Would you present evidence which shows that "homosexual behaviour" have a biological cause and effect in the major living species in this planet, with its own well defined physiology?
How an article with deceptive pictures and language prove that "homosexuality are used in the animal kingdom to procreate" and "science has shown it"?
Which part exactly of the article prove you argument?
I read the article and when I made a cross reference, I found parts of the article that are fictional.
That article has links that show what they are saying backed by scientific fact. Whereas, your sources, which you believe outright without question, have no such links. I daresay your "sources" are biased, emotional and more unscientific than any I have put up.
I contest you present clear reference to a research which support you argument.
I have asked that of you first and you refuse. Now it's your turn.
"Natural sex" it is the sexual conduct with the appropriate use of the sexual organs. If no babies results from a sexual intercourse with the use of appropriate sexual organs, nature will provide a new chance to fertilization happens.
That is the natural cycle of life.
My bolding. "Appropriate"? Since when is sex, to make someone feel good, or as an act of forgiving, or as a release of tension "inappropriate"? Who judges that?
And the answer to that isn't "the natural cycle of life". Part of the "natural cycle of life" is to live happily and comfortably. Sex provides more to the "natural cycle of life" than just making babies.
You are using reverse logic to prove what is not natural.
Very interesting statement. I attack your logic, it's called "straw man". But you attacking my logic is not a straw man?
So what is it, ST? Shall I call "straw man" back at you or is my original attack on your logic not a straw man? Can't have it both ways, ya know.
Further, I am no "using reverse logic". Evolution is more than just procreation. Evolution is successful survival. One part of survival is making life better for the species. Sex, for animals and humans, is more than just procreation. It is used is many different ways by all animals.
And lastly, I think that "using reverse logic" is not a logical fallacy.
In the animal kingdom sex is exclusively used to procreate. Just in eccentric situations sex is used to cause relief in the sexual urge.
"Here's the major stumbling flaw in your logic: animals [except humans] do not engage in sexual intercourse to make money".
"Money" is a relative term. The point is that even in the animal kingdom, sex is exchanged for some commodity or service.
According to the paper, "Payment for Sex in a Macaque Mating Market," published in the December issue of Animal Behavior, males in a group of about 50 long-tailed macaques in Kalimantan Tengah, Indonesia, traded grooming services for sex with females; researchers, who studied the monkeys for some 20 months, found that males offered their payment up-front, as a kind of pre-sex ritual. It worked. After the females were groomed by male partners, female sexual activity more than doubled, from an average of 1.5 times an hour to 3.5 times. The study also showed that the number of minutes that males spent grooming hinged on the number of females available at the time: The better a male's odds of getting lucky, the less nit-picking time the females received. Though primates have been observed trading grooming for food sharing or infant care, this is the first time this kind of exchange has been observed between male and female primates in a sexual context, says lead researcher Michael Gumert of Singapore's Nanyang Technological University, demonstrating that the amount of time a male macaque "will invest in [its] partner" depends largely on how many options it has around.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700821,00.html#ixzz15FfSEKSR
Although, in experiements, monkeys HAVE used sex for money.
Something else happened during that chaotic scene, something that convinced Chen of the monkeys' true grasp of money. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of money, after all, is its fungibility, the fact that it can be used to buy not just food but anything. During the chaos in the monkey cage, Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkeykind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)
This is a sensitive subject. The capuchin lab at Yale has been built and maintained to make the monkeys as comfortable as possible, and especially to allow them to carry on in a natural state. The introduction of money was tricky enough; it wouldn't reflect well on anyone involved if the money turned the lab into a brothel. To this end, Chen has taken steps to ensure that future monkey sex at Yale occurs as nature intended it.
But these facts remain: When taught to use money, a group of capuchin monkeys responded quite rationally to simple incentives; responded irrationally to risky gambles; failed to save; stole when they could; used money for food and, on occasion, sex. In other words, they behaved a good bit like the creature that most of Chen's more traditional colleagues study: Homo sapiens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html?pagewanted=all
No, I am not saying that.
Being an biological animal do not made a certain social behaviour natural.
If sex is more than pro-creation, what is?
If sex is more than "bring forth" a new form of life, what is?
These questions make no sense. Sex is more that just procreation. Science: biology, sociology, psychology and yes, even evolution all prove that.
How many species do you think are living in this planet?
Lots. All using sex for more than just making babies.
How do you think such species had developed in the last millions of years?
By surviving. Part of surviving is dealing with others in your own group. Part of survival is using sex. That means more than just using sex for making babies, it means using sex to dominate others, using sex to attract others, using sex to get favors, using sex to make others feel good, using sex to become part of a group, etc.
Would you provide evidence which shows that "homosexual behaviour" was an essential biological or antropological advantage in any part of the already-know life structure in the last one million years?
I've given you examples in article, to which you replied:
Your article is flawed and it deserve be scrutinized:
Actual number is much high? How much?
This do not read scientific for me.
Of course it didn't read scientific to you. It didn't agree with your view of the world.
Estimated numbers of species living in the planet: 3-30 million species
Estimated numbers of species which can engage in same-gender sexual intercourse living in the planet: 1,500
How much "natural" is that? "We're talking about everything"?
Estimated number of species which has sentience: 1
How much "natural" is that? We're talking about everything?
Since when a pair of females living the same nest is equivalent to same-gender sexual intercourse?
Skipped over the line the read "Four to five percent are homosexual", did you? That means that in every nest, homosexual behavior was observed four to five percent of the time.
Do you think if a whole human family engage in sexual intercourse, this will be determined as "natural" and will generate the birth of health and "natural" babies?
If yes, you agree with the quote above.
I'm calling Shenanagans on you now. You have, either accidentally or purposely misquoted your source. The actual quote is:
The bonobo has a "fission-fusion" social organization which is gregarious and generally mutually tolerant. Individuals belong to groups called "communities." While foraging and traveling, the community members generally break up into subgroups, called "parties." When parties from different communities meet each other, sometimes they are peaceful. At other times, there may be loud vocalizing, agonistic displays, and, occasionally, serious fighting. Social relations within bonobo communities are significantly affected by the species’ sexual behavior. Bonobos use sex to appease, to promote the sharing of food, to make up after fights, to gain favors, and generally to strengthen relationships. Sexual encounters are strikingly casual, almost more affectionate than erotic.
Read more:
http://www.animalinfo.org/species/primate/pan_pani.htm#ixzz15FnHXKeO
The statement, "When it comes to bonobo sex, no rules apply - everybody does it with everybody else", does not appear in the report at all. By adding that to your quote, you are falsifying your evidence.
But I will give you the benefit that you did that in error.
However, in spite of that, you are clearly using flawed logic. That statement said NOTHING about "whole families engaging in sexual intercourse". Nothing about about.
Re-read what you underlined:
Bonobos use sex to appease, to promote the sharing of food, to make up after fights, to gain favors, and generally to strengthen relationships. Sexual encounters are strikingly casual, almost more affectionate than erotic.
We humans do ALL of that.
1. using sex to appease - Check.
2. promote sharing of food - isn't that what taking a woman to dinner is for?
3. make up after fights - one of the best sexual encounters.
4. to gain favors - sounds like prostitution to me.
5. strengthen relationships - oh, yeah, that too.
6. casual - that's what "friends with benefits" is for.
7. more affectionate than erotic - See number six above.
I did not see one thing that said "a whole human family engage in sexual intercourse" and, in fact, in your link, it doesn't say anything about a family having sex at all, just the "party". (Which ...actually sounds like a fun party!
)
So what you are doing is not only a) falsifying your evidence, b) reading into something that is not there, and c) forcing me into a moral judgment that does not exist. That is called special pleading and your evidence and logic are all flawed.
In fact, you have proved my point that sex is more than just making babies. So the whole argument of "homosexual acts cannot lead to procreation so it's not the natural order of life" is pure hogwash. Sex is more than just procreation. Homosexual sex is just as natural, just as useful and just as wonderful as heterosexual sex. (And, by the way, I'm heterosexual. Not by choice, I might add.)
I'm sorry, ST. but you have proven nothing. You are hiding behind flawed logic, false premises and sources and in the end, you resort to special pleading. Oh, and by the way, you still haven't answered any questions put to you.
