Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon  by using other constructs, such as psychological and evolutionary constructs, or the effect it has on society and other individuals within it. but wait, these are just theories arent they, so they dont count !! |
Right. They don't. Homosexuality, zoophilia, and pedo would be illogical from a natural point of view regardless of whether a society accepts them. And depending on the time period, they all have had some level of acceptance. Which evolutionary constructs includes homosexuality as normal but not the other two. I'd like to see that.
Quote:
|
biological differences were the major argument for the inferiority of blacks for centuries. and there ARE biological differences between blacks and whites. but this does not mean one is normal and one is degenerate. the concept of variety being the norm rather than a specific ideal individual being the norm appears to be beyond your grasp.
|
Differences between blacks as whites yup. But wouldn't that be the same between whites and any other race as well? See when you do that, you are making white people look like freaks. Since they are proclaiming to be different than any other race. Obviously that's not necessarily the case. There no specific quality that makes white people the "master race" of the planet. Especially when "race" can be bred out like a breed of dog. Most of the world is mongrel. Unfortunately for the homosexual, there are obvious other human defects yet only two genders and an obvious sexual orientation that the only two genders should orient. Race and homosexuality are in no way alike and any comparison is specious.
Quote:
|
because the evidence shows that the underlying drives and psychology is different, that the impact on society and individuals is vastly different, that the genetics and evolutionary support for one does not follow to the other.
|
There is no proven genetic support for homosexuality yet. There are studies across a couple species that indicate it might be prenatal hormone related. Which would explain the differences in gay twins.
Quote:
|
urges can be compelled by very different things
|
Such as???
Quote:
|
societies have been created for many reasons, natural or unnatural.
|
Very true. That's why I don't use "society" as my standard for deeming homosexuality aberrant.
Quote:
|
nature is very variable. different animals have evolved in different ways. among some animals, sex with their offspring is quite normal and quite healthy. among others it is not. some species are able to reproduce with themselves. the argument regarding nature is not that "it happens in nature therefore it must be the right thing to do". if this were the argument, we would be able to say humans should be eating their own children, having dozens of kids in each litter and never seeing one child again once the next child comes along. the argument is sex in nature is not as simple as something we do to make babies. particularly among social species, evolution uses sex for multiple reasons. we are a naturally evolved species, and this applies to us too. get your mind around this idea.
|
Nice paragraph. But it goes nowhere to explain why a human or any other species would be gay. It just rationalizes it compared to other f'd up behavior. The problem with that is that we are looking a "behavior". Who know "why" a bonobo has sex with their young, who knows why tigers eat cubs, who knows why dolphins screw each other in the blowhole. But with humans we can look at ourselves and see that having sex children, other species, and same gendered is a bit off as it relates to our evolved bodies. Some humans "choose" to have alternative sexual activities. But homosexuals claim to have the innate partnering urge pointed toward their same gender. That's f'd up. One thing about human intelligent is the ability to look at things and see that they are illogical. And to MANY people, looking at same gendered sexual activity is f'd up along the same lines as the other mentioned sexual deviant urges.
Quote:
|
not quite sure what you mean here. sordid, perhaps?
|
It has a LONG and storied human history.
Quote:
there are lots of biological and social phenomena that are pervasive among humans. some are natural, some are abnormalities, some are biologically determined variations, some are social constructions.
you seem to be saying that if it is widespread but uncommon it is abnormal and dysfunctional every time. life is more complicated than that. how many times do i have to tell you this??
|
That's not what I'm saying. You'll do better just addressing the point as you understand it instead of telling me what I'm thinking.
Quote:
|
you fail to see lots of things. they have been illuminated for your benefit, but your failure seems to be something you are actively fostering.
|
Nothing has been illuminated yet since there is nothing to illuminate. Scientists don't have a clue. And since negative research on homosexuality gets scientists in trouble the same way negative racial research does, if the answer paints homosexuality in a negative light, I don't see the anything useful coming out any time soon.
But telling me that you have somehow "illuminated" something is the same bullshit as the "circular argument" and "I've shown proof" is. And those have been shown to be lies as well. WTF ever.