Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[ponderingturtle]

I never defined it! You asked why people should be uncomfortable with what other people do and I gave you an example of people being very uncomfortable with what other people do.

You gave an example of people being unconfortable watching people do sexual things. This is a good argument against public sex, but a bad argument against specific sex acts.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you relegated yourself to only having oral sex, or you only got off on oral sex I think it's considered deviant. So there, the exact same behaviour could be considered deviant in some and not deviant in others.
Which begs the question, what if a heterosexual man can only have anal sex? If a buddy came to me and told me this I'd think it would be pretty messed up.

So why is all anal sex deviant, but only some oral sex?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nor was I. I was talking about the behaviour. If being a sexual deviant is a prescibed result of engaging in a sexually deviant behaviour so be it. I'm not really certain thats true.

Wow, this reminds me of people splitting hairs about Rowanda's genocide. They said while there were acts of genocide happening they were not sure that there was actual genocide happening.

I see you going far as a politician.

 

[Furcifer]

Because being disgusted by something is not enough for people to condem it. I find coffee to be disgusting, but I do not consider coffee drinking to be improper or wrong.

There is sex that I do not understand and am repulsed by. But I understand that as long as the sex is with in the bounds of safe, sane and consentual sex it is really MY problem with being unconfortable with it, not that they are doing anything wrong.

You've just spent 5 pages calling me a bigot because I said I was ucomfortable with it, but now you're saying its OK for you to be uncomfortable. You're a hypocite.

 

[Furcifer]

So why is all anal sex deviant, but only some oral sex?

Here's one for yah, oral sex isn't "proper" sex either. Oh knows

Plus, you could engage in proper sex and it be considered deviant. Like say with your sister or cousin perhaps. Even if you were comfortable with it and were consenting adults.

 

[MikeSun5]

There is sex that I do not understand and am repulsed by.

Sorry, but you do realize that you just ruined your entire argument against 3bodyproblem with this one sentence, right?

If you read closely, he's not repulsed by dudes having anal sex because it's "improper", but because it's dudes having anal sex. So now you're on his side. Oops!

I don't condemn what I don't like/understand, but can you guys really not see his point? I mean, do fish have gay sex for pleasure? Giraffes? Geese?

I'm all for calling out bigots, but if you go by any biology book... 3bodyproblem is right about sex. Oral and anal sex are for PLEASURE, not procreation... and in the animal kingdom, sex is about procreation. Forget the buzzwords like "deviance" -- animals that have sex for pleasure are a huge minority. I'm pretty sure that's what he meant when he used the other buzzword (proper) that everyone is freaking out about. When you want to quote stats about gay guys doing anal or straight guys getting pegged by their girlfriends to try and claim it's normal behavior, you're going to have to include all of the other males in all of the other species in your equation to really shut 3bodyproblem's argument down. Unfortunately, when you include the other species, your argument falls to the ground. Like jmcvann's pants in college. (wow, I'm sorry man... lame cheap shot. I don't know where that came from)

 

[ponderingturtle]

You've just spent 5 pages calling me a bigot because I said I was ucomfortable with it, but now you're saying its OK for you to be uncomfortable. You're a hypocite.

Strawman. I am calling you a bigot because you said it was devaint sexual behavior.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry, but you do realize that you just ruined your entire argument against 3bodyproblem with this one sentence, right?

If you read closely, he's not repulsed by dudes having anal sex because it's "improper", but because it's dudes having anal sex. So now you're on his side. Oops!

You forgot that all homosexuals are also sexual deviants.

I don't condemn what I don't like/understand, but can you guys really not see his point? I mean, do fish have gay sex for pleasure? Giraffes? Geese?

That all gays are perverts? I see his point but don't agree with it.

I'm all for calling out bigots, but if you go by any biology book... 3bodyproblem is right about sex. Oral and anal sex are for PLEASURE, not procreation... and in the animal kingdom, sex is about procreation.

Sometimes. With social animals like humans it is much more complex. Mounting and sexual behavior can be about dominance, or hell with some it seems to be about pleasure as well. Look at just the recent information about fruit bats perfroming felatio. Then there are the watersports of porcupines and if you want weird look at hynenas.

Your view here is simplistic and uninformed.

Forget the buzzwords like "deviance" -- animals that have sex for pleasure are a huge minority.

And yet animals that have same sex sexual relations are a huge majority of species. So what is your evidence about sex for pleasure and its percentages?

I'm pretty sure that's what he meant when he used the other buzzword (proper) that everyone is freaking out about.

Why, he is using words in different fashions when ever it suits him to get out of the logical inconsistencies in his position.

When you want to quote stats about gay guys doing anal or straight guys getting pegged by their girlfriends to try and claim it's normal behavior, you're going to have to include all of the other males in all of the other species in your equation to really shut 3bodyproblem's argument down.

No it is the natrualistic falacy, you don't need lots of other things to refute that.

 

[Furcifer]

Strawman. I am calling you a bigot because you said it was devaint sexual behavior.

Lol, so calling anal sex a deviant sexual behaviour is grounds for calling someone a bigot? That idiotic and pretty pathetic. How about you focus more on addressing the issue and less trying to label and insult me. I'm not a bigot, I'm under the understanding that anal sex, a practise common among, but certainly not exclusive to male homosexuals, is a deviant behaviour.

 

[Roboramma]

I don't condemn what I don't like/understand, but can you guys really not see his point? I mean, do fish have gay sex for pleasure? Giraffes? Geese?

What does that have to do with humans having sex for pleasure?

Oral and anal sex are for PLEASURE, not procreation... and in the animal kingdom, sex is about procreation.

And social cohesion, and pleasure, and pair bonding, etc. etc.

In the animal kingdom eating is for nutrition and energy, not for pleasure... except when it is. And what that has to do with people liking to eat SPAM I don't know.

Forget the buzzwords like "deviance" -- animals that have sex for pleasure are a huge minority.

They may be a minority, but that doesn't really mean anything does it? Are female bonobos who engage in oral sex with each other deviant? I mean, what point are you trying to make here? That humans are strange because we get pleasure out of sex?
Even if true (ie. even if it's true that other animals don't get pleasure from sex, a claim I doubt) what of it. It doesn't change the fact that for humans sex is as much about pleasure as anything else.

I'm pretty sure that's what he meant when he used the other buzzword (proper) that everyone is freaking out about. When you want to quote stats about gay guys doing anal or straight guys getting pegged by their girlfriends to try and claim it's normal behavior, you're going to have to include all of the other males in all of the other species in your equation to really shut 3bodyproblem's argument down. Unfortunately, when you include the other species, your argument falls to the ground. Like jmcvann's pants in college. (wow, I'm sorry man... lame cheap shot. I don't know where that came from)

By that logic farming is totally abnormal and improper, as the vast majority of animals don't engage in it.
Hell, language falls under that same category.
I'm such a deviant for saying that.

 

[Roboramma]

I'm not a bigot, I'm under the understanding that anal sex, a practise common among, but certainly not exclusive to male homosexuals, is a deviant behaviour.

The problem that you have no consistent definition of deviant behavior which includes anal sex but does not also include other behaviors that you don't consider deviant.

 

[MikeSun5]

With social animals like humans it is much more complex.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Mounting and sexual behavior can be about dominance, or hell with some it seems to be about pleasure as well. Look at just the recent information about fruit bats perfroming felatio. Then there are the watersports of porcupines and if you want weird look at hynenas.

Okay, so far you mentioned male humans, fruit bats, porcupines, and hyenas. Is this the "huge majority" of animals you were talking about? Exactly how many species of animal do you think there are? Six?

Also, we weren't talking about dominance, watersports, or mounting... you've helped derail this thread already, no need to do the same with each conversation.

(fruit bats engage in fellatio to help with procreation, btw. Not because they enjoy Cher.)

Your view here is simplistic and uninformed.

Simplistic, sure. Why shouldn't it be? Your view is overcomplicated and (intentionally?) oblivious. You want so bad to call someone a bigot that you (intentionally?) overlook very simple concepts. Like sex for procreation.

And yet animals that have same sex sexual relations are a huge majority of species.

Really? Huge majority? Where did you get this information? You're going to have to redefine "sexual relations" and "huge majority" before you go spouting off some crazy statement like that. You're also going to have to provide a link of some sort...

For the sake of this argument, we should probably use the phrase "non-reproductive" sex, because I've seen how you fixate on one word and just run with it. "Pleasure" might be too much of a buzzword for you to handle.

This says there are possibly 1.5 million to 50 million species of animals on our planet. This says there are 1500 species that practice homosexuality. 1500 out of 50 million = "huge majority?" Either your calculator is broken or mine is.

Hell your statement fails even if I help you out. Say the scientists in that second linky meant to put 4 zeros instead of two, and let's take the lowest number of approximate species. You actually believe that 150,000 out of 1.5 million is a "huge majority?" Because I counted 10%.

This guy starts off saying exactly what you were trying to say before you started name calling, but he also goes on to say this:

Still, that a certain behavior occurs in nature (is "natural") does not render it moral. Infanticide, patricide, suicide, gender bias, and substance abuse - are all to be found in various animal species. It is futile to argue for homosexuality or against it based on zoological observations. Ethics is about surpassing nature - not about emulating it.

Regarding that first sentence: immoral acts (or perverted or deviant acts) can and do regularly happen in nature...

Again, I have no problem with homosexuality or calling out people who are bigots, but I think you misunderstood what 3bodyproblem was initially trying to say.

 

[MikeSun5]

I mean, what point are you trying to make here?

That you guys misunderstood 3bodyproblem's point of view. I think if he had kept scientific facts and his opinions on gays separate, this thread would have been on topic (and probably way shorter )

 

[Roboramma]

But sex is a defining characteristic of human behaviour, while tennis is not. We're talking about sexuality, if there were "Tennissexuals" you'd be right. But I'm pretty sure there aren't. You aren't born with a tennis racket as an appendage.

You've just changed to a new definition.
So, now a deviant behavior is not just one that is practiced only by a small percentage of the population, but a behavior having to do with a defining characteristic of human behavior which is practiced by a small percentage of the population.

Okay, speaking navaho is deviant behavior. Ie. language is a defining characteristic of human behavior and navaho is spoken by a very small percentage of the population.

If you haven't recognised the point I'm making, please read by previous post in this thread.
If you still don't get it, it's simple: every justification you've given for why anal sex or homosexuality is deviant applies equally to behaviors you don't consider deviant.
Why don't you just give a clear explanation of what you consider to be the definition of deviant behavior: ie. the definition you use to judge that anal sex is deviant?
If you actually have a consistent criteria by which to judge, that should be simple.

 

[Roboramma]

That you guys misunderstood 3bodyproblem's point of view. I think if he had kept scientific facts and his opinions on gays separate, this thread would have been on topic (and probably way shorter )

I meant what point were you trying to make with the quoted text:

Forget the buzzwords like "deviance" -- animals that have sex for pleasure are a huge minority.

In what way does that suggest that 3bodyproblem has been misunderstood? I just don't see the relevance.

 

[Roboramma]

If you relegated yourself to only having oral sex, or you only got off on oral sex I think it's considered deviant.

By what criteria?!

 

[Furcifer]

That you guys misunderstood 3bodyproblem's point of view. I think if he had kept scientific facts and his opinions on gays separate, this thread would have been on topic (and probably way shorter )

I think if I had not said "Thrust in my face" this thread would have been much shorter.

Considering all the death threats I've recieved over the last few days, I'm inclined to drop the subject all together. I don't think people are mature enough to deal with this yet.

 

[Roboramma]

I think if I had not said "Thrust in my face" this thread would have been much shorter.

Considering all the death threats I've recieved over the last few days, I'm inclined to drop the subject all together. I don't think people are mature enough to deal with this yet.

Did someone make death threats? That sucks. Have you reported it?

 

[Furcifer]

You've just changed to a new definition.
So, now a deviant behavior is not just one that is practiced only by a small percentage of the population, but a behavior having to do with a defining characteristic of human behavior which is practiced by a small percentage of the population.

Okay, speaking navaho is deviant behavior. Ie. language is a defining characteristic of human behavior and navaho is spoken by a very small percentage of the population.

If you haven't recognised the point I'm making, please read by previous post in this thread.
If you still don't get it, it's simple: every justification you've given for why anal sex or homosexuality is deviant applies equally to behaviors you don't consider deviant.
Why don't you just give a clear explanation of what you consider to be the definition of deviant behavior: ie. the definition you use to judge that anal sex is deviant?
If you actually have a consistent criteria by which to judge, that should be simple.

Only because you are being pathetic and prejudiced. If you took the time to read and understand what I am saying you wouldn't be as ignorant. Take the time to consider things in context, instead of being lazy and only reading what you want to read.

 

[Roboramma]

Only because you are being pathetic and prejudiced. If you took the time to read and understand what I am saying you wouldn't be as ignorant. Take the time to consider things in context, instead of being lazy and only reading what you want to read.

I have done so. If you disagree, don't just assert it, demonstrate it.