Homosexuality is a choice

[SnakeTongue]

And you think you know me? Pot meet kettle

The only thing I know about you is that you completely ignored the research made by the Cambridge University...

You want to quote a site like lifeissues.net?
Catholic Pro-Life news, articles, editorials and on-line resources inspired by The Gospel of Life and updated daily. Way to stay unbiased....watch fox news often? Their fair and balanced.

Fallacious argument...

You keep citing that it has to be genetic when its likely there is more than one cause. You want to frame sexuality as an either or really a false dichotomy. There are those that swing only one way and theres everything in the middle.

Indeed, to justify homosexuality as in-born inheritable trait it must be a genetic code.

Now having wasted my time writing this I dont see the point. The argument over this is effectively over and in 20 years this wont even be an issue. Im old enough to remember that things were much different 20-30 years ago and open homosexuality on prime time TV was a no no. You may not like it but thats the way it is.

Whatever...

TV do not represent scientific facts.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Clearly shows how little you know of the evolutionary process. The other points you've missed were:

2. Genetic difference within the group
3. Interactions within the species
4. Interactions with other species
5. Climate
6. Other factors that I know I haven't listed.

And this is not listed in order of importance. For example, if interaction within the species aren't going well, then procreation ain't going to happen.

You did not provide any evidence to that dullness list.

My requirement was:

Anyway, I am still waiting the evidence that sex in the evolutionary process of the species was necessary to:

1. Procreation
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?
?. ?

Let's examine your non-sense of what sex in nature is for:

2. Genetic difference within the group

That happens without sex... Heritable genetic traits.

3. Interactions within the species

That happens without sex...

4. Interactions with other species

That happens without sex...

5. Climate

Weather? Sex need it for the weather? What a non-sense...

6. Other factors that I know I haven't listed.

Please, list more and provide more entertainment.

Sex in evolutionary process of the species was DRIVE by different factors to always lead to REPRODUCTION. Nothing in your list fit in those factors:

Mating system is determined by several factors

1. Quantity of resources: rich environments tend to favour polygyny, impoverished environments monogamy.
2. Distribution of resources: patchy distribution of resources favours polygyny.
3. Predation: monogamy is favoured as a couple would better defend their territory.
4. Other determinants of social behaviour: living in groups may alter reproductive behaviour.
5. Female availability in time: synchronous breeding among females tends to favour polygyny.
6. Requirements of the young: depending on the development level of the newborn and the level of care it would require, males may be monogamous or polygynous.

In many species, females mate with more than one male as an insurance in case the first male is infertile. Multiple paternity also offers opportunities to increase the genetic diversity and the survival rate of the offspring. A general rule is that the smaller the proportion of males that mate, the more intense will be the selection for larger male size (10% in elephant seals, hence the huge size).

http://www.dorak.info/evolution/sselect.html

You have a very uninformed, simplistic and may I hypocritical view as to what Evolution really is, and worse, you twist it to make a moral judgments on those that don't fit your ideals and views.

You do not know anything about me.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Was your misreading accidental or deliberate ?

The actual claim was that there is homosexual activity exhibited in non-human species.

The claim was that there are species that exhibit homosexual behaviour. Evidence was provided. That should be the end of that element of the discussion.

I have already refuted that claim in the post #530

"Natural" is not equivalent of "nature".

The assumption that homosexual behaviour is a defined biological trait and it have being observed as a ordinary sexual conduct among the animal kingdom do not have any base so ever in scientific research.

Meanwhile, to apply the word "natural" to define the homosexual behaviour as something heritable and part of an unchangeable nature is a language's fallacy.

Homosexual behaviour define the same-gender human sexual conduct. It cannot be compared with nature's environment because is an artificial human condition. Nature do not have a biological device which enables the homosexual behaviour to mate and procreate.

The homosexual behaviour is defined as "unnatural" because do not represent the ordinary course of the biological nature and is not part of the main core of the anthropological human evolution.

 

[Alan]

No, it is not.

Just the perverted human species use sex to "many other things besides reproduction."

All other species have been using sex in the last millions of years exclusively to reproduce.

Not at all true. Just one example of individuals in a species using sex for purposes other than reproduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior

 

[SnakeTongue]

Not at all true. Just one example of individuals in a species using sex for purposes other than reproduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior

I said exclusively, not only.

The main core of the sexual mechanism in nature is reproduction.

Sex do not serve to other purpose, except procreate.

 

[bikerdruid]

I said exclusively, not only.

.

snaketongue...in english, 'exclusively' means 'excluding all others'....or, 'only'.
what is your game?
what are you trying to prove?
you are one of the most disingenuous posters i have ever read here.

 

[Alan]

I said exclusively, not only.

The main core of the sexual mechanism in nature is reproduction.

Sex do not serve to other purpose, except procreate.

Sex does serve other purposes. For example, bonobos use sexual intercourse as a means to reduce social tension.

If you were a bonobo and you argued with another bonobo, you would have sex with each other to make up afterwards (regardless of your sex and the sex of the other).

This is only one example species.

 

[FattyCatty]

Sex does serve other purposes. For example, bonobos use sexual intercourse as a means to reduce social tension.

If you were a bonobo and you argued with another bonobo, you would have sex with each other to make up afterwards (regardless of your sex and the sex of the other).

This is only one example species.

What about these?

Lesbian reptiles act like males

Readers of science journals know a good deal about bisexual aphids, "homosexual" gulls, and "transvestite" fish, species in which the male adopts the coloration and movements of the female to trick other males. Some researchers argue that every expression of human sexuality has some sort of analogue in the animal world. But even jaded followers of animal sex studies will have to admit that a Harvard team has now discovered something really new: "lesbian" lizards that copulate like males.

 

[Emet]

I said exclusively, not only.

The main core of the sexual mechanism in nature is reproduction.

Sex do not serve to other purpose, except procreate.

Sex does serve other purposes besides procreation, as food provides more than fuel for survival.

Sex in humans: procreation, pleasure.
Food (eating): survival, pleasure.

 

[SnakeTongue]

snaketongue...in english, 'exclusively' means 'excluding all others'....or, 'only'.

I am sorry, I made a mistake.

That is true.

I confused the word "exclusively" with "mainly".

I will put again:

Just the perverted human species use sex to "many other things besides reproduction."

All other species have been using sex in the last millions of years mainly (99%) to reproduce.

what is your game?
what are you trying to prove?
you are one of the most disingenuous posters i have ever read here.

I am try to prove that sexual deviation is an unnatural, queer and freaking part of the human nature...

 

[SnakeTongue]

What about these?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_428114ce5ef2bf2dd9.jpg[/qimg]

A link to a commercially biased web page full of advertisements published in 1988?

That is not scientific material. That is sophism at all.

Where is a reference to the research made to anyone verify the methodology and the results?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Sex does serve other purposes besides procreation, as food provides more than fuel for survival.

Sex in humans: procreation, pleasure.
Food (eating): survival, pleasure.

You are comparing the life style of 1 single specie...

...with 2,999,999 (or more) species living in this planet.

Trees are not vising Gordon Ramsay's restaurant to try something different...

 

[JFrankA]

A link to a commercially biased web page full of advertisements published in 1988?

That is not scientific material. That is sophism at all.

Where is a reference to the research made to anyone verify the methodology and the results?

You are using a web page that trying to disprove evolution to show that evolution supports your moralistic ideals.

Q: Aren’t you being biased by favoring only one side?
A: Yes! The important thing is that there is no pretense here that anything other than that is taking place. There are plenty of places on the web where the evolutionary model is articulated and staunchly defended. No one is demanding that they give “equal time” to a contrary position, and they have no obligation to do so. The same is true here: This website was established expressly for the purpose of giving voice to the creationary perspective—not under a contrived pretext of “exploring” the debate, but to expose the faulty logic and false assumptions that comprise much of the popularly embraced evolutionary belief system, and to set forth a representative sampling from the abundance of empirical evidence interpretations supporting the creationary model.

Q: What exactly are you trying to prove?
A: First, we are NOT trying to prove God exists.
We ARE trying to do exactly what is stated at the outset on this site’s “home” page — which is to demonstrate that the NeoDarwinian Macroevolution belief system does not find “overwhelming” unequivocal support in the data of empirical science, and that the biblical creation model in fact finds compelling, corroborative support in the same data available to and used by evolutionists.

So your reference to this is not credible. Besides, you were using it that website to prove that:

Just the perverted human species use sex to "many other things besides reproduction."

All other species have been using sex in the last millions of years exclusively to reproduce.

Seems to me when you claim "sophism" you are screaming into a mirror.

By the way, you use that word "sophism" a lot.

"I don't think it means what you think it means......"

 

[JFrankA]

You are comparing the life style of 1 single specie...

...with 2,999,999 (or more) species living in this planet.

Trees are not vising Gordon Ramsay's restaurant to try something different...

And mammals don't use photosynthesis and chlorophyll.

I didn't realize that evolution was a democracy......

 

[JFrankA]

I am sorry, I made a mistake.

That is true.

I confused the word "exclusively" with "mainly".

I will put again:

Just the perverted human species use sex to "many other things besides reproduction."

All other species have been using sex in the last millions of years mainly (99%) to reproduce.

99% ? Is that a scientific number? Where did you get that number from? Did you calculate it from all species that is has sex?

Or did you pull that number out of thin air?

SOPHISM!!!!

I am try to prove that sexual deviation is an unnatural, queer and freaking part of the human nature...

You want a link disproving this idea? Here is your main problem:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html

Here is your second problem:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

There's more coming.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Sex does serve other purposes. For example, bonobos use sexual intercourse as a means to reduce social tension.

If you were a bonobo and you argued with another bonobo, you would have sex with each other to make up afterwards (regardless of your sex and the sex of the other).

This is only one example species.

Yes, indeed.

Now, please, provide examples of the another 2,999,999 (or more) species where sex is used to other purposes rather than procreation.

 

[SnakeTongue]

There's more coming.

You are not addressing any post I made for you.

 

[Alan]

You changed the goalposts, but:
An abstract:

Same-sex sexual behavior has been extensively documented in non-human animals. Here we review the contexts in which it has been studied, focusing on case studies that have tested both adaptive and non-adaptive explanations for the persistence of same-sex sexual behavior. Researchers have begun to make headway unraveling possible evolutionary origins of these behaviors and reasons for their maintenance in populations, and we advocate expanding these approaches to examine their role as agents of evolutionary change. Future research employing theoretical, comparative and experimental approaches could provide a greater understanding not only of how selection might have driven the evolution of same-sex sexual behaviors but also ways in which such behaviors act as selective forces that shape social, morphological and behavioral evolution.

http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(09)00154-2

A write-up of it, with quotes from one of the researchers:

Examples of same-sex behavior can be found in almost all species in the animal kingdom — from worms to frogs to birds — making the practice nearly universal among animals, according to a new review of research on the topic.

"It's clear that same-sex sexual behavior extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature: for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies," said Nathan Bailey, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Riverside.

Same-sex behaviors in different species are not all equivalent, the review finds. For instance, male fruit flies sometimes court other male flies, but this behavior is due to a missing gene that gives the flies the ability to distinguish between sexes, said Bailey, a co-author of the review. "That is very different from male bottlenose dolphins, who engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding, or female Laysan Albatross that can remain pair-bonded for life," he added.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/090616-same-sex-animals.html
Examples of sex for purposes other than procreation.

 

[Belz...]

You did not get it... It is not an"homosexual" gene.

The proof that is not an "homosexual" gene make the whole Wikipedia web page pure entertainment!

Without a gene, all the studies are pure speculation, not conclusions.

So what about homosexual behaviour in animals ?

 

[Belz...]

My claim was that the genitals organs of a particular gender were designed to be exclusively used with the opposite gender genitals organs.

And yet they fit into other places, as well.

Besides, you're assuming they're used only for reproduction.