Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
I swear. It's like you're chasing your tail...
So now the significance of the difference is that it IS a difference???
I have no doubt that you will refuse to honestly recognize the actual comment.
It's not that they are "procreating".
It's that they are OVER-procreating.
It's the difference between "watering" the lawn, and OVER-watering the lawn to the detriment of the lawn's health.
And you perpetuate your flaw.
The human society organism functions BETTER WITH homosexuality.
Over-population is helped to be kept in check.
More orphans are adopted by more couples.
Society is better with homosexuality. |
And in the US we can thank homosexuals for the initial propagation of AIDS.
I couldn't get a taker to debate me formally on that one a few years back. I wonder why.
Challenge
Quote:
You are very wrong on that claim.
Many people have recognized an evolutionary benefit to homosexuality, for many of the reasons I have discussed.
Helping to curb population over-growth. A mechanism which routinely spells disaster for species in nature.
Providing a group of people who can ADOPT children is beneficial to the species.
|
War's a good population control. So is starvation, so homosexuality has no benefit to society...except maybe dinner theater. rolleyes:
Quote:
Your approach is like having two sets of birds. One with a short beak, and one with a longer beak.
The longer beak is advantageous, but you insist that we don't need longer beak birds, and if all the birds were "short beaks" the animal would survive.
But the point is that the animal has a BETTER CHANCE at survival with the longer beak, just like the human species has evolutionary advantages WITH homosexuality.
|
Refer back to my statement on AIDS and add in a decreased life expectancy.
Quote:
The article clearly talks about the main purpose of the coupling being reproduction.
It makes no mention of what "defense" is being mounted.
I would love to hear you explain how a single penguin would "defend" against a predator to the nest area...
|
I'm lost. Who argued in favor of single parents?
Quote:
And I have already shown how that is flawed. How ridiculously inaccurate it is.
If these two penguins had been male/female, you would have easily claimed them acting as "heterosexual".
But when the gender of both penguins happens to be male/male, you refuse to admit that they are acting as "homosexual".
|
You ASSume way too much about me, I can see that.
Quote:
You saying the word "anthropomorphism" is not really an argument.
YOU and YOUR MIND are fixated on gay sex, so you want to make exclusive ideals about what constitutes "homosexuality".
|
And not all same sex compansionship denotes homosexuality. News flash: people do have friends of the same sex without being gay.
Quote:
banghead
banghead
banghead
|
Do you do that just so it feels better when you stop?
Quote:
IT DOES happen in the wild with millions of potential female mates.
And you obviously WILL NOT "agree" either, cause you don't want to admit reality.
|
We're talking about THIS penguin. Please try to keep up, will you.
Quote:
Your problem here is that if a male penguin refuses to take a mate, he simply refuses to take a mate.
That doesn't automatically mean "shack up with another male, creating a nest together.
|
They're instinctive nestmakers. That's how they roll.
Quote:
That's what happened here, and with numerous species in the wild.
THAT WAS EXPLAINED in the article you rejected cause you didn't want to listen to what you called a "puff piece".
|
When did I call it a puff piece?
Quote:
ROFLMAO!
You are so intellectually disingenuous it isn't funny.
If a person (animal) cruises a gay bar and doesn't go with ANYBODY, that demonstrates NOTHING.
No hint as to either gay or straight (unless you want to question why the guy was at the hypothetical gay bar in the first place...)
HERE is an honest way to look at the situation.
1) If an opposite gender mate is selected, YOU YOURSELF WOULD classify it as "heterosexual".
2) If NO mate is selected, obviously no conclusion can be met.
3) If a SAME GENDER mate is selected (especially when opposte gender mates are available), the LOGICAL classification (matching a mirror of #1 above) is to recognize homosexuality.
|
Do you know that particular animals entire sex history? Of course not. It's like the old joke: screw women all your life, but suck one c@#$ and you're forever a c@#%sucker.
Quote:
But you are insisting that we have to pretend that #2 and #3 are the same thing, which is absurd. Ask most straight guys if a bunch of women were courting their attention, would they just go off and have sex with another guy.
They would say NO!
|
I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I can definitively know the motives of a wild animal.
Quote:
Your reply makes no sense. Possibly due to a lack of knowledge on your part.
Penguins are hard to gender-identify. It takes an up close examination to identify the gender.
The people at the zoo recognized courting and mating behavior, and assumed another typical boy-girl coupling situation.
But only after they looked closer did they recognize neither was a girl.
|
So maybe the penguins were far-sighted and thought each other was a member of the opposite sex. Who knows.
Quote:
THIS is part of your problem. You want to REFUSE to admit any sign of homosexuality.
If it had been boy-girl, you would classify it as "heterosexual".
When the "girl" turns out to be another boy, you want to stick your head in the sand.
It's a mental condition on your part to refuse to admit the obvious.
|
I have no problem saying that some animals engage in homosexual acts. I'm not willing to ascribe human labels to their sexual behavior, however. Do you know if the same animal hammered a voluptuous female when you weren't looking and a knothole in a tree ten minutes after that?
[quote]
Most guys who dress up as women are straight.
But without surprise, you
would assume gay, wouldn't you...
Quote:
|
You are full of convenient assumptions, with no real fair/honest look at the situation.
|
Then all the queens that I used to watch parading into the student union for RU chapter of Homophile League events were my imagination?
Quote:
Finer semantical nits than that are not picked.
Typically cause most people don't try to make up lame junk like that...
Why can't you just admit that the "abnormal" is homosexuality?
|
I believe I already said that. Homosexuality is abnormal. Homosexual acts are abnormal in the animal world. Anything else you ned clarified?
Quote:
And thus, you ignore the substance of what I said.
1) Chris and Pat were behaving in a manner you WOULD admit was straight, if they were opposite genders.
They pair off. They create a nest together. They exclusively live together, ignoring the advances of other birds.
You don't even try to deny that is "heterosexual" behavior.
2) But now that both Chris and Pat are seen to be of the same gender, you REFUSE to admit that they are gay.
It's an absurd double-standard on your part, where you are REFUSING to admit "gay" when if the situation was different (by the gender being opposite), you WOULD classify as straight.
I'm not just talking about Chris and Pat just "kissing" each other.
These birds weren't just "kissing" each other.
|
I don't ascribe ANY human behavior or trait to animals. Where's the double-standard in that?
Quote:
banghead
"gay" is not just a "human trait".
Your approach is like insisting that "breathing air" is a "human trait", and if I say animals do it too then you accuse me of "anthropomorphism"...
|
You said yourself that being gay was more than having homosexual sex. Do you think that most animals are "evolved" enough to be as sophisticated as you?
Quote:
Or rather, a millions excuses by JPSartre12, the self-proclaimed lack of expert, while the ACTUAL EXPERTS doing ACTUAL RESEARCH are ignored...
Refusing to admit gay animals exist by simply refusing to acknowledge "gay" can be applied to animals is one of the lamest response efforts I have ever seen to date.
|
I've seen lots of so-called experts get their science completely wrong...and I'm a scierntist by profession myself.
Quote:
With the absence of the availability of one gender, choosing sexual release by the only available gender obviously doesn't identify anything.
If the only flavor available is chocolate ice cream, that doesn't prove the guy likes chocolate over strawberry.
|
And in a cage with a limited number of opposite sex suitors, behaving instinctive with another male doesn't make it gay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWriteLA
Oh, for Pete's sake...
[.....
Wikipedia, Time, Scientific American, Psychology Today, the NY Times... I'm sure we're all familiar with the "puff pieces" they crank out.
Some ostriches are so determined to shield their eyes from reality, they'll stick their heads up their butts if the ground's too hard. |
Let the ad hominems continue. Nice to see you again, MrWrite. I can always count on our resident light-in-the-loafer crowd to show up.
