Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not understanding the reference to bisexual behaviours in a small percentage of animal pairings as having anything to do with homosexuality in humans?

Here I thought what you cared about was the actual acts, now you are moving the goalposts to orientation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've already said my statement was a reply to the claim that homosexual animals are a "huge majority."

You have yet to provide your evidence that more animals have been shown to not have any homosexual behaviors than do. Please back up your position with real evidence. How many species have been shown to be exclusively heterosexual in behavior?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No no no, bisexuality, not homosexuality. There's a difference.

So you are fine with homosexual sex provided that someone has heterosexual sex sometime as well. Here you seemed to be so focused on the act not the orientation before.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No problem. But in that case I think you'd be wrong. Hair colour isn't a behaviour. No more so than attached ear lobes or being able to roll your tongue.

Moving goalposts again. Your argument before was that genetic traits can not be devaint, now it is that it is not behavior. So it is still deviant just a deviant trait not a deviant behavior.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think so. At that point it becomes a recessive trait.

Of course this is an overly simplistic view of genetics.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I will happily eat my words if you or ponderingturtle can prove that. You all know the deal: the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim...

Wait you were making the claim all along that every species that has not been shown to have homosexual sex must be exclusively heterosexual. Your math earlier makes no sense otherwise. Support your claim.

 

[Darat]

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.

We take such claims very seriously and I requested further information about these "death threats" and it appears that they were not made on this Forum or via PMs from any Members and there is no evidence to link the death threats to this thread or anyone participating in it.

Posted By: Darat

 

[Furcifer]

3BP has been clear, he is unconfortable around homosexuals and blames them for it.

That's a lie. I've never been uncomfortable around homosexuals. Nor would I ever. I'm uncomfortable around homosexual liars perhaps. But not because they are homosexual, because they are liars. Like you.

If he had said the same thing about blacks no one would have questioned the bigot label. If only more blacks would pull and MJ and make their race hard to determine and hideable like sexuality it think about the strides you could make against people putting their blackness all in your face?

That would make it rather awkward at family gatherings.

Pull an MJ and make their race rather hard to determine

???-Is this in relation to Micheal Jacksons alleged homosexual relationships with young boys? Or are you trying to tie in Micheal Jacksons propensity for nurturing children with this "Gay Uncle" theory? I'm not sure what you are getting at here, because Micheal Jackson never hid the fact that he was African American.

 

[Furcifer]

Sure, but he couldn't keep quite about how unconfortable gays make him.

I'm beginning to think you like lying about me just to get my attention. Show me where I said this or retract it.

 

[Furcifer]

If someone made death threats he should report them and they will be banned. But I have a feeling he will never support that statement.

You have a "feeling" or you know? I suspect you know.

 

[king catfish]

He said in half a million years, your penis will be as useless as your appendix.

Good thing I'll be dead by then.

 

[Furcifer]

It is normal. And in what way is it being thrust in your face? Why shouldn't homosexuals be able to express their feelings in the same fashion as heterosexuals?

No it isn't. It's gay sex.It might be perfectly normal to you, or someone you know, but from a biological, statistical or societal point of view it isn't. Homosexuals should certainly be allowed to express their feelings in the same fashion as heterosexuals.

You are making statements about who one is better than another, not that you simply perfer one to the other.

It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. And who are you kidding? If I said "I prefer it" You'd be screaming at me "Why because it's better!!!" And then simply rant on and on like you have this entire thread about how do I know what's better or proper or preferred.

 

[Furcifer]

I am prejudiced at people who call all homosexuals perverts? I am ok with that.

I suppose you should be, you're the one that did

 

[Furcifer]

So you are fine with homosexual sex provided that someone has heterosexual sex sometime as well. Here you seemed to be so focused on the act not the orientation before.

What are you talking about. Perhaps you need to learn to read the entire thread again, and this time, for comprehension.

 

[Furcifer]

Moving goalposts again. Your argument before was that genetic traits can not be devaint, now it is that it is not behavior. So it is still deviant just a deviant trait not a deviant behavior.

lol, no as usual you move the goalposts, then blame me.

I love how you made up "deviant trait" just to confuse everything. Well done.

 

[Furcifer]

OK, ponderingturtle, could you try to put all you rants and lies in 1 post? It would make it much easier for me to respond. I think I've got it figured out on my berry now, but if you're at a PC it's pretty easy. At least compared to a berry. Thanks. Have a nice day

 

[Furcifer]

So you are fine with homosexual sex provided that someone has heterosexual sex sometime as well. Here you seemed to be so focused on the act not the orientation before.

You got that from "bisexuality is different than homosexuality"?

Anyhow, could you please explain how many animals, other than human have been observed to engage in homosexuality?

Not homosexual behaviour, homosexuality. As in animals that only engages in same sex courtship, sex and habitation.

 

[Earthborn]

Not homosexual behaviour, homosexuality. As in animals that only engages in same sex courtship, sex and habitation.

Courtship, sex and habitation are behaviours, are they not? So if an animal did all those to a mate of the same sex, it would by definition be homosexual behaviour.

In pair bonding animals -- often birds -- it is not at all uncommon for two individual animals of the same sex to become a pair for life and exhibiting all those behaviours only to each other. Is that what you mean, or do you need proof that if they had not met each other they could only have fallen in love with another of the same sex?

 

[Furcifer]

Courtship, sex and habitation are behaviours, are they not?

I believe so, yes.

So if an animal did all those to a mate of the same sex, it would by definition be homosexual behaviour.

Yes. But even the homosexuals I know consider exclusivity a key characteristic of homosexuality. Especially gay men. But I don't have a large enough sample to go by, nor am I certain they weren't just kidding around.

In pair bonding animals -- often birds -- it is not at all uncommon for two individual animals of the same sex to become a pair for life and exhibiting all those behaviours only to each other.

Actually that's a good point. I hadn't considered pair bonding animals separate from the rest. It's certainly more pertinent to consider them in comparison than the entire animal kingdom. Still, "not uncommon"? I don't believe that to be true.

Is that what you mean, or do you need proof that if they had not met each other they could only have fallen in love with another of the same sex?

Are you still speaking of animals? I'm not familiar with what would be considered "animal love".

 

[Roboramma]

Are you still speaking of animals? I'm not familiar with what would be considered "animal love".

It's a deviant behavior.