Homosexuality is a choice

[SnakeTongue]

And what's your excuse?

I did not understand the question. Could you elaborate it?

 

[Walter Ego]

I did not understand the question. Could you elaborate it?

Sorry, dear, you're plonked.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Good. You're learning. Glad to see you are taking my advice.

I did not take your advice. I am learning about fallacies before your advice.

If you did not get it, the exemplification was made to prove that you are doing a "Hasty Generalization" of what is "natural" with the evidence of 1,500 "homosexual" species.

No, you chose to dismiss them without any debate.

I am open to debate and waiting your references.

No assumptions are necessary. You are making quite clear what you do and do not understand.

By the might irony!, how do you assume that?

You refuse to debate, period, evidence or not. You do not even answer question that challenge your viewpoints.

I am not asking for questions, I am asking for evidence.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound insulting to you or anyone, but your tone and attitude come across like a Theist.

Perhaps because I am a theist.

Really? And I am to take your word for it? How much evidence is needed to be enough?

Just anything that prove your claim. Present the evidence and I will be glad to verify it. If the evidence prove your claim, I will change my point of view.

You keep dismissing the examples. Interesting. If I may be so personal, do you use sex simply to make a baby. You've never used it to make someone else or yourself feel good? You've never used it as a symbol of forgiveness, of intimacy with a partner of your choice?

By the way, have you chosen who you are attracted to?

When I said to you that you was using "reverse logic", you did not get it...

You are not explaining sexual behaviour from the "nature" point of view. You are explaining sexual behaviour from the "human" point of view. You are applying what the artificial human intervention made possible over the whole animal kingdom. You are using the consequences of the human sexual behaviour as a model to explain sex in "nature".

That is why I am asking you evidence. To prove that the homosexual behaviour is also a common phenomenon in "nature", you would have to provide evidence from the point of view of "nature".

I will put again:

Furthermore, there is a distinction between individuals in a scientific theory (epistemology) and individuals in real life (ontology). As a person I can say that reproduction is not important in my life, but in the theory of evolution reproduction is crucial.

-

Now you are misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say "only". I said it is used for it. Sex is used for more than one thing, that's the point that you are either ignoring or don't see.

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. ?
?. ?

.....and still you do not address the fact that you haven't even come close to proving that homosexuality is a choice. In fact, you haven't even proven that homosexuality is bad. And, you haven't defended your point at all. In fact, you haven't even addressed the fact that your own view of what is "natural" makes heterosexual pedophilia "normal".

You did not realize that I never made any claim with such conclusions.

I merely started in this thread doing questions, not affirmations.

Trying to distract from the point is a very poor way to defend yourself.

I am not "defending" my claims. I am "attacking" the false arguments of the thread.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Sorry, dear, you're plonked.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_228454ca7c4df0dbcf.png[/qimg]

Funny.

How much this address the thread's subject?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

The Bible accounts for "unnatural" things via original sin.

If you have another theory, share it, but every Christian I've read, heard speak, or argue with uses sin as the medium to express the "unnatural" nature of homosexuality.

Keep your religious zealotry to yourself, not everyone prays to imaginary gods. A gaybaser AND a religious nut. What else do you have to offer- hatred of science?

 

[Alan]

Keep your religious zealotry to yourself, not everyone prays to imaginary gods. A gaybaser AND a religious nut. What else do you have to offer- hatred of science?

TraneWreck was not actually putting those ideas forward. He was criticising those views.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

TraneWreck was not actually putting those ideas forward. He was criticising those views.

whoops, my bad....

 

[Alan]

It would be easy to make the mistake, though, based on a few of the posts being very unclear about that.

 

[kuroyume0161]

It would be easy to make the mistake, though, based on a few of the posts being very unclear about that.

I'm more worried about SnakeTongue's insinuations, based upon actual theistic principles, that homosexuality (and just about anything other than procreative intercourse) is so-called 'unnatural'. I love the use of 'natural' and 'unnatural' from theists. It is like a drug addict calling coffee an inappropriate use of a bean.

I think that it has been established that ST's course of argument (show me the genetics) has been nullified since it is not the major point of contention. Even then, we can point to studies and evidence wherein homosexual sex exists in other species and that it has been shown that homosexual physiology DIFFERS (significantly!!!!) from heterosexual physiology. That, alone, makes his entire argument a big bag of hot, blundering 'buh..buh..buh...' air...

What a schmuck! (sorry for the ad hom but this dude is tweaking my dials and I want to put out his lights)

 

[SnakeTongue]

I think that it has been established that ST's course of argument (show me the genetics) has been nullified since it is not the major point of contention.

My goal was show that is not direct link between scientific biology and the human sexual behavior.

Even then, we can point to studies and evidence wherein homosexual sex exists in other species and that it has been shown that homosexual physiology DIFFERS (significantly!!!!) from heterosexual physiology.

Studies and evidences of "homosexual" species? Where?

Just to let you know: it is not such thing of "homosexual" species.

In life, all organisms are essentially hermaphrodites or heterosexuals.

It is no species with "homosexual" physiology.

What you are saying is fictional, with no support so ever of objective science.

That, alone, makes his entire argument a big bag of hot, blundering 'buh..buh..buh...' air... What a schmuck! (sorry for the ad hom but this dude is tweaking my dials and I want to put out his lights)

Try if you can.

Do you wish put out my lights? Do it.

Present evidence which show that I am completely wrong.

Where is the evidence?

Fallacies are not going to help you...

 

[The Don]

Studies and evidences of "homosexual" species? Where?

Just to let you know: it is not such thing of "homosexual" species..

Was your misreading accidental or deliberate ?

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

Here are some links thanks to Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#References

In life, all organisms are essentially hermaphrodites or heterosexuals.

Wrong !

Evidence is in the references linked above

 

[SnakeTongue]

Was your misreading accidental or deliberate ?

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

Here are some links thanks to Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#References

Yes, that was the claim.

So?

Still, in such species males mate with females.

Could you provide evidence of a specie with exclusive "homosexual behavior" and how this affect the procreation of such specie?

Wrong !

Evidence is in the references linked above

Where?

Where is this new scientific discovery which will change science forever?

Where is the evidence that it is a new and well defined gender called "homosexuals"?

Wikipedia will not save you...

 

[SnakeTongue]

Darwin must be exhilarating in his grave with the utter ignorance and distortions of his scientific contribution to the humanity.

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

(...)

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]

Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]

Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]

Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

(...)

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

 

[JFrankA]

Funny. The article you posted proves that sex is being used by animals for more than just procreation.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Funny. The article you posted proves that sex is being used by animals for more than just procreation.

No, you did not understand the article.

I will put again:

"When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."

 

[JFrankA]

I did not take your advice. I am learning about fallacies before your advice.

If you did not get it, the exemplification was made to prove that you are doing a "Hasty Generalization" of what is "natural" with the evidence of 1,500 "homosexual" species.

Nope, sorry. You are twisting and misusing the logic fallacy to suit your own purpose.

I am open to debate and waiting your references.

Guess what? I'm waiting for yours, too.

I am not "defending" my claims. I am "attacking" the false arguments of the thread.

Bull pucky. You've made plenty of claims without any evidence, using only your assurtions and unreliable sources for "proof".

Here are some of your claims:

The penis was not made to penetrate an anus, as the anus was not made to receive sperm.

...and where is the evidence that it was "made" for that? I say again, evolution does not design the body and decide where things go. Your statement is nothing but an assertion.

The subject in debate is the definition of the "natural" sexual behaviour.

Nope. Like most of what you say, you are merely making an assertion, trying to push it as true. If I may quote the OP:

Homosexuality is a choice
why do some folks still think that being gay or lesbian is a choice?

most science shows that gays and lesbians realize they are this way early on in life, sometimes even before puberty.

and yet, lots of folks like to talk about it...as if its a choice.

a choice, that can be changed. ahhhh!!!!!!!!!!

now I get it.

You have not, in any way, addressed that. In fact, when you are challenged with questions that you cannot answer, you back away and change the subject.

(1) Do you believe that homosexual men have chosen to desire relations with other men? (2) If you believe they have chosen this, what makes you believe that is the case?

1. Yes, I accept as true.
2. "Sexual appetite": You are what you eat and what you do.

You have made the claim and never ever back it up. In fact, you go to great lengths to try to avoid answering any and all direct questions that challenge your claim here.

You used the article to prove that "homosexual behaviour" is "natural" because is observed in just few species among millions.

So are saying that if the majority of species have a trait or do a behavior, it is natural? Only a few species can walk on two legs. By your definition, that's not "natural".

So, if you agree that the bonobo species is evidence to what is "natural", you also agree that sex between members of the same family is "natural", as well sex between adults and infants.

Such perverted sexual conduct is present in the bonobo sexual life.

Following up your evidence, "paedophile" is "natural".

I've shown you that your own definition proves that heterosexual pediophilic sex is natural. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION. You chose to ignore that.

"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.

Sex is used for many other things besides reproduction. Even your own sources have shown that. Calling heterosexual, procreation-only sex "natural" is biased and uninformed and not backed by any "evidence" you've shown.

In the animal kingdom sex is exclusively used to procreate. Just in eccentric situations sex is used to cause relief in the sexual urge.

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"?

Still it occured. It occurs naturally for whatever reason.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturally

Here, read and enjoy.

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

1. Procreation

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 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.

 

[JFrankA]

No, you did not understand the article.

I will put again:

"When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."

The word "mate" here means (of animals) to copulate.

So when two male (animals) mate (or copulate - to engage in sexual intercourse), what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex.

Ergo, the use of sex for something other than to procreate.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

JFrankA, where are the references that I ask you?

Why it is so difficult to you present evidence?

I will prepare more evidence and prove that you are nothing more than a sophist.

Be aware that from this point you are entering a dangerous path which you are not skilled to endure...

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA, where are the references that I ask you?

Why it is so difficult to you present evidence?

I will prepare more evidence and prove that you are nothing more than a sophist.

Be aware that from this point you are entering a dangerous path which you are not skilled to endure...

Ah. I see. Still can't face a challenge and the truth so you don't even bother to try.

Also, you just simply ignore that you have proven one of the points I've been making all along and have contradicted one of your own points.

 

[JFrankA]

See if you can answer this:

By your own volition, heterosexual baby-producing sex is the only sex that is "natural". So I put it to you that if an adult male can have sex with a 13 year old girl, that is, by your definition, "natural sex" because it is heterosexual baby-producing sex.