Quote:
Originally Posted by JPSartre12
Answer a) If homosexuality was the norm, the majority of us would be homosexual.
|
Yeah. And if left-handed people were the norm, then the majority of us would be left-handed.
It's already been pointed out that this "interpretation" of "normal" is meaningless as a standard. Just cause something is the minority doesn't mean anything significant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JPSartre12
Answer b) the population of people on earth would be dropping since homosexuals don't reproduce naturally.
|
Considering how over-populated heterosexuals have made this planet in the first place...
I always have to chuckle at the "if everybody was gay..." mentality.
It's an absurd argument based on an even more absurd premise.
If every organ in our body was a lung, we would all die.
We need diversity to get the human body functioning properly.
If all gays in the world turned "straight" tomorrow,
overpopulation would increase.
MORE people going hungry.
MORE orphans.
MORE abortions.
There is an obvious "better" situation in a happy medium. Some heterosexuals, and some homosexuals.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JPSartre12
So you think that an animal loses its native instincts when placed in a zoo? If that's the case, why are the lions still caged?  |
Boring non-sequitur.
I'm still waiting on any evidence that animals "couple" in order to achieve protection from predators.
To put it bluntly, coupling to help against predators IS NOT a "native instinct"...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JPSartre12
And your insistence on equating human traits to those of animals acting on instincts is absurd.
|
Oh wow.
Ignoring my arguments and
without explanation, labeling my argument as "absurd".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JPSartre12
The fact that you're not the only one that engages in anthropomorphism isn't a surprise to me. Tell me, if a hard-core criminal in prison for life porks his cellmate because there are no women accessible, is he gay? Or is he being opportunistic? any port in the storm?
|
And we've already been over this.
Articles CLEARLY DOCUMENT how this gay couple had females coming by to seek the attention of one of the penguins.
THEY REJECTED the attention of the female.
Seeking the attention of the same gender while REJECTING the sexual attention of the opposite gender is a clear sign of homosexuality.
Quite frankly, your "anthropomorphic" argument is meaningless.
You refuse to look at the EVIDENCE that exists regarding gay animals, and you continue to claim false conclusions on the research.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JPSartre12
Again, animals don't lose their instincts just because they're in a zoo.
|
That's not even a response to what I said.
You're failing to respond.
Like I said, when people didn't know the gender of these penguins, they ASSUMED they were a male-female couple.
CAUSE THEY ACTED like a male-female couple.
Is thinking penguins are "heterosexual" an "anthropomorphic" response too???
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JPSartre12
I've yet to see a male penguin carry a purse or wear a bolo.  |
I have yet to see a gay male do that, so you're making a meaningless comment...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JPSartre12
They would be considered "normal" because they were exhibiting normal behavior patterns.
|
And with that, you just lost.
You admit the two male penguins are not "normal".
You repeatedly argue that homosexuality is not "normal".
Yet you refuse to admit that these two were acting as gay penguins...
Suppose Chris and Pat are acting a certain way.
If I told you that Chris was a girl and Pat was a guy, you would call them straight.
If I told you that Chris was a girl, and Pat was a girl, you would refuse to admit they were gay.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JPSartre12
And your insistence in claiming homosexuality is normal and acceptable because animals have participated in homosexual acts is at least equally absurd. |
Your response is absurd, cause I have made NO SUCH STATEMENT.
What is it with the anti-gay being incapable of reading and comprehending?
First of all, NORMAL IS IRRELEVANT.
There are so many different standards and definitions for "normal" that it is meaningless to use the word.
Statistical definitions. Moral definitions. Judgment definitions.
A person could be saying "gays are not normal, therefore they are wrong".
Does that mean "gays are less than 50% of the population, therefore they are wrong"???
Does that mean "gays are immoral, therefore they are wrong"???
The word leads to meaningless arguments. It DOES NOT MATTER whether homosexuality is normal.
Secondly, I have never argued that gay animals make homosexuality "acceptable".
It's the same ol' confusion on the anti-gay side time and time again that it's downright pathetic!
I said the following in the third post of this thread, and some people STILL CANNOT GET IT...
Anti-gay poster: Homosexuality is wrong cause it's unnatural.
Pro-gay poster: One way your claim is flawed is because homosexuality IS natural. Animals do it.
Anti-gay poster: Wow. You think it's okay to do something just cause animals do it???
Now anybody who can string along a cogent thought should be able to recognize that the pro-gay poster said nothing of the sort.
If a person argues "Because of A, then B", and then A is shown to be false, then the original argument is shown as false.
Such an observation says NOTHING about the requirements of "B" or even "not B".
The sad part of this? I know I've explained this here before.
And regardless of how many times I explain it, you'll find a variety of people who just can't get it....