Nowhere357

You've already tried this defense, yguy, and it was refuted.

The activities you describe here - if performed by humans - clearly violates the rights of others. Homosexuality does not violate the rights of others.

It doesn't look good for your position when you play the game this way.

dk

Nowhere357: This information stands unrefuted. Homosexuality is natural and normal. What is not normal is human fixtation on, and intolerance of, normal human behavior.
dk: There’s nothing natural about anal sex, 1) the 250,000+ gays that died of an incident of MSM, and 2) the 500,000+ gays waiting to die of an incident of MSM make the point emphatically. The anonymous sex venues and pornographic landscapes that dominate gay communities reek with death and disease. What passes for normal in a gay communities “defines down deviance”. There’s nothing normal about a gay leadership that trades “sympathy for hiv/aids” for “political power and a quilt of deniability”. In gay communities there’s nothing normal about the resurgence of risky behaviors enabled by HAART treatments. There’s nothing normal about the transport of hiv/aids into high schools under the flagship of gay camaraderie, political power and gay tolerance.

I didn’t find the rest of your pseudo-scientific post interesting or relevant because…

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by dk
dk: Actually I have read you’re posts and they’ve made some good points.

Thank you.

In this instance your response was objectively unsupportable, so I assume it was meant as a political or personal statement of conviction.

Yes, it was based on my experience and the experience of those around me.

dk: Then I’m obliged to respect you as a women … Allow me the unwarranted question... Are you a woman?

Yes, indeed I am.

dk: If a gay or lesbian wants to become a parent then same sex attraction introduces a number of barriers. The barriers radiate to touch the natural father/co-mom/child||natural mother/co-dad/child… then extended family, courts, legislatures, schools, communities, culture and society.

We've already been through this in depth & we have different views and interpretations of the data, so I'm not going to get into again, if that's all right.

dk: Ok, can we agree that a person’s sexual orientation follows from an entailment of environment, and environment can be changed.

Yes, partially from environment, as far as I understand from current theory.

dk: Isn’t that what all this discussion boils down too, rules that govern the suitable treatment of people. In a rational sense, we can only understand one another by the rules that govern us.

I guess so.

Treacle Worshipper:
But I would never consider having a designer baby. I have strong objections to designer babies on other grounds. Any future child of mine is just going to have to run with the genes & environment I and any future partner provide.
dk: That’s pretty much how I feel.

OK

dk: It is an imposing question, for me too. It seems quite plausible to me that humanity is better off for its defects, and given human hubris perhaps what appear to be defects may actually be a life saver.

I agree. Genomes & environments (not just of humans but of other species) are so complex that one can't select solely against something one considers "negative"; one will also find one has also selected against other traits which may be considered "positive".
TW

Treacle Worshipper

"The implication of our finding is that the risk of sexually transmitted disease is likely to be a major factor leading to systematic differences in the primate immune system," Nunn says. "This puts the evolution of sexual behavior in close relation to the evolution of the immune system."”
----- Promiscuity May Be Key Factor In Immune System Evolution, Study Suggests :
© 1995-2002 ScienceDaily Magazine ; 2000-11-13

Forgive my ignorance, perhaps someone who knows about these things can answer this:

Doesn't the above mean that promiscuity is a "good" thing because it can strengthen the immune system? In that if you're exposed to more diseases you're more likely to develop resistance to them?

Or am I just completely misunderstanding it?

TW

yguy

It wasn't a defense, because I haven't proposed a thesis. You have, namely that what have heretofore been known as deviant behaviors may not properly be labelled as such because similar behaviors occur in other animals.

Whose rights does pedophilia violate if it happens between consenting parties? We have someone in this very forum claiming, probably correctly, that some children seek out sex with adults. How dare we deny such precocious children their right to sexual expression?

Whose rights are violated by public copulation? Do baboons do it in private? Who then are we to affect such pretentious modesty?

Nowhere357

So then there is nothing natural about eating, and the vast number of eaters who have died from food-borne illnesses make the point emphatically.

Your refutation fails.

Nowhere357

Technically you are correct - I was responding to your implied position, and I think you know that. Anyway, you claim here that homosexuality is known as deviant. I claim that it is not deviant - it is natural.

The question is not whether it has been known to be deviant, but whether it is deviant. When you argue against my position, you are seen as arguing that homosexuality IS deviant. If you don't wish to be misinterpreted, then you need specify your position with more clarity.

Children do not have the legal right to consent - for obvious reasons. Also, the issue is the deviancy of homosexuality, and not the sexuality of children. Your rebuttal fails.

It's called "civilization", yguy. And the question is whether homosexuality is deviant, not whether public copulation violates our rights, or whether baboons do it in private, or whether our modesty is pretentious. Unless you claim these questions illuminate your position, in which case they need more explanation, I think.

If you have support for your position, please produce it. These evasions are pointless, as far as I can tell.

yguy

On the basis of the article you posted, so is murder. Whether murder violates anyone's rights is a separate issue.

My position is that your foundational thesis is intellectually bankrupt.

Such as?

After all, are both the children and the adults not merely following their hardwired impulses?

No, the issue is whether superficial similiarities between animals and humans can properly be used to justify certain behaviors.

IOW, public copulation violates no one's rights. Since the desire to practice it is arguably hardwired into at least some people, it follows from your absurd premise that it should be decriminalized.

They are not meant to illuminate MY position, but to illuminate YOURS.

dk

I suppose the analogy would be to chew one's food with their anul sphincter valve. If the analogy sounds absurd its because its unnatural. You're free to try it, maybe you'll like it.

Nowhere357

"Murder" is a legal term. Animals don't murder each other. I suppose you mean "kill". Yes, killing is natural behavior. Which makes it neither right not wrong - as you admit here, we need to decide whether killing violates rights.

And so we must decide whether homosexuality violates rights. I say it doesn't - if you disagree, feel free to provide your reasons. I mean the reasons which haven't been refuted.

In what way is "homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom" and "homosexuality does not violate rights" intellectually bankrupt? I think you just made that up.

You know why children do not have legal right of consent. Yguy, this sounds evasive. Is evasiveness how you intend to support your position?

You really like strawmen, but I don't know why. They point to your lack of support.

No, the issue is the deviancy of homosexuality.

The only person who has claimed anything about "superficial similiarities between animals and humans" as justification for "certain behaviors" - is you! I claim only that this "certain behavior" naturally occurs - and you haven't disagreed with that.

That leaves the question of rights. Unless you think some other criteria is more valid, in which case perhaps you could illuminate us? Exactly what is it that supecedes our rights and responsibilities? What is it that you base your opinion on?

As I already pointed out, you have the premise wrong. I have made no claims based on that article other than "homosexuality is normal animal behavior". There is nothing a priori wrong or unusual about it.

So because it's normal, and because it violates no one's rights, there really is no reason to talk about this any more. Unless you actually HAVE a reason? Do you intend to actually offer any support for your position at all?

As far as I can tell, you are the only one who thought that "here is evidence that homosexuality occurs naturally throughout the animal kingdom" somehow implies that "therefore homosexuality is justified".

Do you claim homosexuality is deviant? Why?