Topic awaiting preservation: The Christian Paradox (Page 3 of 7)

Having gone back to read further -

quote:

---

I just felt you came off a bit pushy with, "Asked and answered".

---

However you wish to take it, this statement very simply illustrated the fact that you asked a question, were given a simple answer, and rather than address the answer, you attacked something else.

quote:

---

I guess once a point is made here, no one wishes that it be questioned.

---

And simply reading the posts here will show that this view is very far off.

quote:

---

I'm sorry I got a bit defensive with you DL.

---

This is unexpected, and I appreicate the thought.

quote:

---

but here I see no one budging on the idea that animals CAN NOT do what we think they can, when it comes to emotion.

---

This is becuase of many things.

1) nobody has clearly defined here what exactly the scope of the 'love' in this conversation is, so there isn't a clear boundry to argue

2) no evidence of any kind has been offered to suggest that animals cannot love - you made the assertion, and that is all.

Your assertion is not going to make people 'budge' on the idea.

quote:

---

I can quote web pag after page all day all if people like. And when it's relevant I will.

---

Obviously throwing out meritless quotes will acheive nothing. Nobody has suggested this course of action.

quote:

---

But here, and most resarch does not swing the answer..

---

Again, you cite research, but offer nothing to back up your assertion.

quote:

---

towards a 100% scientific factual agreement. Yet all of the answers to me were. How can that be. Am I researching from a different part of the web, that no one has access to?

---

And very few things will ever achieve "a 100% scientific factual agreement". That's not the point. THe only point, really, is that you seem to simply scorn the idea that animals may engage in homosexual behavior, or form homosexual relationships.
It is a fact that animals can be readily observed engaging in homosexual acts, and have been found, in somce cases, to form homosexual relationships.

If you have some evidence available to you that refutes this, then by all means, share it.

But simply saying that it isn't true, or that we don't know enough, isn't going to make people change their mind, when evidence to support it has been presented.

quote:

---

Since the scientific community's "jury" is still out on this one,

---

On what do you base this??

quote:

---

then how is it that the majority cites the opposite to be true? I, again, can only associate this to their beliefs.

---

The only sources I have ever seen that do not support the idea of animals forming homosexual relationships are opinion peices based on religious belief and pure conjecture.

Again - if you something else, share it.

And to the point - I have seen video documentaries on both the Bono apes and Ginnea pigs (that also seem to "enjoy" the same sex) - indeed they were engaged in sexual intercourse with the same sex. It is pretty difficult to refute video evidence - one has to discredit the video itself or be able to established that the animals were somehow influenced through human intent. And the more video footage from different sources that show the same types of homosexual activity, the harder it is to discredit the video itself. As for staged scenes, the more one takes a look at who is doing the documentaries, and under what conditions (especially those filmed in the wild), it becomes harder to point to what may be human interference.

Then comes the part of attempting to interprete the actions of the animals in question. Maybe they are instinctually reacting to certain phermones and that is prompting their activity - after all, research into the area of pheremones, especially where animals of the higher kindgdoms are concerned (including humans) is a relatively new science.

But if we reduce Homosexual activity to its base meaning - which is sex with the same sex - and let us further refine it in the case of animals to be intercourse between same sex animals, then the hard evidence is overwhelming (and among scientific circles, recognized) that in some species of animal, this type of activity is commonplace.

DL, very cordial. Even a bit of C. Criticism. Thanks.

Maybe this deserves it's own thread?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:But if we reduce Homosexual activity to its base meaning - which is sex
with the same sex - and let us further refine it in the case of animals to be intercourse between same sex animals, then the hard evidence is overwhelming (and among scientific circles, recognized) that in some
species of animal, this type of activity is commonplace.

---

This I can agree with, BUT an animals behavior is again a behavior displayed by [b]animals[/]b, and perceived by humans. can you fathom the difference?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The behavious os OBSERVED by humans as it is taking place. It is not a matter of perception at all.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

can you fathom the difference?

---

Obviously I can. Can you?

I have pointed (as mentioned above) to the observances - I purposely left out perception.

As DL has pointed out before, my "smartass remarks" are unbecoming of a poster who wants to be taken seriously.
I again got outta hand there, with my "can you fathom". I'm trying to keep them out of my responses, but it might take some time.

Human behavior is a science more researched than animal behavior. And applying that knowledge when observing animals, is only a "comparative possibility", not a true factual representation. Because we can not ASK the animals if we are right with our assertions, we can only ASSUME our observations to be correct.

Here's one link, which has some good ideas about the scientific dangers surrounding this issue.
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

" The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach. "

" Not that there's anything wrong with that. "

(Edited by Zynx on 08-23-2005 16:41)

Well, if that if what you are relying upon, small wonder you present a xian-centric face.

That article writer is clearly determined to prove the right-wing xian viewpoint and so has no credibility what-so-ever!

I mentioned earlier in thse pages that 'same-sex' activity would be a more accurate description than homosexual activity between animals.

In fact 'same-sex' activity can also be applied to homo sap.

But to try to continue to educate you, when the activity is observed taking place, that is fact, not opinion or 'perception'.

I cannot fathom why you are being so obtuse on this matter of observation and trying to suggest it is not what it is, unless it is to further your xian viewpoint.

You really do appear foolish with this insistence.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

I mentioned earlier in thse pages that 'same-sex' activity would be a more accurate description than homosexual activity between animals.

---

Of course, 'homosexual' means literally 'same-sex' so that consession is wholly unnecessary.

Zynx - it seems to me you have your reasoning entirely backwards.

We are talking about the very basic fact that animals do indeed angage in homosexual behavior. Regardless of connotation, perception, or anything else - we see it happen. We see both purely sexual behavior, like two male cats or dogs locked up in a house together, nailing each other for kicks 9or whatever other reason there may be), and we see things like swans in boston forming 'lesbian' relationships - mating for long term with other females, and we've seen the same apparent behavior between male dolphins.

However, it seems that you are trying to apply a particular human characteristic to the behavior - which, you are right, we *can't* entirely explain or understand at the moment - based soley on what your perception of the human version of the behavior is, and using that forced connotation to say that it doesn't happen the "we" think.

Do you see how that kind of logic is completely backwards?

I hate to be petty, but..."ho·mo·sex·u·al Listen: [ hm-sksh-l, -m- ]
adj.

Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex".

Note the use of the word 'persons'.

Otherwise, you is dead on!

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

"'Homosexuality' in the animal kingdom is simply something we don't have enough knowledge about to know whether or not it is true"

So, now we dont know what the "natural law" is then?
Oy, this is not going well for the gay-bashing christians at all, is it?
- Just give it up, it's not affecting you anyway.
There are enough "serious" sins out there to fight and defeat, not to waste time with this pointless crap of an argument.
You remind me of the Chicago mafia and the probation years, where the cops prefered to go after minor crimes rather that attack the real problems, because they where afraid, plain and simple.

So, is that the problem here - fear?

(^-^)b

diogenesis - Yes, but the literal translated meaning, and the human-perception-influenced dictionary definition are two different things

Especially as each dictionary will provide different definitions, since dictionaries are based mostly on word usage rather than original meaning.

Just to be petty some more

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-23-2005 20:32)

Once it's proven that nature is irrational, one cannot use it as an argument against homosexuality as an expression of love for another human being any more.
You must instead "prove" that it's somehow inappropiate or 'evil' to love someone of the same sex.
Note that I wrote "love" and not "f#ck" - sex is not required, but often follows feelings of love because of the natural associations thereof.
If two people love eachother, sex eventually comes into play, and therein lies the problem, as it's very difficult to claim that love - honest feelings of good will towards someone else - is somehow against Gods law.
If you are a stonecold emotionless robot, you don't belong with the human race to begin with, and if are not, you must surely understand the argument, whatever you may think of it.
Personally, I've never loved a guy, but I'm not sure that this is a good thing.
It simply means that I've never liked anyone of the same sex enough to even consider such a thing, and that's almost kinda sad, thinking that all my male pals are superficial relations in some sense, which I might have or loose without much sorrow.
- I think I might be just a tad bit emotionless, but some aren't, and why should I mess with that?
- Good for them if they find someone watching their back to such a degree, especially in this crappy world.

(^-^)b

Hmmm... this thread is supposed to be about the Christian paradox:

quote:

---

And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior.

---

How do homosexual animals relate to this? Are American animals more homosexual than animals from other countries?

quote:

---

Zynx - it seems to me you have your reasoning entirely backwards.We are talking about the very basic fact that animals do indeed angage in homosexual behavior. Regardless of connotation, perception, or anything else - we see it happen. We see both purely sexual behavior, like two male cats or dogs locked up in a house together, nailing each other for kicks 9or whatever other reason there may be), and we see things like swans in boston forming 'lesbian' relationships - mating for long term with other females, and we've seen the same apparent behavior between male dolphins.However, it seems that you are trying to apply a particular human characteristic to the behavior - which, you are right, we *can't* entirely explain or understand at the moment - based soley on what your perception of the human version of the behavior is, and using that forced connotation to say that it doesn't happen the "we" think.Do you see how that kind of logic is completely backwards?

---

Ohhhhhhhhhh. Thank you for clearly that up. Seems I am debating from the "apples" side, and others from the "oranges" side. I see I see.

Well then I would ask you, do you think the creation of the terminology "homosexual" was by man interpreting an animals sexual behavior? Meaning is the idea of being "homsexual", based on the behavior of animals, or man?

And while animals exhibit the ACT of having sex with the same sex, this does not mean they are, in man's terms, "gay". Yes the ACTS themselves are attributable to homosexual sex, but that does not mean that mans idea of homosexual sex, and an animals idea of homosexual sex are one in the same. I can't even imagine an animal understanidng what WE mean by being homosexual, which again harbors back to emotions animals have and don't have.

"which again harbors back to emotions animals have and don't have"

I initiated the "gay animal" aspect to show that the often referred to "natural law" is a complete hoax.
- There is none.
You prove it further, by showing that those types of arguments are useless, since animals view things very differently from humans, just as you say in the above quote.
So, what's the argument?
It's unatural? It's natural? What?

And it's still a waste of time to argue the issue either way.

(^-^)b

Getting back on track again - I wanted to address this

quote:

---

These days no one is pressured, ridiculed, beaten, killed in the name of Christianity in the days of old.

---

with this Broadcaster in Trouble For Comments

Anyone remember Pat Robertson? Well - let us take a look at what this nut is suggesting (and remember - he was a contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988)

quote:

---

Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas.

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson told viewers on his "The 700 Club" show Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." Watch video of Robertson's comments

---

quote:

---

Robertson's comments Monday were the latest in a string of controversial remarks in recent years by the religious broadcaster and founder of the Christian Coalition.

Last October, during the heat of the presidential race, Robertson told CNN that during a meeting with President Bush before the invasion of Iraq, the president told him he did not believe there would be casualties. The White House strongly denied the claim.

In May, during an ABC interview, Robertson ignited a firestorm with his response to a question about whether activist judges were more of a threat to America than terrorists.

"If they look over the course of 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," he said.

Defending his remarks in a letter to Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Robertson insisted he was not being cavalier about the 9/11 attacks. But he also refused to apologize, saying Supreme Court rulings on abortion, religious expression in the public square, pornography and same-sex marriage "are all of themselves graver dangers in the decades to come than the terrorists which our great nation has defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq."

In October 2003, Robertson, criticizing the State Department during an interview on "The 700 Club," said "maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up," referring to the nickname for the department's headquarters in Washington.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher called the remark "despicable."

In July 2003, Robertson asked his audience to pray for three justices to retire from the Supreme Court so they could be replaced with more conservative jurists. "One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition," he said.

---

I think that the danger and threat from Xian extremists is very real, and should not be taken lightly.

Imagine what might have happened, had this kook gotten elected President.

quote:

---

I initiated the "gay animal" aspect to show that the often referred to "natural law" is a complete hoax. There is none. You prove it further, by showing that those types of arguments are useless, since animals view things very differently from humans, just as you say in the above quote. So, what's the argument? It's unatural? It's natural? What? And it's still a waste of time to argue the issue either way.

---

I am not debating the issue of "natural" or not. I was not asked that, nor did I explain my position on that idea.

I was debating the notion that just because we see animals act the way that they do, does not mean that their reasons are the same reasons as man. In that animals, while they do share many emotions that man has, does not mean that they think, respond, or feel, the same way we do, when they act as they do.


Sorry, Webshaman, good points!

"I am not debating the issue of "natural" or not. I was not asked that, nor did I explain my position on that idea."

Well, thanks for the helping argument anyway.
It finally helped turn a friend of mine over to the "good side".
- Live long and prosper. (^-^)y

(^-^)b

quote:

---

Well, thanks for the helping argument anyway.

---

Ok, I'm going to get hell for this, so I'll make it short.
What is "natural" to an animal in his world, is NOT always "natural" in mans world.

Nuts Zynx, if it is behavioural, it is natural, could be nought else.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Nuts Zynx, if it is behavioural, it is natural, could be nought else.

---

Diogenes, the "animal kingdom" has many, "natural" acts. The "human world", has many natural acts. They are not one-in-the-same. Many "natural" acts within the "animal kingdom" are animalisticly "natural". Many "natural" acts within the "animal kingdom", are not "natural" to man's idea of "natural".

Unless you think, "Infantcide" is "natural", for humans?

zynx - your circular logic and refusal to actually deal with the points made to you is rather tiresome.
It is completey pointless to continue a conversation in such a manner.

if, at some point, you feel like dealing with the points made (as opposed to simply changing your angle whenever a point is made), feel free...

(Edited by DL-44 on 08-24-2005 03:54)

Agreed. No interest in allowing him/herself to be confused by facts or reality.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

What do both of you require for a response to be acceptable in your mind(s)? I'm trying to figure out what if any change I need to make here.

First;

quote:

---

I am not debating the issue of "natural" or not. I was not asked that, nor did I explain my position on that idea.

---

Then this response.

quote:

---

Well, thanks for the helping argument anyway.

---

The issue of natural, or not, acts within the animal world, was left on the table.

Then this point made;

quote:

---

Nuts Zynx, if it is behavioural, it is natural, could be nought else.

---

My point.

quote:

---

Unless you think, "Infantcide" is "natural", for humans?

---

Now where did I go wrong in your mind(s)?

"Unless you think, 'Infantcide' is 'natural', for humans?"

No I dont, because it doesn't fit with our situation and survival needs, nor does incest.
It would cause genetical damages and make it harder to sustain a working community.
Homosexuality however have no obvious negative drawbacks, and does happen across a wide range of species, that have very little, if anything at all, in common.
This negates the belief that it would be related to specific conditions typical for any particular species.
It's assumed to be "natural" for humans because it's natural for a great number of species, some closely related to man.
Even if the support for this assumption can be regarded as "weak", the assumption that it would be "unatural" remains completely unsupported by anything - except by a belief taken out of thin air..

(^-^)b

I must disagree Amikael.

Infanticide is not uncommon among animals.

A mother may eat her offspring if she feels they are threatened. I have heard it theorized they may believe they should benefit front he protein rather than some predator. Though to think they analyze it that thoroughly would be unlikely.

In humans there may be many instinctual reasons for infanticide.

IE: Not enough food to sustain both a mother and child in times gone by. The mother, being a useful member of the tribe and expected to produce more offspring when needed, would be spared.

Incest too is a survival trait, it is only relatively recently the genetic concerns were understood.

In many past and current societies, incest is a cultural norm. One might recall the Hawiian culture which enjoyed a rich and happy culture, until the xians got there, which included incest.

It could also be seen as a survival trait in early societies which not only did not know better, but had a small population from which to choose mates.

Of course you are right in concluding 'conditions' do not lead to homosexuality. The practice has been with us since time immemorial and long before some religious nut decided he had the right to stick his nose in other people's lives.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

doublepost..

(Edited by amikael on 08-25-2005 20:07)

Tripplepost - this thing flipped out on me..

(Edited by amikael on 08-25-2005 20:09)

"In humans there may be many instinctual reasons for infanticide."
- and I wrote
"it doesn't fit with our situation and survival needs, nor does incest."
Infact, a version of the mad-cow desease strikes cannibals, and that is generally regarded as the main reason why this practice was abandoned by humans.
Eating your own proteins and dna tends to spawn prions..

(^-^)b

It may not fit with your view of our 'situation and survival needs', but it has in the past and I suggest it takes place today in some societies for the same reasons, prions not withstanding.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Evolution decides whats natural anyway, and it has removed the practice bit by bit due to these 'problems', so I guess it's all pretty self-explanatory.

(^-^)b

quote:

---

Infanticide is not uncommon among animals.

---

I agree Diogenes, but it is uncommon among humans.

Can we now all agree that what MAN perceives as, "natural", within the "animal kingdom", is NOT "natural" to us? No?

Better do a little research there Zynx. In parts of Asia they still expose female children and there are other current societies which, for a variety of reasons, still indulge in the practice of infanticide.

Early xians sometimes sacrificed their children to their god as well.

In fact the bible demanded it.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Can we now all agree that what MAN perceives as, "natural", within the "animal kingdom", is NOT "natural" to us? No?

---

based on....the statement you just made...? Is that what is supposed to suddenly make us agree??

No, we cannot make that over generalized blanket statement, as nothing is black and white here.

As has been discussed in the few previous posts, and as diogenesis explains nicely, it is *all* about circumstance.

In the modern world (which you must be reminded does not include all of the world simpyl by being in this time period), such things as infanticide are uncommon and viewed as purely uncivilized, barbarious, etc.

However, it has been common practice throughout the world in various time periods and various circumstances.

In ancient Rome, it was expected that if a child were born not to the liking of the father, it would be abandoned in the street (at birth). "not to the liking" could mean it was disformed, not the right gender, wasn't attractive enough, looked weak, or any other significant or ludicrously trivial thing that the father might not like.
In fact, up until the age of 12 years, the father still had the perfectly natural, accepted, legal option of killing the child for little or no real reason.

This was seen as both natural and good.

In connecticut, where I live, during the 17th and 18th centuries (at least...not sure when the law changed) a parent had the right - with the permission of the courts - kill a child up to the age of 16 for disobedience.

Now these are far away from the primitive picture dio paints with his statements - which are very valid and important to understand - and come from what were seen as very highly civilized areas in two very different time periods and and very different parts of the world, and with two very different religious views.

Then you have many circumstances of tribal arrangements, again throughout some very different time periods and geographical circumstances, where the leader will take exception for various reasons to the birth of child and require the death of the infant.

We have circumstances throughout these same varied time periods and locations where a mother cannot care for a child, and kills it to spare either it or herself, or her other children, or where a father will perform this act for the good of the family, or what have you.

The point, in a nutshell, is that while the modern view might be that the death of a newborn child is a horrible thing, history, psychology, and mere observance tells us that your assertion that is not natural for humans is quite incorrect. It would seem that it is all too natural, in fact.

It seems to me that what is natural is just that, regardless of being animal or human. However, differences can be established between instinctual and learned behavior. In all animals (to include humans), sex and the enjoyment of sex, are an instinctual way of life. In fact, until religions starting sprouting up suggesting how evil it was, homosexuality was commonplace among mankind. Religion is one of these un-instinctual learned behaviors, meaning that it cannot be considered natural.

Animals are capable themselves of having unnatural behavior, such as learning to sit and rollover. The fact that homosexuality arises among animals in the wild, shows that this is a natural occurance. Would it be possible for me to get an answer to this: If the religion did not say that homosexuality was wrong, would you still believe it is? And if so, why? Just curious to see an answer.

Some definitions:
natural
instinct
homosexual

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

A gay-male couple from the Manhattan, NY zoo:


I'm not joking Homosexuality in Animals

quote:

---

Homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 species

---

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

(Edited by Raeubu on 08-26-2005 09:15)

quote:

---

Can we now all agree that what MAN perceives as, "natural", within the "animal kingdom", is NOT "natural" to us? No?

---

I think both Diogenes and DL have pointed out the huge flaws in your reasoning, Zynx.

I am not certain 'reasoning' is the applicable word in this instance.

Perhaps one may be forgiven for concluding Zynx is arguing towards a pre-arrived conclusion and is unwilling to be distracted by fact and reality from arriving back at his starting point.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)