:: Seems pretty unambiguous to me; Shaun claimed that no other animals were gay; I provided him with a reference with evidence to the contrary. Yes, but do those animals feel compelled to justify their behavior by attempting to indoctrinate the young offspring of their straight counterparts in order to help rationalize their guilt?
:: 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".
Problem is, F. It has always been my position that man is and is expected to be above animals with respect to sexuality. Some prediction! If man is not above animal ethics, there shall be no moral judgement of meat eating. I have not asserted that man acts like an animal when he practices homosexuality. That would only be ammoral. I assert that man is immoral to practice homosexuality and ammoral when he eats meat. Many on the left want it turned around the other way and won't even accept the possibility that both practices could be ammoral or both could be immoral.
:: 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.
By this reasoning there can be no such thing as abberant sexual behavior. By this line of reasoning chimps should shortly develop an ecclesiastical belief system and start writing novels. By this line of reasoning I should have no conscience and no soul.
:: 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.
Farinata, assuming nothing is real that cannot be proven emperically is only another way of hoping that ignorance is bliss - or at the very least, less responsibility.
:: 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.
Your opinion only - and one that is remarkably dissimilar to those of the Meat is Murder crowd.
:: 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...
I'll tell you what dances like a marionette - a green PETA looking for the slightest nuance issue left in the empty bag they are holding which fomerly carried moral arguments against eating meat.
Stuart Gort
