Originally posted by focus4chumps
i have an idea. wait for the predicted response from our conservative christian friend and then you may try out these snappy retort questions.
Try something... answer my question. I just want to know where you stand. This has nothing to do with "snappy retort questions", whatever that means. Don't be paranoid. I just want to know.
If we are animals then looking at the behavior of other animals would be appropriate, but if we are not then their behavior would be irreverent. Do you see how that makes a different?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If we are animals then looking at the behavior of other animals would be appropriate,
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
but if we are not then their behavior would be irreverent.
either way the behavior of a paramecium is irrelevant. this is a silly tangent. its supposed to be the orthodox religious people that create this type of diversion, i thought.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
why? should i emulate a spider because i am an animal as well as it?either way the behavior of a paramecium is irrelevant. this is a silly tangent. its supposed to be the orthodox religious people that create this type of diversion, i thought.
We are very distantly related to spiders, and even further from paramecium, so lets not use those as examples. Lets take a look at Baboons, which are a lot closer related. However, you still haven't told me if humans are animals or not.
It seems like such a simple question, I cannot figure out why you refuse to address.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We are very distantly related to spiders, and even further from paramecium, so lets not use those as examples. Lets take a look at Baboons, which are a lot closer related. However, you still haven't told me if humans are animals or not.
so which animals do you have in mind? how am i supposed to gauge a response when you offer nothing but "animal"? are we talking about a primates? mammals in general? land dwellers? vertebrates? what? i point out how vague it is and you offer this:
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It seems like such a simple question, I cannot figure out why you refuse to address.
oh i get it. you're trolling me. jolly good!
Originally posted by focus4chumps
so which animals do you have in mind? how am i supposed to gauge a response when you offer nothing but "animal"? are we talking about a primates? mammals in general? land dwellers? vertebrates? what? i point out how vague it is and you offer this nonesense:oh i get it. you're trolling me. jolly good!
Didn't I say Baboon? Or did you not read my post?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
you made both the more specified question and baseless accusation of me "refusing" your "simple question" in one post. i hope this is just baiting because the alternative does not bode well for you.
Why?
We can't talk about how the sexual behavior of animals like Baboons apply to human behavior without first coming to an agreement about what a human is. Are we animals or something else?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why?We can't talk about how the sexual behavior of animals like Baboons apply to human behavior without first coming to an agreement about what a human is. Are we animals or something else?
wait...how is baboon sex relevant?
because they are also primates? is that the arbitrary line you are drawing? primates?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
wait...how is baboon sex relevant?
because they are also primates? is that the arbitrary line you are drawing? primates?
First, is a human an animal or something else? I can't talk about the relevance of animal sexuality without first determining if humans are animals or not. I'm leaving that up to you. What do you believe?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
First, is a human an animal or something else? I can't talk about the relevance of animal sexuality without first determining if humans are animals or not. I'm leaving that up to you. What do you believe?
of course humans are homo sapiens, part of the animal kingdom. this is not up to belief.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
of course humans are homo sapiens, part of the animal kingdom. this is not up to belief.
To some people it is a matter of belief.
Ok. The question, as I see it: Is homosexuality a product of culture or genetics?
If it is a product of culture, then why is homosexuality found in the closely related animals like Baboons? They have a separate culture that is not influenced by human culture. Is there a commonality between the two separate cultures that lead to homosexuality? This is a hard question.
The simpler answer would be that homosexuality is a product of genetics. That would explain why two related animals would both have homosexuality in their separate cultures.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To some people it is a matter of belief.Ok. The question, as I see it: Is homosexuality a product of culture or genetics?
If it is a product of culture, then why is homosexuality found in the closely related animals like Baboons? They have a separate culture that is not influenced by human culture. Is there a commonality between the two separate cultures that lead to homosexuality? This is a hard question.
homosexuality is not exactly an unlikely occurrence. orgasms feel good to many animals. orgasms from a peer feel far better than one which is self-arroused, same sex animals can give eachother orgasms. animals dont invent ethics and morals and ancient books of magic to dictate their actions....imho homosexuality is inevitable in nature. also irrelevant.
i think the secret is not to pursue the genetics answer with nothing more than fallacious conclusions based on arbitrary data. i think until proof can be found, society needs to mature and allow different people to happily coexist instead of forcing a false dilemma on them (chosen or genetic). what if they have no choice but at the same time dna is irrelevant?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
homosexuality is not exactly an unlikely occurrence.
Why?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
orgasms feel good to many animals. orgasms from a peer feel far better than one which is self-arroused, same sex animals can give eachother orgasms.
Nature works, in other words.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
animals dont invent ethics and morals and ancient books of magic to dictate their actions....imho homosexuality is inevitable in nature. also irrelevant.
Animals that live in corruptive groups do create morals and ethics. Their morals and ethics have no connection to the morals and ethics of humans. Also, what does “ancient books of magic to dictate their actions” have to do with this topic?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
i think the secret is not to pursue the genetics answer with nothing more than fallacious conclusions based on arbitrary data. i think until proof can be found, society needs to mature and allow different people to happily coexist instead of forcing a false dilemma on them (chosen or genetic). what if they have no choice but at the same time dna is irrelevant?
I think there is a lot of evidence out there.
I don’t understand your last question.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why?
why ask "why" when i go on to answer "why" in the same paragraph? i mean feel free to disagree but you're making it like only the first sentence happened.
thats a really weird thing to do
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nature works, in other words.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonAnimals that live in corruptive groups do create morals and ethics. Their morals and ethics have no connection to the morals and ethics of humans. Also, what does “ancient books of magic to dictate their actions†have to do with this topic?
animals have no morals and ethics. a hungry mother will eat their young. jackals will eat an animal alive from the guts outward, indifferent to its suffering. animals will kill their own species in competition for food and mating. is this evil of them it just "nature"?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think there is a lot of evidence out there.
i think im awesome. there now we both speculated over nothing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t understand your last question.
i think it was simple enough
wasnt proclaiming to be right. just that i explained "why".
i edited so please read back.
i think this conversation has gone nowhere though. you want to coral me into your way of thinking through questioning via arbitrary standards and fallacious claims, and are frustrated that i wont play along. maybe its better just to present a point and defend it. if i disagree i'll retort. i think thats how this is supposed to work.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
wasnt proclaiming to be right. just that i explained "why".i edited so please read back.
i think this conversation has gone nowhere though. you want to coral me into your way of thinking through questioning via arbitrary standards and fallacious claims, and are frustrated that i wont play along. maybe its better just to present a point and defend it. if i disagree i'll retort. i think thats how this is supposed to work.
No, I am not doing that, and no I am not frustrated.
I just didn't understand this:
"ah i see. i dont recall that response in the pattern, as i must confess that witnessing the pure cognitive dissonance of the previously predicted reply forces me to ignore the rest of it. "
It was so random, that I just had to know what your basic beleafs were.
Originally posted by Robtard
That is silly, so ignoring.You're talking about choice of action. We're both straight, we can choose to sleep or not sleep with women; we didn't choose that we're sexually attracted to women though. Why do you assume that homosexuals choose to be sexually attracted to the same sex, when you didn't choose to be sexually attracted to women?
What I find silly & ignorant is the need everybody has to label everyone else.
Do you sleep better at night knowing you're in the majority & not minority when it comes to being born withOUT the gay gene?
Why the need to blatantly point out who's gay?
Why the shame to put a scientific twist to it, so as a parent you can't be blamed for your son's sexuality?