Homophobia

No need for the backlash, I was simply stating that it happened. And I know very well that only dolphins and humans have sex for pleasure, quite strange actually consiering that they are the two most intelligent animals that we know of.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to be backlash aimed at you, I just kind of read it and it set me off, because, as I've iterated, that whole argumetn just kidn of bothers me :V

 

Honestly, I have no problem with gay people. I don't.
But I do have a problem when they're snogging in the hallway at school, in the middle of the sidewalk, or in some random public place.
I hate it when anyone does that, actaully; but my point is that homosexuals get their panties in a twist when I say it to them, accusing me of being homophobic.
In my opinion, they're normal people. Treat them as such. Normal people don't get pride parades. It's when they openly flaunt and push themselves on you that it gets annoying, just like some Christians and straight people with their beliefs.

 

Please define 'natural'.

 

In this context what I meant was that it's something that can't be helped; it's a thing of nature. Like the fact that you blink.

 

Like this?

 

And that proves it's natural in humans how?
Oh, and the thing I was talking about is in that article too.

 

So despite it occurring in all species, it's unnatural specifically in humans. Is there any basis to this claim?

That quote is against your point. The author is criticising the way the data is commonly interpreted. He's stating that the data-interpretation is biased, because whenever a male so much as sniffs a female, it's viewed as natural sex, while for the other nine times between males, it's viewed as being a ploy for dominance. In other words, when true homosexual activity is shown, the goalposts are being moved by the argument "That's just dominance", when there's little to suggest it.

 

It occurs naturally in humans. In prisons. The way humans do homosexuality outside of prisons, however, does not happen in the animal kingdom.

I did not take it this way. How did you get that from the quote.

 

I got that from the quote by the opening, "An example of overlooking homosexual behavior is noted by Bruce Bagemihl describing mating giraffes where nine out of ten pairings occur between males." He's noting a case where homosexuality behaviour is being discounted, and goes on to describe the situation by using hyperbole in the form of "Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex", clearly demonstrating disdain for the interpretation system.

Cases of homosexuality do occur among animals in scenarios akin to those of ordinary, human homosexuals. For example, "An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs." Here we've got a case of a homosexual pair obtaining others' young, and raising them. This occurs in a quarter of all of the species. No prison-rape scenario there.

"In early February 2004 the New York Times reported that a male pair of chinstrap penguins in the Central Park Zoo in New York City had successfully hatched and fostered a female chick from a fertile egg they had been given to incubate." Raising a chick together. As far as I know, most prison-rape scenarios don't end with the attacker and victim raising a child, but feel free to prove me wrong.

"Zoos in Japan and Germany have also documented homosexual male penguin couples. The couples have been shown to build nests together and use a stone as a substitute for an egg. Researchers at Rikkyo University in Tokyo found 20 homosexual pairs at 16 major aquariums and zoos in Japan." Seems authentic to me.

"Both male and female pigeons sometimes exhibit homosexual behaviour. As well as sexual behaviour same-sex pigeon pairs will build nests, and lesbian hens will lay (infertile) eggs and attempt to incubate them."

"Anything that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time, not just food, tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to defuse tension." So in this case, it's the opposite of conflict.

 

Well these are all very interesting, but still nothing that really occurs in humans. How often do you see gay couples stealing people's kids and raising them? There's insemination and things like that, but few would argue that that's "Natural".

And also, just because there's a few documentations of things like this happening in zoos doesn't make it a normal thing; it sounds more like a rare occurrence to me.

 

Now you're making the No True Scottsman fallacy. Firstly, you asked me to prove that there was homosexual activity between animals in order to prove that it was natural. Then you asked me to prove that there was consensual homosexual activity. Now you're asking me to prove there's consensual homosexual activity that occurs outside of zoos. Even so, the evidence is there. The black swans. One quarter of their species.

There's adoption, as the human equivalent to stealing young. That's when couples unable to have children legally take children that other parents do not want. No insemination, no rape, nothing unnatural. There's also cases where gay couples and lesbian couples agree to have children together, then raise them with their own partner.

You're right though. I can't prove with certainty that it occurs naturally in humans by using evidence of it occurring among animals. But humans are animals, and similar homosexual behaviour has been displayed in humans too. Therefore I make the claim that there is no difference in the nature (barring usual social norms, e.g. no baby-stealing) of the homosexual relationships between humans, and the homosexual relationships between animals (excluding those few cases that are actually for dominance). I have made a claim, and I have backed it up with evidence. If you wish for me to provide more evidence against the point, 'Homosexuality in humans is unnatural', you have to first find sufficient evidence to disrupt my claim, which states, 'homosexuality among humans is natural, because homosexuality occurs in all animals, and there is no difference that makes human homosexual relationships unnatural." You need to find the difference that makes human homosexual relationships different (and unnatural).

 

The only reason we question whether or not being gay/lesbian is right is because it's different, it used to be frowned upon and in today's society some people frown upon it because that's how it used to be. I am not homophobic as I have liked people of the same sex before. It's completely natural and sometimes you just can't help who you like.

I think it's completely normal because I can't see the difference between a man loving a woman or a man loving a man. It doesn't matter who's on the receiving end, it's the feelings that they feel. I don't mind people who are homophobic because I can understand where they're coming from (even if my feelings aren't neutral) but I think they could try to understand how a gay/lesbian feels.

 

I am not trying to establish that homosexuality in humans is unnatural, I don't like getting into that argument. All I'm trying to say is that the fact that certain types of homosexuality occurs in animals is not enough to establish that it's natural in humans, which you have already said. I don't see adoption as parallel to baby stealing, sorry. If gay couples regularly stole people's babies and raised them as their own, I would say you have a case.

Also just becuase animals do something does not make it natural in humans, either.

Again, I'm not trying to establish any conclusion of my own, I just have a problem with the "animals do it" argument for homosexuality.

 

Just one final point on the "Animals do it" argument. Humans are as much animals as any other species. That is all.

 

That's just the thing, though. If you have a problem considering "animals do it" as evidence, you are supposed to come up with evidence that counters this ideal. It's not a debate when you you're basically saying "try aimlessly to convince me as I contradict your points by ignoring them." I'm not trying to slam on your opinion, but all I'm saying is you can't justifyably support your argument by saying "I don't want to talk about that bit." Effectively, you either say why that statement is incorrect, or you admit that it's a good point and then come up with evidence supporting your side.

As P said, humans are animals. This means that the act does occur in nature, thus making it natural. You may have a different definition of the word "natural", but technically "natural" means it occurs in nature.

 

I have been refuting with logic, not evidence, so I guess that's a flaw I need to work on. But at this point continuing this is moot because P already conceded to what I wanted to establish in the first place.

 

I'll just make this short and sweet. It doesn't bother me.
I'm not scared of someone and I am not going to look at them different just because they care and love someone.

 

It isn't enough to establish that it IS natural in humans. It is, however, enough to shift the burden of proof onto the other party in terms of it being unnatural. If no such claim can be established, then it is defined as natural. Therefore, the argument is worth making. Also, it adds to the likelihood of it being natural in humanity. For it to then be unnatural, a reason for humanity being the sole exception is required. So while it's not quite as good as an unbreakable fact, it's certainly convincing.

Some males steal babies. Some accept babies given to them by the zoo. Some adopt rocks, or sit on their own, infertile eggs. Some form threesomes, then break, taking the baby for themselves. The overall goal is to raise a child themselves. Likewise, the goal of adoption is for the homosexuals to raise a child themselves. Therefore it counts towards the comparison.

 

Um, argument from ignorance much? My point toward humans being the "sole exception" was the fact that human homosexual activity isn't directly parallel to that in animals. However...

This is a good and convincing point; I had not thought of it this way. So I'll admit, there is a case for animal homosexual activity in nature making human homosexual behavior more natural. However, many homosexual couples don't have an interest in raising children at all.