Homosexuality is a choice

[Alan]

Of course, the five or six where I explained that I was making the exact opposite point I was accused of making...

Yes.

 

[TraneWreck]

This diseases come from a defective genetic disorder. It is not a natural occurrence, but still come to exist. Until here is not any morality implied. Unnatural do not means immoral. Unnatural means a deviance from the ordinary course of nature. Nature gave us brains, we use it a lot, but sometimes its can become defective. Note that is not always that nature is the cause of a defect. The human being can cause the defect, rendering the event artificial. Even in such event the consequences would be an unnatural brain.

Haha, wow.

Baby steps.

If it isn't a natural occurrence, where does it come from? What causes a genetic disease if not natural processes?

 

[Dani]

Oh boy...

As I said before, even one example of dude on dude animal action makes the notion of homosexuality natural, unless you can explain how those animals are behaving "unnaturally." Monkey original sin.

His view is so confused I can't sort it out.

First, I don't think he has a clear conception of how to distinguish "natural" from "unnatural." THat's why I tried to get him to explain this via the Christian myth of original sin. "Unnatural" acts are acts preformed by man, using free will, contrary to God's commandments. Natural, then, is acting in accordance with God's will. Unnatural is acting in sin.

That's how I've heard Christians explain it. Snake Tongue lacks even that level of perspicacity.

Second, Snake Tongue seems to have confused "natural" with "good." This would make some sense under the traditional Christian understanding of sin, but again, Snake Tongue doesn't seem to be arguing that (to the extent I can even interpret his rambling screeds).

But, of course, there's no connection between "nature" and "morality" for most of the posters here. As was said earlier, murder, theft, rape, are all rampant in the natural world. Just because a grizzly bear will murder a cub to eliminate competition, that doesn't mean human actions are bound by that evolutionary cruelty.

And then, above all of this, is the simple fact of "who give a ******" Whether natural or unnantural, genetic or tought, happy or sad, humans get to touch the genitals of any other human willing and capable of giving consent. It's a moot argument and should only hold interest in so far as it contributes to knowledge of genetics in general.

I agree with the whole post.

I wanted to know his argument, but it looks like he's got his own definition of "unnatural", even though he's not giving a clear definition when asked. My conclusion is that he means "baaaaad human activity that isn't innate".

But since many things, like brushing your teeth or driving a car, are human activities that aren't innate, and I don't see people upset about the "unnatural nature" of tooth brushing and car driving, I think we can focus on the moral part of his position.

From a scientific point of view, the mere argument "it's unnatural" falls to pieces. End of. If, by "unnatural", he means a moral "no", then my question is "why". Since it's a moral question he could come up with a simple "just because my religion says so".

Another important thing, TraneWreck. Are you familiar with the Cannonball Adderley Quintet?

 

[SnakeTongue]

I wish have some examples of what is "unnatural".

If anyone could me provide good examples of what is "unnatural", I will gladly change my point of view to keep the debate.

Once I agree with the definitions, I will start the debate about choice.

 

[JFrankA]

I wish have some examples of what is "unnatural".

If anyone could me provide good examples of what is "unnatural", I will gladly change my point of view to keep the debate.

Once I agree with the definitions, I will start the debate about choice.

Unnatural

4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnatural

 

[SnakeTongue]

Unnatural

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unnatural

I asked for examples, not the definition.

It seems that my "poison" left you drizzled...

Could you provide an example of something "unnatural".

 

[bikerdruid]

Once they understand they true nature, they will be accepted by what they are (unnatural), not what they are trying to be (natural).

Did you like to be respected by what you are or by what you pretend to be?

finally we are starting to get some honestly from you and see your true, hateful colours.
we queers are who we are, nothing more or less.

what is the point of this whole thread then?
you wish to make yourself feel good, because in your narrow mind you are condemning us?
anyone who has feelings this strong against homosexuals has real personal issues to deal with.
i pity you.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I think Snaketongue still has to answer this important point raised at him, which he ignored:

Once again: I put it to you:

If you state that heterosexual sex is the only "natural" sex because it is the only way evolution can work, then I say again: You are saying that paedophile behaviour is natural so long as it's heterosexual paedophile behaviour. An older man can impregnate a girl as young as 12.

 

[Walter Ego]

 

[JFrankA]

I asked for examples, not the definition.

It seems that my "poison" left you drizzled...

Could you provide an example of something "unnatural".

A friendly hint: you might want to look up the word "drizzled". And you might want to look up another term. Because what you are calling "poison" most people call it something very different:

Snake oil.

As to an example of unnatural,

4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.

Don't you see that the word "unnatural" means the same thing as the way you define "natural"?

1 existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind:
2 in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something

Seems to me that they mean the same thing, huh?

 

[JFrankA]

I think Snaketongue still has to answer this important point raised at him, which he ignored:

Once again: I put it to you:

If you state that heterosexual sex is the only "natural" sex because it is the only way evolution can work, then I say again: You are saying that paedophile behaviour is natural so long as it's heterosexual paedophile behaviour. An older man can impregnate a girl as young as 12.

Yeah, he never answered that.

Oh!!! Wait!!! I have another!!!

You have posted this piece of "evidence":

Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=573

Since it's natural for one male animal to use homosexually express dominance over another male animal (in this case dogs). Then it's perfectly natural for, let's say a male superior, such as a father, who is having discipline problems with his subordinate, such as his son, to rape him.

It may seem like "homosexual" behavior, but the motivation is different. After all, "when two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex".

So now homosexual incestuous pedophilia rape is natural.

It's not sexual attraction - it's dominance.

 

[Emet]

I asked for examples, not the definition.

It seems that my "poison" left you drizzled...

Could you provide an example of something "unnatural".

Example: Bible thumping homophobes with hatred in their hearts.

 

[JFrankA]

You wanted an example of "unnatural".

Here you go:

It's natural to chase and gang rape a woman, and after she is pregnant, to leave her alone with no support.

Breeding Behaviour

Mallards form pairs only until the female lays eggs, at which time she is left by the male.

Mallards also have rates of male-male sexual activity that are unusually high for birds. In some cases, as many as 19% of pairs in a Mallard population are male-male homosexual.

When mallards pair off with mating partners, often one or several drakes will end up "left out". This group will sometimes target an isolated female duck — chasing, pestering and pecking at her until she weakens (a phenomenon referred to by researchers as rape flight), at which point each male will take turns copulating with the female. Male Mallards will also occasionally chase other males in the same way.

http://www.avianweb.com/mallard.html

...so it must be unnatural to have consensual one-on-one sex with a woman and stay with her after she gets pregnant.

 

[SnakeTongue]

You wanted an example of "unnatural".

Here you go:

It's natural to chase and gang rape a woman, and after she is pregnant, to leave her alone with no support.

http://www.avianweb.com/mallard.html

You are comparing human rape with animal forced copulation...

[sic]

rape

noun
[mass noun]
1 the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will: he denied two charges of rape
[count noun] : he had committed at least two rapes archaic the abduction of a woman, especially for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with her: the Rape of the Sabine Women 2 the wanton destruction or spoiling of a place: the rape of the countryside

verb
[with object]
1 (especially of a man) force (another person) to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will
2 spoil or destroy (a place): timber men doubt the government's ability to ensure the forests are not raped

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rape?rskey=ZsecX5&result=1#m_en_gb0686840

Since your meaning of natural means "everything that happens in nature", I will examine the fallacy of your interpretation:

1. [rape] and [forced copulation] are regularly connected (but no third, common cause is looked for).
2. Therefore [rape] is the cause of [forced copulation].

De-constructing:

When mallards pair off with mating partners, often one or several drakes will end up "left out". This group will sometimes target an isolated female duck — chasing, pestering and pecking at her until she weakens (a phenomenon referred to by researchers as rape flight), at which point each male will take turns copulating with the female. Male Mallards will also occasionally chase other males in the same way.

It's natural to chase and gang rape a woman, and after she is pregnant, to leave her alone with no support.

It's in accordance with the ordinary course of nature to Mallards males ducks chase a Mallard female duck and force copulation against it will^[1], and after the Mallard female duck is pregnant, to leave her witouth resources to provide protection to the offspring^[2].​

[1] FALSE - Forced copulation against the Mallard female duck will do not correlate with the facts. Studies show that is not a frequent behaviour and are studies which advise that "rape" is not a appropriate word to be used. Mallard male ducks pair in monogamous relationships, with occasional copulation between couples. Mallard females induce the male courtship to choose the strongest, which proves that are no "rape" or "against it will" present in the copulation event.

Evidence:

Why females prefer to copulate with particular males is a contentious issue. Attention is currently focused on whether females choose males on the basis of their genetic quality, in order to produce more viable offspring1. Support for this hypothesis in birds has come from studies showing that preferred males tend to father offspring of better condition or with increased survivorship2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v404/n6773/abs/404074a0.html

Christoleit (1929a,b) believed that females do not realy try to escape but rather encourage males to chase them and compete for copulations, thereby enfuring fertilization by the strongest male.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4085762

By rearing males of both strains with wild or white females, adult females of each strain could be confronted with courting males of the own or opposite strain. As almost all females paired with males courting them most intensively, regardless the colour type of the males, it is concluded that directed male activity is a more important factor for female mate acceptance than male plumage colouration.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4534167

This paper examines pair formation in wild and domesticated white mallard females in relation to differences in male courtship pressure. By rearing males of both strains with wild or white females, adult females of each strain could be confronted with courting males of the own or opposite strain. As almost all females paired with males courting them most intensively, regardless the colour type of the males, it is concluded that directed male activity is a more important factor for female mate acceptance than male plumage colouration.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4534167

-

[2] FALSE - Males do not exclude the Mallard Females after the copulation. This is not a natural behaviour among the Mallards social interaction. Mallard males duck generally leave the female one season after the courtship. Even when the Mallard female duck is left during the hatching, she still hold resources to protect the offspring without the direct need of the Mallard male duck.

Evidence:

Investigation of courtship and pair formation of a wintering population of American black ducks (Anas rubripes) and mallards (A. platyrhynchos) near Ottawa, Ontario, indicated that initially drakes of both species exclusively courted and paired intraspecifically. After all female mallards had paired, the remaining mallard drakes joined black duck courtship groups. Of the 33 unpaired black duck females remaining at this time, only 27% formed intraspecific pairs, whereas 73% selected mallard drakes as mates, despite there being an excess of black duck drakes.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3801431

The influence of male dominance on male-female social interactions was examined in black ducks, Anas rubripes, and mallards, A. platyrhynchos, that were raised from hatch in four different groups (male and female mallards; male and female black ducks; male mallards and female black ducks; male black ducks and female mallards). The mate preference of females, independent of the influence of male dominance, was determined by exposing females to four caged, isolated males, one from each different group. All females preferred the type of male they had been raised with since hatch.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...872a72c5abbb3bb4a3edcf74c2a464a4&searchtype=a

However, the majority of birds produce altricial young and typically form monogamous pairs that normally persist through a single breeding season. Avian polugamy or promiscutity is primarly limited to those species producing precocial young that are easly able to forage for themselves shortly after hatching, to various species that nest near relatively unlimited food supplies so that the female alone can provide for the young, and to socially parasitic species that do not have to rear they own offspring.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=biosciornithology

Personally, I had Brazilian ducks species-alike in my old villa's lake and I observed that the males and females remains together until die. Beside this fact, the copulation between the males and females was quite rare, perhaps once a week. They used to look after fish and play around more than anything.

Therefore, your definition of "natural" do not relates to what is normally observed. Your lack of experience with the natural world is show in the way you confuse the behaviour of animals and humans.

I refute your definition since is not based in facts and completely ignored the natural way the Mallard ducks have been living a long time ago.

It's natural to chase and gang rape a woman, and after she is pregnant, to leave her alone with no support.

No, it is not "natural", because this is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature". Please provide, evidence of species in nature where this behaviour occurs with constant frequency and have benefited the development of the respective specie in their natural habitat.

[sic]

-

...so it must be unnatural to have consensual one-on-one sex with a woman and stay with her after she gets regnant.

I will keep in mind your definition of what is "unnatural"...

[sic]

unnatural
adjective
1 contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0908170#m_en_gb0908170

 

[bikerdruid]

wow....snaketongue...you must really hate yourself for those male-male attractions you obviously feel.

 

[JFrankA]

You are comparing human rape with animal forced copulation...

Since your meaning of natural means "everything that happens in nature", I will examine the fallacy of your interpretation:

Hold it right there:

You got that wrong. Reread the definitions I posted. I used your definition of natural. I only defined unnatural.

Unnatural:

4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.

Don't you see that the word "unnatural" means the same thing as the way you define "natural"?

1 existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind:
2 in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something

See? You are misrepresenting what I said and the definition I posted. I have never defined "natural", I used your definition. I didn't even dispute it. What I defined was "unnatural" which seems to me to be the same meaning....

4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.

I'm sorry, but the references you are using as definitions are incomplete. I cannot accept such limited references.

such as:
1. [rape] and [forced copulation] are regularly connected (but no third, common cause is looked for).
2. Therefore [rape] is the cause of [forced copulation].

You didn't mention this:

7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.

See? Incomplete references. I cannot accept your "evidence".

De-constructing:

I think the word you are looking for is "twisting". You're welcome.

It's in accordance with the ordinary course of nature to Mallards males ducks chase a Mallard female duck and force copulation against it will^[1], and after the Mallard female duck is pregnant, to leave her witouth resources to provide protection to the offspring^[2].​

Excuse me, I think you missed the very first part of my quote.

Here it is again, just in case:

When mallards pair off with mating partners, often one or several drakes will end up "left out".

Seems to me I never said "this always happens", indeed, it happens once in a while. But I guess you missed that. You don't want to misrepresent what I said, do you?

Oh wait, you have. Oh well, I tried. Continue, please.

Christoleit (1929a,b) believed that females do not realy try to escape but rather encourage males to chase them and compete for copulations, thereby enfuring fertilization by the strongest male.

[1] FALSE - Forced copulation against the Mallard female duck will do not correlate with the facts. Studies show that is not a frequent behaviour and are studies which advise that "rape" is not a appropriate word to be used. Mallard male ducks pair in monogamous relationships, with occasional copulation between couples. Mallard females induce the male courtship to choose the strongest, which proves that are no "rape" or "against it will" present in the copulation event.

Well, I can see that because this "is not a frequent behavior" and because we really don't know if it's forced sex or just the female playing hard to get, it's just natural to get a group of guys who don't have girlfriends to find a girl without a boyfriend and pick on her until she submits to what she REALLY wants. To make a baby.

It's not rape. It's natural. She wants it.

Evidence:

[2] FALSE - Males do not exclude the Mallard Females after the copulation. This is not a natural behaviour among the Mallards social interaction. Mallard males duck generally leave the female one season after the courtship. Even when the Mallard female duck is left during the hatching, she still hold resources to protect the offspring without the direct need of the Mallard male duck.

Hey, guys, it's only natural to leave your wife after she's given birth, just as long as you keep paying your child support. According to SnakeTongue's evidence, it's natural for the children to not need a dad or even see one, so long as you keep the ex with enough money to protect her young!!!!

Personally, I had Brazilian ducks species-alike in my old villa's lake and I observed that the males and females remains together until die. Beside this fact, the copulation between the males and females was quite rare, perhaps once a week. They used to look after fish and play around more than anything.

Anecdotal evidence, not worth anything.

Personally, I knew a person who claimed that all sex is evil and bad unless it resulted in a birth of a baby and I found out he was homosexual.

See how useless that is?

(No, I am not referring to you. I just want to make that clear).

Therefore, your definition of "natural" do not relates to what is normally observed. Your lack of experience with the natural world is show in the way you confuse the behaviour of animals and humans.

"You don't anything about me."

I refute your definition since is not based in facts and completely ignored the natural way the Mallard ducks have been living a long time ago.

No, no, no. You have shown me my errors. Thank you for pointing out that it's only natural to:

A) Since it happens rarely, and since we really don't know if it's unwanted sex, it's natural to get a group of guys who don't have girlfriends to find a girl who doesn't have a boyfriend and peck at her until she submits to what she really wants.

and

B) Leaving your partner for about a year after your child is born provided that you pay enough to your ex to keep her child protected. No need to ever see that kid again.

Good job!! You've convinced me!!!!

No, it is not "natural", because this is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature". Please provide, evidence of species in nature where this behaviour occurs with constant frequency and have benefited the development of the respective specie in their natural habitat.

Moving the goal posts are we? Going from "it doesn't happen" to "it doesn't happen frequently"?

Ah, young ducks in love. So romantic, and it's not "forced copulation" and this doesn't happen frequently. So enjoy something that you don't always see in nature. *sigh*



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP1pQ6-0rbo (Just in case the link above doesn't work).

By the way, by your own "evidence":

Christoleit (1929a,b) believed that females do not realy try to escape but rather encourage males to chase them and compete for copulations, thereby enfuring fertilization by the strongest male.

Since the female duck is only trying to find the best mate, this gang-non-forced-copulation is for the benefit of the development of the species of ducks in their natural habitat. Otherwise, she wouldn't non-force copulate by letting a bunch of other ducks peck and poke at her and hold her down.

I will keep in mind your definition of what is "unnatural"...

Please do. Remember:

lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred

I do politely suggest that you do not look in the mirror while you use that word.

 

[JFrankA]

Oh, and P.S.

You still haven't refuted this:

I think Snaketongue still has to answer this important point raised at him, which he ignored:

Once again: I put it to you:

If you state that heterosexual sex is the only "natural" sex because it is the only way evolution can work, then I say again: You are saying that paedophile behaviour is natural so long as it's heterosexual paedophile behaviour. An older man can impregnate a girl as young as 12.

Yeah, he never answered that.

Oh!!! Wait!!! I have another!!!

You have posted this piece of "evidence":

Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=573

Since it's natural for one male animal to use homosexually express dominance over another male animal (in this case dogs). Then it's perfectly natural for, let's say a male superior, such as a father, who is having discipline problems with his subordinate, such as his son, to rape him.

It may seem like "homosexual" behavior, but the motivation is different. After all, "when two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex".

So now homosexual incestuous pedophilia rape is natural.

It's not sexual attraction - it's dominance.

I guess you agree with me on this, huh? I mean, you did ignore the second example once and the first example at least four times......

 

[bikerdruid]

is snaketongue christian?
(sorry if this has already been asked/answered)

 

[Belz...]

Would you explain how homosexual behaviour in any specie contributes to the "survival of the fittest"?

As expected your knowledge of evolution is abysmal.

"Survival" needs not be an individual thing. You DO know that most bees cannot reproduce, right ?

Supernatural?

Are you trolling now ? How do you define "natural" ? That's a simple question.

You can also use your penis as a lever, but you cannot fit it inside a ear, for all you care...

Still dodging, I see. You have DECIDED that you do not like homosexuality and it has NOTHING to do with whether it is natural or not. That's just an excuse for your bigotry. Otherwise you'd actually adress my points, but just in case I'm mistaken and you simply forgot to answer me, here it is again:

Design has an INTENDED purpose, but you can use the damn thing any number of ways. Therefore how a penis is DESIGNED to be used has NO bearing on how it IS used, naturally or otherwise.

I will address such questions later.

Really ? When ? When you think I've forgotten about them ?

They are yes or no questions, Snake. Is heterosexuality a choice ? Is it not a behaviour, like homosexuality ? Yes or no ?

 

[Belz...]

wow....snaketongue...you must really hate yourself for those male-male attractions you obviously feel.

Careful, though. It's fallacious (not the other word) to assume that gay-bashers are gay themselves. By that reasoning I would actually love rap and hip-hop.