Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[Doc_Jude]

http://www.neatorama.com/2007/10/02/5-legged-deer-shot

Lots of things that occur in nature that aren't good or healthy...

I don't get the correlation. Are you saying that Homosexuality is a birth defect?

 

[Big Don]

I don't get the correlation. Are you saying that Homosexuality is a birth defect?

It very well could be. However, due to its popularity this will never be researched and never be anything but, reviled.
The argument was made that homosexuality exists in nature, I merely pointed out that lots of things exist in nature, not all of which are healthy. Yes, birth defects exist in all species, and few are considered healthy. Look at less extreme examples than a two-headed turtle and a five legged deer (if only it were a chicken, Tyson foods would go nuts...) nearsightedness affects millions and no sane person would say that that is a good thing. The idea that because some animals have homosexual sex, homosexuality is good and natural is at best foolish and at worst, criminal.

 

[Marginal]

It very well could be. However, due to its popularity this will never be researched and never be anything but, reviled.
The argument was made that homosexuality exists in nature, I merely pointed out that lots of things exist in nature, not all of which are healthy. Yes, birth defects exist in all species, and few are considered healthy. Look at less extreme examples than a two-headed turtle and a five legged deer (if only it were a chicken, Tyson foods would go nuts...) nearsightedness affects millions and no sane person would say that that is a good thing. The idea that because some animals have homosexual sex, homosexuality is good and natural is at best foolish and at worst, criminal.

Curing nearsightedness in vitro is a far better use of national resources than fretting over this nonsense.

 

[Big Don]

Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

A better question might be: In light of the Democratic party's long history of racism, how are Democrats respected at all? http://www.answers.com/topic/1924-democratic-national-convention

The 1924 Democratic National Convention, also called the Klanbake, held at the Madison Square Garden in New York City from June 24 to July 9, took a record 103 ballots to nominate a presidential candidate. It was the longest continuously running convention in United States political history. It was also known for the strong influence of the Ku Klux Klan.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,476404-2,00.html
At a Black History Month event Lt Governor Cruz Bustamante let the "N" word slip, being a democrat, all was forgiven almost before he said it.
http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/hymie.htm
Jesse Jackson calls NYC Hymietown, uses the old, "I did not" defense, is hailed as a leader.
Would Al Sharpton call someone a "White Interloper"? You betcha: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/09/the_race_baiter_in_the_campaign/
Racism, of course not, they're democrats...

 

[Doc_Jude]

It very well could be. However, due to its popularity this will never be researched and never be anything but, reviled.
The argument was made that homosexuality exists in nature, I merely pointed out that lots of things exist in nature, not all of which are healthy. Yes, birth defects exist in all species, and few are considered healthy. Look at less extreme examples than a two-headed turtle and a five legged deer (if only it were a chicken, Tyson foods would go nuts...) nearsightedness affects millions and no sane person would say that that is a good thing. The idea that because some animals have homosexual sex, homosexuality is good and natural is at best foolish and at worst, criminal.

I don't remember quantifying ANY sexual orientation as "good and natural". My point is that homosexual activity exists in the natural world, in species across the board. If the "animal species" that is Homo sapien produces the occasional homosexual, as do other species, who are we to judge such a person as good & natural, or bad and unnatural?

Birth defects usually work to rid a specific gene pool of undesirable genetics (the organism is vulnerable to the environment, predators, etc). Who knows what the natural mechanism of homosexuality is? I don't. When you look at homosexuality and birth defects in that way, they could very well be a good thing, preventing certain traits from being perpetuated. I've heard such theories, & while I don't know the real reason, this certainly seems to be a possible scenario.

Of course, I'm not so deluded as to believe that homosexuality is a choice. Everything that I've seen leads me to to the conclusion that it is genetic, for whatever reason, and cannot be changed. I've never seen anything that would convince me otherwise.

I can't judge someone as good or bad because of genetics. I'm not a Nazi, or a fundamentalist Christian.

 

[crushing]

I don't get the correlation. Are you saying that Homosexuality is a birth defect?

Maybe that two headed turtles doesn't deserve the same consideration as the one headed turtles. Were the two-headed turtles at the bottom of Yertle's stack?

 

[Ray]

I don't remember quantifying ANY sexual orientation as "good and natural". My point is that homosexual activity exists in the natural world, in species across the board. If the "animal species" that is Homo sapien produces the occasional homosexual, as do other species, who are we to judge such a person as good & natural, or bad and unnatural?

Cool. I now have a naturalistic justification for cannablism, and killing the young children (that were sired by another) of my new girl friend.

Of course, I'm not so deluded as to believe that homosexuality is a choice. Everything that I've seen leads me to to the conclusion that it is genetic, for whatever reason, and cannot be changed. I've never seen anything that would convince me otherwise.

Pedophilia can be cured and homosexuality cannot?

 

[heretic888]

Who knows what the natural mechanism of homosexuality is? I don't.

Based on studies I've read from both anthropology and developmental biology, I suspect it is a) genetic in nature and b) a mechanism for population control.

 

[Gordon Nore]

A better question might be: In light of the Democratic party's long history of racism, how are Democrats respected at all? http://www.answers.com/topic/1924-democratic-national-convention

1924? You're kidding, right? The Klan had something like seven million members in those days. Public lynchings were still being practised and would be for a long time. This was forty years before the first Black vote. I think a helluva lot of people in the US were similarly racist in those days. I would hope, however, that Democrats of good conscience, like anyone else, would remember the mistakes and misdeeds of the past. To pull this little factoid out of a hat is like saying the USA is rotten to the core because it used tolerate the keeping of slaves.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,476404-2,00.html
At a Black History Month event Lt Governor Cruz Bustamante let the "N" word slip, being a democrat, all was forgiven almost before he said it.
http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/hymie.htm
Jesse Jackson calls NYC Hymietown, uses the old, "I did not" defense, is hailed as a leader.
Would Al Sharpton call someone a "White Interloper"? You betcha: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...s/2003/11/09/the_race_baiter_in_the_campaign/
Racism, of course not, they're democrats...

I don't the Bustamante story, but it kills me to constantly hear Jackson's and Sharpton's names hauled out as "proof" of the inherent flaw in The Democratic Party or liberal thought. Sharpton and Jackson are, IMHO, attention seekers, a couple of washed-up gas bags. I don't hear a lot of liberals saying, "I'm a Democrat 'cuz Jesse and Al are."

 

[Doc_Jude]

Based on studies I've read from both anthropology and developmental biology, I suspect it is a) genetic in nature and b) a mechanism for population control.

That is what I thought, but I didn't remember where I had heard that. Probably an anthro class, huh?

 

[Doc_Jude]

Cool. I now have a naturalistic justification for cannablism, and killing the young children (that were sired by another) of my new girl friend.

I have no idea what you're talking about. But hey, whatever works for you. Unless you're talking about A Modest Proposal, but that isn't what you quoted, so I don't know...

Pedophilia can be cured and homosexuality cannot?

I've never seen a "cure" for Pedophilia. Any behavior can be deterred. I believe that is what you're talking about. Of course, all of the pedophiles that are in prison obviously don't care about the threat of prison. Deterrents don't always work. Our prisons are full of murderers and pedophiles.
Even successfully chemically castrated pedophiles still have the urges that led them to initially act as Pedophiles. However, since they can no longer gain erections, the emotional outlet can become violent. Of course, the hormone drugs used have varied effects & sometimes don't work for some offenders, even at double doses, their sexual desires cannot be suppressed...

Funny, sounds like homosexuals that go to "rehab"...

 

[Ray]

I have no idea what you're talking about. But hey, whatever works for you. Unless you're talking about A Modest Proposal, but that isn't what you quoted, so I don't know...

It was relative to the quote that was just included just above my comment.

It was the one about something or other being practiced by animals in nature and the ergo of the quote being: if the behavior was found in nature then it must be okay for people. I'm just extending that conclusion to include behaviors that are surely not okay for people, even though they are found in nature.

It demonstrates that we cannot judge acceptable human behavior on what animals do.

 

[Big Don]

There are no morals amongst animals so comparing anything animals do to humanity is patently foolish.

 

[michaeledward]

There are no morals amongst animals so comparing anything animals do to humanity is patently foolish.

This comment is really outside the domain of this thread, I think.

However, I will address a couple of points.

1 - The homo sapien is not mineral, and is not plant. The species is 'animal' in all manners of understaning matter. One who would claim that it is 'patently foolish' to compare the behavior of homo sapien and other species in the animal kingdom should offer up a comparison he believes to be more relavant.

2 - There are several usages of the term 'moral'. It is unclear which this participant intends. Animals do have codes of behavior, which is one of the more common definitions for 'moral'. One who would claim that animals do not exhibit codes of behavior should offer up sufficient examples to demonstrate the point or prove the premise.

 

[Ray]

This comment is really outside the domain of this thread, I think.

However, I will address a couple of points.

1 - The homo sapien is not mineral, and is not plant. The species is 'animal' in all manners of understaning matter...

The start of this line was an "appeal to authority" made earlier, someone mentioned that a particular behavior was observed by animals in nature and therefore okay for the human animal.

 

[michaeledward]

Ray, I don't understand which line you are referencing as an 'appeal to authority'?

Certainly, the statement of fact that homo sapiens are animal does not require any belief in any authority. You are not arguing the contrary, are you?

Can you help me understand what you mean?

 

[Ray]

Ray, I don't understand which line you are referencing as an 'appeal to authority'?

Certainly, the statement of fact that homo sapiens are animal does not require any belief in any authority. You are not arguing the contrary, are you?

Can you help me understand what you mean?

Post 685, paragraph 1.

"I don't remember quantifying ANY sexual orientation as "good and natural". My point is that homosexual activity exists in the natural world, in species across the board. If the "animal species" that is Homo sapien produces the occasional homosexual, as do other species, who are we to judge such a person as good & natural, or bad and unnatural? "

 

[michaeledward]

Wether the poster - Big Don - made his statement as a rebuttal to another claim or not, his statement says what it says. In that statement, he seems to be implying that homo sapiens are not animals. That argument is not a strong argument.

And, I do not see Doc Jude's statement as an appeal to authority. I'm wondering what authority you think he is calling upon?

Really, this last couple of pages of discussion should be taking place under one of the religious threads, because the arguments are being made, as I think you pointed out earlier, Ray, are religious in nature. Perhaps some of the new posters believe that one of the political parties in our country has more relevance to religion than the other.

 

[Big Don]

This comment is really outside the domain of this thread, I think.

However, I will address a couple of points.

1 - The homo sapien is not mineral, and is not plant. The species is 'animal' in all manners of understaning matter. One who would claim that it is 'patently foolish' to compare the behavior of homo sapien and other species in the animal kingdom should offer up a comparison he believes to be more relavant.

2 - There are several usages of the term 'moral'. It is unclear which this participant intends. Animals do have codes of behavior, which is one of the more common definitions for 'moral'. One who would claim that animals do not exhibit codes of behavior should offer up sufficient examples to demonstrate the point or prove the premise.

Wether the poster - Big Don - made his statement as a rebuttal to another claim or not, his statement says what it says. In that statement, he seems to be implying that homo sapiens are not animals. That argument is not a strong argument.

And, I do not see Doc Jude's statement as an appeal to authority. I'm wondering what authority you think he is calling upon?

Really, this last couple of pages of discussion should be taking place under one of the religious threads, because the arguments are being made, as I think you pointed out earlier, Ray, are religious in nature. Perhaps some of the new posters believe that one of the political parties in our country has more relevance to religion than the other.

The idea that all of mankind are animals is true...to a point. Are animals held to the same standards as humans? Are humans free to ignore laws and run amok, the way animals do? Do humans urinate on their food to keep others from eating it? Do humans eat their young? Kill their mates? Are animals arrested and tried when they do these things, of course not. You can compare the two until you are blue in the face, and then, you will still be wrong. There is a difference. Animals are not expected to have civilized behavior. Someone pointed out that animals engage in homosexual acts, I pointed out that animals engage in a plethora of actions that are not tolerated by civilization. The idea that because animals do something it is good and right to do is ignorant. Some animals, as was stated before, eat their young, pee on their dinner, and otherwise act like the animals they are, do you really want anarchy? Should there be total hedonism? Or is the rule of law important? Is civilization overly limiting?

 

[Big Don]

Male animals also initiate sex with female animals with no consent, does that mean rape is acceptable?