Homosexuality is a choice

[SnakeTongue]

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

Recalling:

See, you say that homosexuality is not natural because the result of the sexual encounter cannot produce another generation. However, if an older-adult woman has sex with a male child, that encounter can produce a child. Vice versa is true, too: that is, an older adult male having sex with a young female child.[3]

1934: 6-year old girl Liza gave birth naturally in 1934 in Ukraine after being impregnated by her grandfather. The baby was stillborn.[3]

Also, I put it that if your ideas are right and that Homosexuality is a choice, so must be Pedophilia. But if Pedophilia is a choice, and, according to your own ideas as to what is natural or not, then a heterosexual adult-child sexual relationship should be "natural" and okay with Evolution[1]. So why are you so moralistically against it?

(...)

This act by the chimps seems to me, and yes, it's only a guess on my part, that this is their way of teaching their children sex. The human equivalent would be when parents teach their children what sex is using language, charts, books, etc.[sic]
(...)

And while we are on the subject, and you got so bolding and fingerpointing to me, I want to respond with this. I will go out on a limb and say Pedophilia is "natural", by your definition[4]
I've shown you that your own definition proves that heterosexual pediophilic sex is natural. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION. You chose to ignore that.[5]

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[2]. An older man can impregnate a girl as young as 12.

[1] Paedophilia is a disorder of the human mind, not a mechanism in theory of evolution.

[2] Evolution works without reproduction between infants and adults.

"Heterosexual" sexual conduct between adults and infants is not an ordinary event in nature. The mere existence of fertility in paedophiles do not make paedophiles natural; Do not make the sexual conduct of paedophiles with infants natural; Do not make the offspring of such vile act natural.

The offspring of a paedophile is not a natural result of nature because the female/male infant is not mature enough to perform its role to protect the offspring. Nature shows that maturity of the mother and the father is innately necessary to protect and feed the offspring.

When a vile act of sexual paedophilia happens, the consequences are excessive abnormal...

From my previous posts:

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.

(...)

[2] "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.

(...)

Sex more than to the meaning of reproduction, it is not part of the "natural cycle of life".

(...)

[3] I said that homosexual conduct is not natural because do not use the appropriate organs of reproduction. The use of "heterosexuals" organs between an infant and an adult is not appropriate because nature did not produced an infant penis to penetrate an adult vagina, as nature did not produced a small vagina to receive a large penis. Therefore, sexual conduct between two individuals with the inappropriate use if its respective organs (including masturbation, fellatio and sodomy) is completely unnatural, even if is observed occasionally in the cycle of life of 0.05% of the living species species documented.

[4] [5] No, it is not my definition. Whatever you try to assume by what I think as "natural", I will verify if it is not "against the ordinary course of nature" and verify if it is equivalent with the "cycle of life" of 95% of the living species. You provided an example for "natural paedophilia" with the evidence of the sexual interactions among Bonobos in the post #543 and I have already exposed it in the post #548. Why are you ignoring the fact that was you who provided the evidence for the definition that "natural paedophilia" was only observed in 0.05% of the living species and is not a ordinary behaviour? I refute this "natural" definition because was not observed in the another 99.95% of the species and it is not normal in nature.

[sic] How would be such lessons of "natural paedophilia"? A book with pictures of an old adult masturbating an infant genitalia? Perhaps a storytelling of a history of an adult and an infant having a sexual intercourse? How would the parents explain to the infants that sex between adults and infants is completely natural?

 

[JFrankA]

Recalling:





[1] Paedophilia is a disorder of the human mind, not a mechanism in theory of evolution.

[2] Evolution works without reproduction between infants and adults.

"Heterosexual" sexual conduct between adults and infants is not an ordinary event in nature. The mere existence of fertility in paedophiles do not make paedophiles natural; Do not make the sexual conduct of paedophiles with infants natural; Do not make the offspring of such vile act natural.

The offspring of a paedophile is not a natural result of nature because the female/male infant is not mature enough to perform its role to protect the offspring. Nature shows that maturity of the mother and the father is innately necessary to protect and feed the offspring.

When a vile act of sexual paedophilia happens, the consequences are excessive abnormal...

From my previous posts:



[3] I said that homosexual conduct is not natural because do not use the appropriate organs of reproduction. The use of "heterosexuals" organs between an infant and an adult is not appropriate because nature did not produced an infant penis to penetrate an adult vagina, as nature did not produced a small vagina to receive a large penis. Therefore, sexual conduct between two individuals with the inappropriate use if its respective organs (including masturbation, fellatio and sodomy) is completely unnatural, even if is observed occasionally in the cycle of life of 0.05% of the living species species documented.

[4] [5] No, it is not my definition. Whatever you try to assume by what I think as "natural", I will verify if it is not "against the ordinary course of nature" and verify if it is equivalent with the "cycle of life" of 95% of the living species. You provided an example for "natural paedophilia" with the evidence of the sexual interactions among Bonobos in the post #543 and I have already exposed it in the post #548. Why are you ignoring the fact that was you who provided the evidence for the definition that "natural paedophilia" was only observed in 0.05% of the living species and is not a ordinary behaviour? I refute this "natural" definition because was not observed in the another 99.95% of the species and it is not normal in nature.

[sic] How would be such lessons of "natural paedophilia"? A book with pictures of an old adult masturbating an infant genitalia? Perhaps a storytelling of a history of an adult and an infant having a sexual intercourse? How would the parents explain to the infants that sex between adults and infants is completely natural?

...did I say infant?

Read a little more carefully please.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Hold it right there:

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

Unnatural:

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

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....

Same meaning with what? You cannot orient yourself with your own definitions and exemplifications, what is happening?

No, I did not got any thing wrong. I will copy and paste from yourself.

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

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

--

You wanted an example of "unnatural".

Here you go:

It's derived from nature, in accordance with the nature of Mallard ducks to chase and gang rape a woman, and after she is pregnant, to leave her alone with no support.

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

-

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

You didn't mention this:

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

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

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

Here it is again, just in case:

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?

You never said?

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.

That is the evidence you provided, to support your exemplification of "rape".

You did not not present any research to confirm your claims of "rape" or "homosexuals" among Mallard ducks.

My references provide clear evidence that "at which point each male will take turns copulating with the female" is not ordinary or normal among Mallard ducks. My references did not show any evidence of "homosexual behaviour".

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 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).

"You don't anything about me."

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!!!!

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":

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.

Please do. Remember:

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

Anecdotal evidence, not worth anything.


I asked you an example of "unnatural", you provided.

No more questions.

 

[SnakeTongue]

...did I say infant?

Read a little more carefully please.

infant

noun
a very young child or baby
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0409490#m_en_gb0409490

You cannot evade:

This act by the chimps seems to me, and yes, it's only a guess on my part, that this is their way of teaching their children sex. The human equivalent would be when parents teach their children what sex is using language, charts, books, etc.

Evidence from post #552, where your idea starts...

 

[JFrankA]

You cannot evade:



Evidence from post #552, where your idea starts...

See, you say that homosexuality is not natural because the result of the sexual encounter cannot produce another generation. However, if an older-adult woman has sex with a male child, that encounter can produce a child. Vice versa is true, too: that is, an older adult male having sex with a young female child.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

Re-read post 552.

Especially the link I've provided.

Yes, I said children. No, I did not say infants.

Yet another example of you misrepresenting what I said and arguring against it.

Look up straw man while you're at it. You got that wrong too.

 

[SnakeTongue]

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

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

No.

 

[JFrankA]

Same meaning with what? You cannot orient yourself with your own definitions and exemplifications, what is happening?

No, I did not got any thing wrong. I will copy and paste from yourself.

Funny, I never said you got it wrong. I said you didn't read and comprehend.

You never said?

Please at least read what I typed instead reading only the bits you like.

Again, I never said "always". You have done that. I did not. I didn't even use the word "often".

Here is the quote again. Please notice the bolded words:

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.

That is the evidence you provided, to support your exemplification of "rape".

You did not not present any research to confirm your claims of "rape" or "homosexuals" among Mallard ducks.

My references provide clear evidence that "at which point each male will take turns copulating with the female" is not ordinary or normal among Mallard ducks. My references did not show any evidence of "homosexual behaviour".

You did not realize that I agreed with you in that post: that we don't know if it's rape or just a way for the female to find the best mate for her species.

Really need to read the post again. Please read every word.

Anecdotal evidence, not worth anything.


I asked you an example of "unnatural", you provided.

No more questions.

I see you don't understand what anecdotal evidence is either.

I'm sorry, you are making this far too easy for me.

You know, you said to me "How perverted you are." I may be perverted. I'll take that. But at least I am not dishonest.

 

[JFrankA]

Okay, to be fair, I see there was a problem with my link from posting #552.

Here it is in its entirely. Please copy, paste and get rid of the _ between the : and the /

http:_//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Sorry, mr SnakeTongue, but you've got your theory of evolution all wrong due to visualizing it through the distorted prism of bigotry. One could spend a lifetime pointing out all the fallacies you're making, but I'll just choose one particular thing you've said:

[3] I said that homosexual conduct is not natural because do not use the appropriate organs of reproduction. The use of "heterosexuals" organs between an infant and an adult is not appropriate because nature did not produced an infant penis to penetrate an adult vagina, as nature did not produced a small vagina to receive a large penis. Therefore, sexual conduct between two individuals with the inappropriate use if its respective organs (including masturbation, fellatio and sodomy) is completely unnatural, even if is observed occasionally in the cycle of life of 0.05% of the living species species documented.

There's nothing unnatural about penetrating an underage, yet sexually developed girl (May I remind you, girls reach sexual maturity at a very young age). Therefore, sex with an underage girl is a perfectly natural act which still qualifies as "pedophilia" and which does lead to reproduction, making your "gay-sex-is-unnatural-because-it-doesn't-lead-to-reproduction" argument invalid.

Moreover, please do take a time to study nature in its whole spectrum. You'll see atrocities (from the human viewpoint) much more "scandalous" than gay sex happening within species. And before you ask for an example, I'll provide you with one, embedded in one of my favorite Darwin quotes:

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.

So there's a common natural phenomena in nature for you to sit down and ponder about your erroneous view of a nature that has a purpose and a moral code in which scandalous acts are considered unnatural.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Sorry, mr SnakeTongue, but you've got your theory of evolution all wrong due to visualizing it through the distorted prism of bigotry. One could spend a lifetime pointing out all the fallacies you're making, but I'll just choose one particular thing you've said:

There's nothing unnatural about penetrating an underage, yet sexually developed girl (May I remind you, girls reach sexual maturity at a very young age). Therefore, sex with an underage girl is a perfectly natural act which still qualifies as "pedophilia" and which does lead to reproduction, making your "gay-sex-is-unnatural-because-it-doesn't-lead-to-reproduction" argument invalid.

Which world do you live?

The Brave New World from Adolphus Huxley?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Funny, I never said you got it wrong. I said you didn't read and comprehend.

Please at least read what I typed instead reading only the bits you like.

Again, I never said "always". You have done that. I did not. I didn't even use the word "often".

Here is the quote again. Please notice the bolded words:

You did not realize that I agreed with you in that post: that we don't know if it's rape or just a way for the female to find the best mate for her species.

Really need to read the post again. Please read every word.

I see you don't understand what anecdotal evidence is either.

I'm sorry, you are making this far too easy for me.

You know, you said to me "How perverted you are." I may be perverted. I'll take that. But at least I am not dishonest.

I am done with you in the dispute of the "natural" definition.

It was an interesting debate...

I will be honest with you: it is nothing wrong to be a perverted.

 

[SnakeTongue]

As expected your knowledge of evolution is abysmal.

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

So why you do not explain in which mechanism homosexuality fits?

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

I already did in many posts in this thread. Orient yourself.

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.

No, you do not know anything about my decisions.

Oh... The "bigotry card"... It is old. Play another.

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.

That is not a question...

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 ?

I will start to address the subject of "choice" in the next posts.

 

[DC]

Which world do you live?

The Brave New World from Adolphus Huxley?

what is wrong with his statements?

 

[JFrankA]

I am done with you in the dispute of the "natural" definition.

It was an interesting debate...

I don't mean to sound cruel or impolite, but it looks like you are bailing. You have never, ever addressed any challenge put to you.

It seems to me that you have your definition of "natural" and that's it, and it's not even an accurate one. When flaws in your logic and definitions have been pointed out, you never dispute it head on - you've only disputed what you think has been said.

Further, I still say that your definition of nature does not show that homosexuality, i.e. a member of a gender having sexual attraction and desire for members of the same gender, is a choice.

I will say it may not be genetic, personally, I believe it's a mixture of genes and what was said in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6561970&postcount=583

It's far more complicated than a gene or two, and certainly not a choice.

I will be honest with you: it is nothing wrong to be a perverted.

Thank you for that, I do appreciate it, but I have ask: why the judgments? Why the shaking head? Why the obvious disgust?

 

[Belz...]

So why you do not explain in which mechanism homosexuality fits?

I just DID. If you took some time to actually READ the posts that are written for your benefit maybe you'd understand a bit.

Most ants and bees CANNOT reproduce. However they work towards their collective survival and therefore the passing on of their genes. Homosexual behaviour in animals, in apes, for instance, _MAY_ reinforce bonds within individuals in the group and make the group stronger.

I already did in many posts in this thread. Orient yourself.

Please repeat it or post a link, as I haven't spotted it. When presented with things that should be considered natural you moved the goalposts so I'd like a clear, definitive definition from you, please.

Oh... The "bigotry card"... It is old. Play another.

Old ? It seems obvious to me that you're "against" homosexuality. Why else would you be so adamant that it's a problem/choice/unnatural thing ?

That is not a question...

Is that an agreement ?

 

[Zelenius]

What I would really like to know is: Is believing homosexuality is a choice a choice, or do the people who believe this have a genetic predisposition?

 

[kuroyume0161]

What I would really like to know is: Is believing homosexuality is a choice a choice, or do the people who believe this have a genetic predisposition?

Typically, it is a learned (immersive) belief through family, local culture, or civilization. Very much like religious belief. You would rarely find someone believing in Shinto in Yemen who came to it independently and against their family's ingrained beliefs. They are Muslim in Yemen because it is the culture and tradition - same as for Christianity and so on in other places.

Belief in something is quite a different thing from sexuality. In the same way that speaking accent and colloquialism is quite a different thing from sexuality (even though, at first blush, it may seem like something genetic or more physiological). That is something we acquire by learning/immersion but it can be changed through conscientious effort or lengthy immersion in a new area with different accent.

Sexuality has physical, physiological, biological, genetic, hormonal and learned traits. Obviously, immersion alone simply doesn't work. There are gay couples who have heterosexual children (and vice versa). What would be the learned/immersive experiences which tip against all of those physical properties to make it a choice? The antiquated notion of being molested by an uncle during prepubescence has been quite thoroughly destroyed.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Which world do you live?

The Brave New World from Adolphus Huxley?

Are you going to admit your argument doesn't hold water or at the very least try to defend it, or are you just gonna bail out with silly rhetorics?

Once again, your argument that homosexual sex is not natural because it doesn't lead to reproduction is WRONG, because: Pedophile sex can lead to reproduction as long as the girl in question has developed sexually
Also, Artificial Insemination (which couldn't me a more unnatural way of reproduction) does lead to reproduction

Your argument that gay sex is unnatural because it doesn't lead to reproduction is wrong.

 

[Marcus]

I supose we will never know how old Snake Tongue was when he made the decision to become heterosexual...

Or, conversely, if heterosexuality is presumed to be the default position, when he made that important choice not to become a homosexual. If all the people who choose to be gay had that choice, everyone else must have had it also. My memory must be going, I just can't remember when I made The Choice.

 

[bikerdruid]

I supose we will never know how old Snake Tongue was when he made the decision to become heterosexual...

Or, conversely, if heterosexuality is presumed to be the default position, when he made that important choice not to become a homosexual. If all the people who choose to be gay had that choice, everyone else must have had it also. My memory must be going, I just can't remember when I made The Choice.

i certainly never had the choice.
my life could have been much simpler and very different if i had chosen 'straight' instead.