: Huh? The point is that something that is prevalent in nature is justified? I didn't say that. I said it wasn't "unnatural"; as many Christians will happily declare. It is natural.
: (What an issue for a scientific journal to delve into! Any fool observing the behavior of dogs knows that all sorts of conduct are 'common' in nature ... thus, the term 'behaving like animals')
I would draw your attention to the following post by Shaun, in which he says;
"Homosexuality is not normal, it is something people choose for themselves. No animals can be gay, there's proof right there that it isn't natural. Only humans, the only creatures who think for themselves and weigh the consequences of thier actions can be gay."
Seems pretty unambiguous to me; Shaun claimed that no other animals were gay; I provided him with a reference with evidence to the contrary.
However, I was sure Mr. Gort wouldn't be able to resist jumping in with both feet, so I filled in Mr. Gort's argument for him before he did. And lo, Stuart reacted in exactly the way I predicted. I applied the hammer and he jerked his knee. That's what I mean by "dancing".
: The point is that my attitude towards homosexual behavior (a mild disgust, a civilized tolerance) is in no way connected to the prevalence of said behavior in nature (indeed ... I am no more partial to the practice in the canine than when observed amongst the sapien). Only a committed 'Green' could see any connection between the two in this essentially spurious and pointless argument.
On the contrary, it is only possible to seperate humanity from the rest of the animal world by taking a non-scientific view; since genetics and biology indicate that we are not the only creature capable of reasoning, abstract thought or language. Not by a long chalk.
Now, let's look at Mr. Gort's own words on the subject;
"Homosexuals have the right to live without fear of abuse but have no right to be accepted as normal. They are not normal. They are sexually aberrant humans."
Now; how does this square with the evidence? We share nearly all of our DNA with every other vertebrate on Earth; there is ample evidence to suggest that humans are descended from primates (despite what Robert says). There is also ample evidence to suggest that other large primates are intelligent; see recent experiments in teaching chimps and orang-utangs English; they are capable of forming abstract concepts and constructing sentences. As such, any claim that humanity is somehow on a pedestal above the rest of the world is not borne out by the experimental evidence. Full stop.
If humanity is not "above" the rest of the animal kingdom, then saying that homosexuality is 'animalistic' behaviour is hypocrisy; we are animals; all of us; we are carbon-based bipedal primates based on deoxyribonucleic acid.
It's not valid comparing foetus-eating to homosexuality; for one thing, foetus-eating is something done in extremis or if the foetus is already dead. It's done by some species and not by others. On the other hand, Bagemihl's book shows a vast cross-species evidence of non-reproductive sex; from birds to fish to mammals; you can't just describe it as an abhorrent minority practice akin to foetus-eating. It functions as a social bond-former and peace-keeping dynamic in groups; as well as being a preferred form of recreation.
Would you equate flying with foetus-eating?; it's about as sensible as equating homosexuality with foetus-eating; the two are totally unrelated behaviours; neither flying nor foetus-eating have much relevance to humans, since we don't generally do either. Trying to assign moral values to natural behaviour is an ultimately pointless pastime.
: There is no need for Mr. Gort to dance. The 'music' is nothing of the sort; I see nothing for him to dance to. Enough of this, you two.
Oh, but it's *fun* pulling nerves and watching him twitch *evil grin*; it's not as if he has the control or willpower to stop himself...
Farinata.
