(…) Well, if there is one thing that a conservative can appreciate, it is consistency. One knows what one is getting into in debates with certain people, which I suppose is something.: : 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.
So are mutations and birth defects. Homosexuality is only one of the more common sorts. If it is ‘unnatural’, it is so in this sense of aberration, which is precisely the point.
: : (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.
Shaun is wrong. Humans exhibit sexuality fundamentally from a genetic origin; the tabula rasa concept is demonstrably wrong. One might be socialized otherwise, but one is born with preferences. One need not ‘learn’ that an orange is sweet, or a lemon sour. Our genetic makeup makes it so.
Incidentally - were someone to relate to me that they found lemons to be sweet, and avidly munched on them, I would suppose I would have a similar attitude, i.e. that the behavior was aberrant, somewhat annoying to observe, and a bit of trivia without much significance otherwise. A curious anomoly, certainly - but nothing to form a political movement around, however. Someone whose identity was fundamentally shaped by lemon eating would seem rather weak-minded to me.
: 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".
You do seem to have the aberrant trait of filling into the arguments of others what you would wish them to say. I suppose that this sort of thing does make things easier; it certainly simplifies the task of retorting. One cannot help but feel that this ‘tactic’ might weaken one’s case in an objective sense, however.
To clarify: You seem to be dancing alone, ‘dangling in the wind’ as it were. One might as well fabricate a partner.
: : 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.
This is of course why you insist on the rather racist (species-ist?) inclination to communicate only with your own ‘kind’, rather than, say, posting on ape or dolphin web sites. Or do you commune at the local zoo as well, in a ‘Dr. Doolittle’ fashion?
: 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.
I hardly find the prevailing evidence reason to include my ‘hairy cousins’ within the Hobbsian social contract. I do heartily concur with your last sentence, however.
: 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.
Bacteria are also carbon-based life forms. One might even argue that their mutative ability is a form of non-anthropomorphic ‘intelligence’ (in that it is a response, albeit on in the ‘collective’, to changing environmental conditions - one that, like intelligence, is not absolutely predictable). And yet, I still feel inclined to take my penicillin (no doubt a life-form born to be lackeys, in league with the capitalist genocide of their brethren).
: 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.
Foetus-eating is not abhorrent in an objective sense. It is so only via a subjective judgement. If we were, say, intelligent guppies, I should doubt that the practice would even seem unusual. However, in humans, the act seems to be nasty. Thus, Jane Goodall’s reaction to a cannibalistic female chimp … I would argue that homosexuality is viewed similarly, for similar reasons.
Incidentally, in terms of "keeping the peace": again, in my most unscientific observation of canine behavior, I have seen attempts at ‘homosexual’ contact. The receiver of said attentions frequently reacts in a most inhospitable manner. If it is a means of ‘peace keeping’ amongst dogs, I would suggest it is quite unsuccessful.
: 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.
It is not pointless; civilization is ultimately based on such distinctions. The question, "Is it moral?" has nothing to do with the pointless argument of "Is it natural?", which is precisely my point.
As to the aforementioned behaviors: the former seems rather common amongst humans at places called ‘airports’ and points between; the latter less so, the foetus being far more valuable as a source of spare parts rather than as a foodstuff. I am, however, not particularly knowledgeable on such issues. Perhaps one might inquire of an abortion clinic as to the facts on the matter?
: : 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...
You have got to find yourself a better hobby. Reading, perhaps? I shall, of course, do my own humble part to further your education, ‘pompous buffoon’ that I am.
"Doc" Cruel
None.
