various places, so it's not a matter of science proving itself wrong, it's a matter of opening your eyes and seeing for yourself.

 

But, they are still studied by scientists trying to find a scientific answer.

No, I'm suggesting they're wrong.

Seeing what they THINK to be homosexuality. (as opposed to random activity)

Let's say, just in thought, that these animals are, indeed, homosexual. That does not in any way prove that it is some genetic defect or instinct. Animals are just as capable of making a choice as we are. So, the animal argument doesn't work here anyway.

 

No, I'm suggesting they're wrong.

Do you have any proof of this? Right now all you're saying is "science isn't always right." But what evidence do you have that these observatoins are anymore wrong than anything else in science?

Seeing what they THINK to be homosexuality

Let's say, just in thought, that these animals are, indeed, homosexual. That does not in any way prove that it is some genetic defect or instinct. Animals are just as capable of making a choice as we are. So, the animal argument doesn't work here anyway.

That's absurd. Are you trying to tell me an insect can make a concious choice rather than purely relying on instinct?

And anyway, just think about it for more than a few seconds and it will be obvious that it's not a choice. Did you choose to be straight? I know I didn't. Sexual desire is not logical in any way. It's not something you choose, it's just something you feel. Without being too explicit here, do you try to tell yourself to be turned on, or does it just happen? Sex, by its very nature, is built on instinct, rather than logic or rational thought.

And anyway, why would anybody choose to be gay? Why would someone stand up for gay rights and such if they could just as easily be straight?

Lastly, be honest here, would you have sex with a guy, right now, if I asked you to? If it's really just that easy as just doing it for the hell of it, surely you would be perfectly fine with doing it.

 

Very good mate.

Here is my lil diatrob on the the discussion, I see what normal guys would call a "Hot girl" and I look at her and say that yes she is very attractive, but do I get arroused but let say I am with my girl-friends and we see a "hot guy" that would peek my interest instead of the girl. Am I turned on physically by girls? No. Mentally, yes because they have a great view point on the world.

 

It doesn't matter who you are attracted to, nor does it matter who anyone else likes. People have to do what makes them happy. Its impossible to control who you are attracted to. Many homosexuals have sexual feelings for the same sex before they even know what sex is. This strongly indicates that homosexuality is something bioligical, and not some perverse sexual behavior. I see no reason to judge someone on the basis of who they sleep with- just as I don't think we should judge people because of their race, gender, or religion.

Gay marriage should be legal. Procreation isn't the only purpose of sex. Many heterosexual couples choose not to have children and aren't forbidden from marrying. Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, so there is no reason to treat it as a deviant behavior. Its beneficial to the two people in a relationship, and doesn't affect anyone else.

We live in a very sexually liberal age. Premarital sex, pornography, and masturbation are commonly regarded as acceptable. If people don't have a problem with those issues, then there's no reason to disapprove of homosexuality.

This thread is similar to an experience I had at Freshman Orientation for college. The counselor would name a specific controversial issue and ask the students if they are ok with it or have a problem with it. Students who were ok with the issue that was mentioned would move to one side of the room, while students who weren't ok with it moved to the other side. About 95% of the students said they were ok with homosexuality. Only a few people said they have a problem with it.

 

My entire school has no problem with it either, only 3-15 people in a school of 600. Even most of the teachers seem to accept it, and this a a Catholic high school. Most of the schools over here are the same way. In a nearby city I remember 7th graders were asked to write a report on if they agree with SSM or not, and it got on my TV because some bonehead parents thought they weren't old enough to talk about that yet, even though in my junior high there were already a bunch of kids who knew they were gay and weren't afraid to show it. And like 86% of them agreed with SSM, and 97% of them accepted homosexuality.

If my area is anything like the rest of the country, I see no reason why SSM won't be legal by the time it's my generation's turn to lead America. It's going to happen, whether some people like it or not. It will happen.

One guy, in freshman year, would always go on and on about how being gay is bad and gross and all that. He really seemed to despise it, and would never shut up if he had a chance to say it. But by the end of freshman year he ended up being gay or bi himself, since he had sex with a guy and then wouldn't shut up about how great it was whenever he could! Just a funny story that reminded me of!

 

Do you have any proof of this? Right now all you're saying is "science isn't always right." But what evidence do you have that these observatoins are anymore wrong than anything else in science?

No, I have no proof they are wrong... just as you have no proof they are right.

That's absurd. Are you trying to tell me an insect can make a concious choice rather than purely relying on instinct?

Yes, I am. When rabbit hunting, I have ran accross times when my beagle comes to a place with two rabbit holes... one of which, I have trapped and killed a rabbit in. The other has been there just as long with no disturbances. This is NOT the dwelling of the rabbit I am chasing. Why then, does the rabbit choose this hole to flee to? He recognizes the claw marks in the dirt and the smell of the dog at the other. He consciously makes the choice that the other hole is safest considering the fact that it has never been breeched by a hunter or his dog. Do you actually believe that animals are stupid and rely on nothing but "instinct?" On information from rabbits from hundreds of years ago? ...no. Do you have memories stored in your brain from past generations? No. So, why would the rabbit?

Did you choose to be straight?

Why, yes, in fact, I do choose not to have sex with men, thank you.

Sex, by its very nature, is built on instinct, rather than logic or rational thought.

Then, with that rational, you say abstinence is impossible because we cannot use rational thought when deciding whether or not to mate. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've chosen since I hit puberty to keep it in my pants. Sounds like rational thought to me.

Why would someone stand up for gay rights and such if they could just as easily be straight?

...Many who stand up for gay rights ARE straight... and respect others' CHOICE to be gay.

Lastly, be honest here, would you have sex with a guy, right now, if I asked you to? If it's really just that easy as just doing it for the hell of it, surely you would be perfectly fine with doing it.

No... please tell me your not as absent-minded as to say that you would just randomly have sex with a man... not being gay... And having sex "for the hell of it" is NEVER right. Even with women. People are not sex tools to be used at your every whim.

 

It's not about who you have sex with, but who you are atracted to. I could have sex with a guy, but still be straight, for example. It's about attraction, which no one can control, because love is hardly ever rational.

 

Hold up. I just thought of something. I've seen identical twins where one is gay and one isn't. If this is so, it can't be genetic, as both people have the same identical genetic make up.

It has to be developmental.

 

Twins aren't totally identical.

 

Not so fast there, J-Rod. There are still a lot of factors that can come between genotyped and phenotyped behavior.

EDIT:

And before people get hung up in the semantics of what constitutes "choice" in the animal kingdom, a little neurophysiology is relevant. "Choice" is a function of the frontal cortex (the center of volitional control), which is severely overdeveloped in humans, while reproduction is centered in the hypothalamus, a hindbrain structure responsible for the four F's (fight, flight, feeding, and reproduction), so comparing our capacity for "choice" in sexual behavior with that of Peter Rabbit or other animals with less developed frontal cortices is disingenuous, at best.

 

Yes, they are. Their DNA is indistingishable. I lost a point to EnforcerSG as he linked the PPOR in the abortion thread.

 

As I said, twins are not totally identical. There can be variations between them. As well as their finger prints being different.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_twin]Readeth[/link]

Exampleth:

Identical twins can behave as differently as any other siblings (a matter of much interest to psychologists). They develop their own individual personalities to enable themselves to be identified as individual persons. Many identical twins spend most of their time together (especially as children), so people often assume that they will behave alike just as they look alike; however, this is not the case. Twins are unique individuals that establish their own individual likes and dislikes. There are usually obvious signs of differences when the identical twins are observed separately or together.

Identical twins have identical DNA but differing environmental influences throughout their lives affect which genes are switched on or off. This is called epigenetic modification. A study of 80 pairs of twins ranging in age from 3 to 74 showed that the youngest twins have relatively few epigenetic differences. The number of differences between identical twins increases with age. 50-year-old twins had over 3 times the epigenetic difference that the 3-year-old twins had. Twins who had spent their lives apart (such as those adopted by two different sets of parents at birth) had the greatest difference. (Fraga, et al., 2005).

 

Identical twins have identical DNA but differing environmental influences throughout their lives affect which genes are switched on or off. This is called epigenetic modification. A study of 80 pairs of twins ranging in age from 3 to 74 showed that the youngest twins have relatively few epigenetic differences. The number of differences between identical twins increases with age. 50-year-old twins had over 3 times the epigenetic difference that the 3-year-old twins had. Twins who had spent their lives apart (such as those adopted by two different sets of parents at birth) had the greatest difference. (Fraga, et al., 2005).

Didn't that just prove my point? The genes are the same. Something has to happen through the process of living that changes the orientation of one twin but not the other. There has been, to the best of my knowledge, no proof of a "gay" gene.

As far as differing physical features are concerned, fingerprints are formed by the environment of the womb, not DNA. Also, the shapes of ears, faces, hands ect. are heavily influenced by individual conditions of the womb as the DNA grows and expresses itself.