homosexuality

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
But the analogy still stands...if genetics justifies one behavior, then it *must* justify another or you are inconsistent.

---

Only if genetics is the only criterion used in the justification.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Of course, not all theists are christians, and not all christians are catholic, and catholics are the only ones who believe in original sin.

---

Not so, Schraf. I was raised Baptist-- definitely not Catholic-- and original sin was a given. The same is true, I believe, for the Pentecostal sect, to which my mother belonged before being married and to which she has returned after the death of my father. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major denomination which does not believe original sin.^ See that, Nos. I am on your side.Of course, Schaf is right about this:

quote:

---

The broad paintbrush you like to use is inaccurate and not what I would call an asset to debate.

---

------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 10-29-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
And? The guy was an Italian missionary in the 500's, & thusly does not exactly have the final word as to whether his biblical interpretation is correct or not.

​

---

It does not do you well to downplay the influence tha Augustine has had on Christianity. That influence is second only to Paul's influence, IMHO.You are correct that his is not the final word, but calling him 'some missionary' is like calling Ghengis Khan some guy who led an army.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:
BUT, it can be viewed as wrong from an evolutionary/biological standpoint quite easily.

---

I don't think so. This is the point both Schraf and I have been arguing. The thread is pretty short so I don't think it worthwhile to scrounge up particular posts.

quote:

---

The point of life is the propogation of species, and obviously people engaged in purely homosexual relations will never fullfill their evolutionary destiny.

---

And hundreds of millions of bees never mate. They are incapable of it, actually. I think the pure raw mate-and-make-babies argument can only apply to non-social animals and really, there aren't very many of them. Once a social structure gets in the game, the rules change. Things that may not be beneficial for loners may suddenly become helpful. I personally think that sexuality in humans serves to maintain social bonds, which we depend upon a great deal.

quote:

---

Obviously that can be construed as a "bad" thing and therefore homosexuality must be bad since it could concievable lead to the extinction of humans.

---

There is pretty good evidence that homosexual behavior has been around a VERY long time. It also exists in other animals. It seems, therefore, that there is something wrong with the analysis of the behavior as 'bad' and leading to extinction.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]A good case has been made (starting with Wilson, for instance), that the entire social structure of eusocial insects is "built" around insuring the survival and reproduction of the colony. In fact, in a lot of the species' males have a realllllyyyy short lifespan geared specifically and ONLY toward mating. So saying that "once a social structure gets in the game the rules change" seems to me to be inaccurate. I'm not disagreeing with your overall premise (see below), just that using eusociality is a bad example.[/b][/quote]Can you elaborate? I don't really follow.You state: {quote...the entire social structure of eusocial insects is "built" around insuring the survival and reproduction of the colony.[/quote]Fine. Any social structure ultimately is geared toward the survival of the colony. This doesn't change the fact that some individuals do not directly reproduce.Maybe I'm missing something?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:
Well when one human female can birth litereally millions of offspring then comparing a bee's sexuality to a humans might have some weight, until then I am not convincened.

---

Number of offspring isn't relevent.

quote:

---

And since there is a relativily small window in which to procreate during a cycle we need a reason to have sex as often as possible to ensure or try to ensure pregnancy.

---

I think you've got this backwards. The human menstrual cycle is extremely wasteful of nutrients and other resources. There had to be something driving it, and that driving force was social bonding via sex.

quote:

---

There is only one other animal I know of that exhibit "homosexual" behaviour, the bonobo(sp?) chimp, which uses sex as tension releiver.

---

You don't have dogs, do you?There isn't much info here, but there is a list of critters.
[url]No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/ambwww/SCIENCE-OF-SEXUALITY.htm[/b]http://www.geocities.com/ambwww/SCIENCE-OF-SEXUALITY.htm[/b][/b]http://www.geocities.com/ambwww/SCIENCE-OF-SEXUALITY.htm[/b][/quote]

quote:

---

As far as I know they are also the only other species that get pleasure from the act.

---

This is a very broad statement. How do you know?

quote:

---

As to the exinction, extrapolate homosexuality out to its obvious ludicrous end. What if EVERYONE was homosexual?

---

You're right. This is the ludicrous end.What if everyone ate only bananas? What if everyone worked at a gas station? What if everyone only slept on the right side of the bed?

quote:

---

Then tell me that it couldn't be argued that homosexuality cannot be seen as "bad."

---

You can argue anything, but making a good argument is a much different thing. ------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
The eusocial Hymneoptera don't support your statement. Eusociality in the groups that display it is purely based on genetics - and is about as hard-wired an example of the "mate and make babies" as you're likely to find in nature.

---

Sorry to be a pain... me not too bright... at the risk of making an idiot of myself -- no pain, no gain right? -- hard wired or not, it is still a social structure, yes? ( oh geez, I'm getting Brad-like too )

quote:

---

Basically, the rules change only when a species has a certain type of social structure - not "sociality" in general.

---

I get the feeling that we are talking about different things. I can't quite figure out the difference though.

quote:

---

It was just a quibble, no need to get your knickers in a knot...

---

No knickers to get knotted... just baby soft skin.I quibble a lot too. No big. Drives my loved-ones nuts.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
[B]Since number of offspring has a direct corallation to survival of the species.[/quote][/b]No it doesn't. You seem to be making the case that more-offspring==better-chance-of-survival and this simply isn't the case. Some creatures lay thousands of egg, of which only 1% survive to reproduce. Some creatures have few offspring but take care of them.The number of offspring WHICH SURVIVE TO REPRODUCE has a direct correlation on the survival of the species. Social structure has a lot to do with that survival. Homosexual critters contribute to that structure, hence indirectly contribute to the survival of the species.

quote:

---

No, what I mean is that there is a small period of fertility, and a long gestation. Unlike says dogs, that can be breed every 6 months and have litters of 4-6 puppies. Human females can get pregnant once every 13-14 months and will typically birth only one child. That makes for a small window of opportunity compared to other animals.

---

Hence the need for careful care as the child grows to maturity.

quote:

---

Actually I do have dogs, and humping is not a sign of homosexuality, it is how dogs jocky for position withing the pack.

---

I expected something like this response. Try jumping your best friend and see how convincing the argument is. "I'm not gay... just jockying for position"

quote:

---

And I checked the link, other than telling me what to research I didn't really see that much.

---

Yeah, I know. I found some better stuff. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htmNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htmNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.htmlThe phrase 'homosexual animals' in Google returned mountains of results.

quote:

---

I don't know for sure, but I have never come accross any research that demonstrates any animal having sex for purely pleasurable motives. Even the bonobo monkies are have sex to reduce group aggression not because it just feels good.

---

And you know this how? Essentially the same organs-- in mammals anyway-- are involved as are involved in your own copulations.

quote:

---

Um I'm not sure, since I am pretty sure bannana's or gas stations, and the right side of the bed don't inhibit reproduction.

---

Think carefully.If everyone ate only bananas, very soon there would be no bananas and we all die. The Koala is having this problem. It only eats eucalyptus.If everyone worked at a gas station, food supply would vanish as nobody would be growing crops or raising livestock.If everyone slept only on the left side of the bed, we'd never get any sleep and go insane. Not good for survival. Or we'd all have seperate beds. Also not good for survival.You can fill in just about anything and it works.Interestingly, I found the same argument elsewhere. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.almenconi.com/media/may02/050202.html------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
{Fixed a link, etc. - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
This is more disturbing than I first thought, I'm being usurped!

​

Oh well, there goes the "animal magnetism" theory......

​

Mark

​

---

Well..... if you side with me you aren't being usurped, you're just sexy. ------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Um, maybe it reduces agression precisely because it feels good???

​

---

Pretty much how it works with me...I think Red has fallen under the spell of thinking that non-human animals are somehow fundamentally different than human animals.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Bonobos aren't monkeys. They are primates like us.

---

LOL....!!!The term 'primate' includes great apes, lesser apes, old-world monkeys, new-world monkeys, lorises, and lemurs. There were also little mouse-like primates contempory with the dinosaurs, and many extinct critters between then and now.The distinction you want is "Bonobos aren't monkeys, they are apes-- great apes no less."------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
That is what I had said, like us.

---

No it isn't. What you said is that bonobos aren't monkeys, they are primates. This is equivalent to saying that that cars aren't trucks, they are vehicles. Bonobos are primates, but so are monkeys. You could just as easily switch the terms and have it make as much sense. "Monkey's aren't bonobos, they are primates."

quote:

---

And out of all of the chimps they are the closestly related to us as well.

---

Absolutely.

quote:

---

Monkeys have long tails.

---

Right. Except for the ones with short tails, like Japanese Macaques.

quote:

---

Don't think that you have to make it your duty to be contrary to me.

---

It must suck to feel persecuted all the time.It must also suck to have such a minimal reguard for accuracy as you apparently do.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Bonk, bonk, bonk.....

---

That's mature.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Hey John,

​

Ignore the childish behavior.

---

Yeah, I should.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:
However there are some major differences between MOST humans and other animals, such as cognative thought process.

---

I don't agree. There are certainly differences in brain-power, and in how we direct that brain-power, and in our dependence upon it. I just don't find it to be a major difference. Primatologist studying communication among apes for ex. have the problem of distinguishing between human comunication and chimp comunication. Every time someone defines a line, someone else finds a chimp that crosses it. They aren't all that different from other mammals and we aren't much differenct from them. We're just arrogant about our big heads.

quote:

---

However sex I think is all rooted in the same mechanism, need to procreate. How often that gets done is different from species to species.

---

What Schraf and I have been arguing is that there is a lot of behavior and biology that does not make sense purely in the context of procreation. Or, maybe it would be better to say that the biology and behaviors associated with sex have been co-opted for other things.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com