Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Can a non-sentient being truly be homosexual?

ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 5:37:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I hear people claim all the time that animals can be homosexual, and I wonder, "What do they mean by "homosexual"?

Do they mean that given the choice of mating with either gender, the animal will most often prefer it's own gender? Or is the definition loose like, the animal attempts to mount another animal of its own gender?

Does not the sexual "preference" imply sentience? Will a male "homosexual" penguin forgo sex if placed in an enclosure with only females penguins? If you then placed another male into the enclosure, would he gravitate to that lone male and ignore the females?

I've seen videos of male dolphins trying to mount human men. I've seen dogs mount goats, and my wife's leg. What was that dog? What was that dolphin?

I think calling an animal "homosexual" is nothing but PC nonsense. An animal mates on instinct. It is not expressing choice. It has no real concept of gender.

But in order to bolster their claim that homosexuality is "natural", they have come up with this nonsensical idea. Sure, they will post "studies" which claim some animal had consistent sex with another animal of its own gender, but how is that proof of homosexuality? My friend had a dog which consistently humped the legs of his father, was the dog an inter-species homo? Please.

I just read an online article by a homosexual who did not believe homosexuals were "born that way". He opened his article by saying,.....

"Just because an argument my have political value to us, does not mean the argument is true. "

How right he is!

So where does this idea come from that animals can be homosexual? And why are so many people behaving like lemmings and believing it without one ounce of critical thought?
Pollux
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 5:48:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Animals commit homosexual acts. According to most people against homosexuality, that makes them homosexual.

I don't think so, though.

Bisexuals can select to have sex with either gender because both genders can arouse them.

Most people have no choice on what arouses them. What arouses them is their biology and conditioning as a child.

For myself, I cannot achieve arousal when considering sec with my own gender. With my gay friends, they cannot achieve aroussl with the opposite gender.

Hope that helps.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 8:49:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 5:37:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:
I hear people claim all the time that animals can be homosexual, and I wonder, "What do they mean by "homosexual"?

Do they mean that given the choice of mating with either gender, the animal will most often prefer it's own gender?

Occasionally.

Or is the definition loose like, the animal attempts to mount another animal of its own gender?

Again, occasionally.

Does not the sexual "preference" imply sentience?

No.

Will a male "homosexual" penguin forgo sex if placed in an enclosure with only females penguins?

Possibly.

If you then placed another male into the enclosure, would he gravitate to that lone male and ignore the females?

I think this has already been found in certain captive colonies.

I've seen videos of male dolphins trying to mount human men. I've seen dogs mount goats, and my wife's leg. What was that dog? What was that dolphin?

Attempting to assert dominance, genuinely confused about its choice of mate, or what its own specie was, attempting to demonstrate itself as submissive to a pack leader, etc etc.

I think calling an animal "homosexual" is nothing but PC nonsense. An animal mates on instinct. It is not expressing choice. It has no real concept of gender.

Possibly. But then what reason to you think such 'instincts' (toward the same gender) are not present in humans?

But in order to bolster their claim that homosexuality is "natural", they have come up with this nonsensical idea. Sure, they will post "studies" which claim some animal had consistent sex with another animal of its own gender, but how is that proof of homosexuality? My friend had a dog which consistently humped the legs of his father, was the dog an inter-species homo? Please.

Your anecdote sort of violates the experiment, and its "proof" by indication that indeed such instinct exists.

I just read an online article by a homosexual who did not believe homosexuals were "born that way". He opened his article by saying,.....

"Just because an argument my have political value to us, does not mean the argument is true. "

How right he is!

So varieties of other animals can be born with homosexual tendency, BUT, humans cannot have them instinctually because some guy says so.

Interesting.

So where does this idea come from that animals can be homosexual?

Observed behavior.

And why are so many people behaving like lemmings and believing it without one ounce of critical thought?

Because its hard to argue with observed behavior.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 9:10:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
In the animal kingdom females gravitate towards the leaders of the pack. It is called sexual selection. This is a way of guaranteeing their offsprings will be the fittest. The weaker males are forced to come up with their own devices since the females in the pack reject them. Homosexual behaviour is found in many species of animals.
Humans do not have the same pecking order as animals. But they have the same need to bond and seek companionship.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 3:27:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 8:49:04 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/21/2015 5:37:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:
I hear people claim all the time that animals can be homosexual, and I wonder, "What do they mean by "homosexual"?

Do they mean that given the choice of mating with either gender, the animal will most often prefer it's own gender?

Occasionally.

Untrue. Most animals have a mating "season" and will attempt to mate with whatever is available during that time. They do not "choose" a gender in any meaningful sense of the word.

Or is the definition loose like, the animal attempts to mount another animal of its own gender?

Again, occasionally.

Then it is an incorrect use of the word homosexual.

Does not the sexual "preference" imply sentience?

No.

Then it isn't sexual, it is instinctual.

Will a male "homosexual" penguin forgo sex if placed in an enclosure with only females penguins?

Possibly.

Abiogenesis is also "possible". Say something with informational value.

If you then placed another male into the enclosure, would he gravitate to that lone male and ignore the females?

I think this has already been found in certain captive colonies.

I have not come across a single instance of such. Can you cite one?

I've seen videos of male dolphins trying to mount human men. I've seen dogs mount goats, and my wife's leg. What was that dog? What was that dolphin?

Attempting to assert dominance, genuinely confused about its choice of mate, or what its own specie was, attempting to demonstrate itself as submissive to a pack leader, etc etc.

But when the same male dog or dolphin tries to mount another male dog or dolphin, suddenly he's homosexual?

I think calling an animal "homosexual" is nothing but PC nonsense. An animal mates on instinct. It is not expressing choice. It has no real concept of gender.

Possibly. But then what reason to you think such 'instincts' (toward the same gender) are not present in humans?

The instincts are not towards the same gender. In animals, they are simply towards sex. That is why a dog in heat will attempt to mount a goat or a human. The animal does not have a concept of gender. It is hormonal and instinctual. Sprinkle some female canine pheromones on a sofa, and male doge will mount it.

But in order to bolster their claim that homosexuality is "natural", they have come up with this nonsensical idea. Sure, they will post "studies" which claim some animal had consistent sex with another animal of its own gender, but how is that proof of homosexuality? My friend had a dog which consistently humped the legs of his father, was the dog an inter-species homo? Please.

Your anecdote sort of violates the experiment, and its "proof" by indication that indeed such instinct exists.

Consistency is called for. If one will claim a dog is "homosexual" because it mounts another male dog, why isn't it pansexual if it tries to mount another species? What is the underlying logic system used to claim the dog is homosexual?

I just read an online article by a homosexual who did not believe homosexuals were "born that way". He opened his article by saying,.....

"Just because an argument my have political value to us, does not mean the argument is true. "

How right he is!

So varieties of other animals can be born with homosexual tendency, BUT, humans cannot have them instinctually because some guy says so.

Sigh. No animal is born with homosexual tendencies. Humans have the ability to NOT be governed by their instincts. The guy is saying that arguments are not right because you like them, or because they aid your personal position. He made no comment about whether animals can be homosexual.

Interesting.

You usually find your own positions interesting. I just wish you'd write in such a way that they didn't seem to be my positions.

So where does this idea come from that animals can be homosexual?

Observed behavior.

Homosexuality is not "sex with ones own gender". Homosexuality is sexual attraction to ones own gender. Animals do not have a concept of gender. They are sexually attracted based on chemicals given off by other animals. The right chemical will attract the animal regardless of the gender or species of the source.

And why are so many people behaving like lemmings and believing it without one ounce of critical thought?

Because its hard to argue with observed behavior.

Except when its 300+ years of observation of life only from life. In that case, observation be damned. Press on for abiogenesis.

Life only from life 100% of the time doesn't assist your worldview, so the consistent observation there is ignored. But male dogs mounting male dogs 2% of the time instantly becomes rock solid evidence that homosexuality is natural. Just a coincidence that that nugget does agree with your worldview.

Ok.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 3:46:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I hear people claim all the time that animals can be homosexual, and I wonder, "What do they mean by "homosexual"?

Do they mean that given the choice of mating with either gender, the animal will most often prefer it's own gender?

Occasionally.

Untrue. Most animals have a mating "season" and will attempt to mate with whatever is available during that time. They do not "choose" a gender in any meaningful sense of the word.

Bold sounds a little... I dunno... subjective to me. I fail to see how "occasionally" doesn't apply. If both genders are present and both genders are used, it seems an apt word, especially if such a season is not the only time mating occurs.


Or is the definition loose like, the animal attempts to mount another animal of its own gender?

Again, occasionally.

Then it is an incorrect use of the word homosexual.

Homosexual is preference for the same gender as we are using it, what would you propose in its stead?

Does not the sexual "preference" imply sentience?

No.

Then it isn't sexual, it is instinctual.

okay.... and? I am not certain how both sexualities couldn't be employed, and some via preference. You asked if preference implied sentience, I wasn't aware preference was part of sentience. I have seen various animals pick and choose what they eat for a meal, such exercise is preference, I don't think it implied sentience.

Will a male "homosexual" penguin forgo sex if placed in an enclosure with only females penguins?

Possibly.

Abiogenesis is also "possible". Say something with informational value.

Ask questions with informational value, or something that doesn't rely upon your ignorance of a subject to be salient.

If you then placed another male into the enclosure, would he gravitate to that lone male and ignore the females?

I think this has already been found in certain captive colonies.

I have not come across a single instance of such. Can you cite one?

I think it was Roy and Silo, https://en.wikipedia.org...


I've seen videos of male dolphins trying to mount human men. I've seen dogs mount goats, and my wife's leg. What was that dog? What was that dolphin?

Attempting to assert dominance, genuinely confused about its choice of mate, or what its own specie was, attempting to demonstrate itself as submissive to a pack leader, etc etc.

But when the same male dog or dolphin tries to mount another male dog or dolphin, suddenly he's homosexual?

Or could still be asserting dominance, still confused as to what our and its specie is, still wanting to submit to a pack leader, etc. I don't think animals view sexuality exactly as humans do, which lends my answers to have a lot of " ly " words.

I think calling an animal "homosexual" is nothing but PC nonsense. An animal mates on instinct. It is not expressing choice. It has no real concept of gender.

Possibly. But then what reason to you think such 'instincts' (toward the same gender) are not present in humans?

The instincts are not towards the same gender. In animals, they are simply towards sex. That is why a dog in heat will attempt to mount a goat or a human. The animal does not have a concept of gender.

Or apparently specie.

It is hormonal and instinctual. Sprinkle some female canine pheromones on a sofa, and male doge will mount it.

I can see that, sure. But that in mind, you are chemically inducing a predictable reaction, and then seeming shocked when the chemical reaction induces said reaction.

But in order to bolster their claim that homosexuality is "natural", they have come up with this nonsensical idea. Sure, they will post "studies" which claim some animal had consistent sex with another animal of its own gender, but how is that proof of homosexuality? My friend had a dog which consistently humped the legs of his father, was the dog an inter-species homo? Please.

Your anecdote sort of violates the experiment, and its "proof" by indication that indeed such instinct exists.

Consistency is called for. If one will claim a dog is "homosexual" because it mounts another male dog, why isn't it pansexual if it tries to mount another species? What is the underlying logic system used to claim the dog is homosexual?

Then we would need to analyze the subject. Extracting meaningful answers from animals about their sexual preference seems to be a bit tough, currently. In your example, I would be more interested if it was the same gender across specie.

I just read an online article by a homosexual who did not believe homosexuals were "born that way". He opened his article by saying,.....

"Just because an argument my have political value to us, does not mean the argument is true. "

How right he is!

So varieties of other animals can be born with homosexual tendency, BUT, humans cannot have them instinctually because some guy says so.

Sigh. No animal is born with homosexual tendencies. Humans have the ability to NOT be governed by their instincts. The guy is saying that arguments are not right because you like them, or because they aid your personal position. He made no comment about whether animals can be homosexual.

Interesting.

You usually find your own positions interesting. I just wish you'd write in such a way that they didn't seem to be my positions.

So where does this idea come from that animals can be homosexual?

Observed behavior.

Homosexuality is not "sex with ones own gender". Homosexuality is sexual attraction to ones own gender.

And this is usually, USUALLY identified by choice of partner. However with out the ability to volunteer that information, and because these are animals, its very difficult information to extract.

Animals do not have a concept of gender. They are sexually attracted based on chemicals given off by other animals. The right chemical will attract the animal regardless of the gender or species of the source.

So if homosexuality is simply the attraction, and according to you its chemically based, I am still not seeing how this some how alleviates homosexuality in humans: the attraction is present.

And why are so many people behaving like lemmings and believing it without one ounce of critical thought?

Because its hard to argue with observed behavior.

Except when its 300+ years of observation of life only from life. In that case, observation be damned. Press on for abiogenesis.

Origins of life wasn't part of the discussion here, Ethan. Gender on same gender interactions have been observed, I think we can both agree with that.

Life only from life 100% of the time doesn't assist your worldview, so the consistent observation there is ignored.

Because it wasn't present in your argument to now, just sort of tacked on, and I am still not sure why.

But male dogs mounting male dogs 2% of the time instantly becomes rock solid evidence that homosexuality is natural. Just a coincidence that that nugget does agree with your worldview.

Even though it occurs. <----- that is the part you need to dispel, not frequency or result of it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 4:01:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 5:37:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:

I think calling an animal "homosexual" is nothing but PC nonsense. An animal mates on instinct. It is not expressing choice. It has no real concept of gender.

I am confused. Do humans also not possess instinctual attributes that result in heterosexuality or homosexuality?

I have always viewed homosexuality as a feeling or preference of sorts. For example, I prefer certain tastes of food over others. To a degree, I do have some control over this. Likewise, I do have a degree of control over sexual preference; however, it seems to largely be controlled by genetic and/or environmental factors. Just as I can force myself to eat disgusting things, I can likewise force myself to engage in sexual activities I am not attracted to. This doesn't change my preferences, of course. I do not seem to choose how I feel about these preferences, even if I do have a degree of control over them.

Likewise, an animal, which possesses lower intellectual power as compared to humans, would act based on it's feelings or instincts. Unlike animals, however, humans are not complete slaves to their desires. We are capable of transcending this boundary and controlling our desires. This, in part, is what makes us human.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 4:52:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 3:46:42 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I hear people claim all the time that animals can be homosexual, and I wonder, "What do they mean by "homosexual"?

Do they mean that given the choice of mating with either gender, the animal will most often prefer it's own gender?

Occasionally.

Untrue. Most animals have a mating "season" and will attempt to mate with whatever is available during that time. They do not "choose" a gender in any meaningful sense of the word.

Bold sounds a little... I dunno... subjective to me. I fail to see how "occasionally" doesn't apply. If both genders are present and both genders are used, it seems an apt word, especially if such a season is not the only time mating occurs.

It isn't true choice.

Or is the definition loose like, the animal attempts to mount another animal of its own gender?

Again, occasionally.

Then it is an incorrect use of the word homosexual.

Homosexual is preference for the same gender as we are using it, what would you propose in its stead?

Instinct. A choice for ones own gender requires a concept of gender. The male dog mounting another male does not know of care (and thus does not prefer) that his object of lust is male. He is operating on instinct.

Does not the sexual "preference" imply sentience?

No.

Then it isn't sexual, it is instinctual.

okay.... and?

Then it isn't choice and cannot correctly be called homosexuality.

You asked if preference implied sentience, I wasn't aware preference was part of sentience.

I did not say preference was part of sentience. But sexual preference requires sentience.

I have seen various animals pick and choose what they eat for a meal, such exercise is preference, I don't think it implied sentience.

Because that isn't true preference. You don't even know if it is preference. Were we able to ask the animal why he picked this over that, his answer could well be, "I don't know" or "I was going eat both and just took this one first." It certainly isn't sexual preference.

Will a male "homosexual" penguin forgo sex if placed in an enclosure with only females penguins?

Possibly.

Abiogenesis is also "possible". Say something with informational value.

Ask questions with informational value, or something that doesn't rely upon your ignorance of a subject to be salient.

Questions are requests for information. Answers should contain them. If you don't know something, it isn't a crime to say you don't know.

If you then placed another male into the enclosure, would he gravitate to that lone male and ignore the females?

I think this has already been found in certain captive colonies.

I have not come across a single instance of such. Can you cite one?

I think it was Roy and Silo, https://en.wikipedia.org...

Roy and Silo (born 1987) are chinstrap penguins who were a same sex male pair in New York City's Central Park Zoo. They were noted by staff at the zoo in 1998 to be performing mating rituals, although no actual sexual acts were witnessed,...

So this seems like a social preference, not a sexual one.

Like many couples, Roy and Silo drifted apart after several years, and in 2005 Silo paired with a female penguin called Scrappy.

Did Silo lose his "taste" for males? Was he bi? Note that Silo and Scrappy had both sex and children.

Roy and Silo met at the zoo and they began their relationship in 1998, and although staff never saw them in a sexual act, they were observed conducting other mating rituals typical of their species including entwining their necks and mating calls.

But no sex. Wonder why, if they were homosexual that is? In fact, no penguin is said to have had homosexual sex in the entire article. Penguins are special in that both males and females incubate eggs. How are two males who go into their routine instinct at an egg - homosexual? This is yet again liberals bending the truth to fit their worldview.

I've seen videos of male dolphins trying to mount human men. I've seen dogs mount goats, and my wife's leg. What was that dog? What was that dolphin?

Attempting to assert dominance, genuinely confused about its choice of mate, or what its own specie was, attempting to demonstrate itself as submissive to a pack leader, etc etc.

But when the same male dog or dolphin tries to mount another male dog or dolphin, suddenly he's homosexual?

Or could still be asserting dominance, still confused as to what our and its specie is, still wanting to submit to a pack leader, etc. I don't think animals view sexuality exactly as humans do, which lends my answers to have a lot of " ly " words.

lol. Yet you are ready to claim the animals are homosexual. "...animals [don't] view sexuality exactly as humans do,..."

You don't say? How do they "view" sexuality?

I think calling an animal "homosexual" is nothing but PC nonsense. An animal mates on instinct. It is not expressing choice. It has no real concept of gender.

Possibly. But then what reason to you think such 'instincts' (toward the same gender) are not present in humans?

The instincts are not towards the same gender. In animals, they are simply towards sex. That is why a dog in heat will attempt to mount a goat or a human. The animal does not have a concept of gender.

Or apparently specie.

Do you think animals have a concept of specie?

It is hormonal and instinctual. Sprinkle some female canine pheromones on a sofa, and male doge will mount it.

I can see that, sure. But that in mind, you are chemically inducing a predictable reaction, and then seeming shocked when the chemical reaction induces said reaction.

No shock. I am saying sprinkling female canine pheromones on a male dog is not homosexuality when another male dog mounts him. That is what libs are trying to say.

...in order to bolster their claim that homosexuality is "natural", they have come up with this nonsensical idea. Sure, they will post "studies" which claim some animal had consistent sex with another animal of its own gender, but how is that proof of homosexuality? My friend had a dog which consistently humped the legs of his father, was the dog an inter-species homo? Please.

Your anecdote sort of violates the experiment, and its "proof" by indication that indeed such instinct exists.

Consistency is called for. If one will claim a dog is "homosexual" because it mounts another male dog, why isn't it pansexual if it tries to mount another species? What is the underlying logic system used to claim the dog is homosexual?

Then we would need to analyze the subject. Extracting meaningful answers from animals about their sexual preference seems to be a bit tough, currently. In your example, I would be more interested if it was the same gender across specie.

Fine. But the simple observation is not enough to justify the claim of homosexuality. No true claim of animal homosexual has ever been shown, but the liberal lemmings view it as established scientific fact.

I just read an online article by a homosexual who did not believe homosexuals were "born that way". He opened his article by saying,.....

"Just because an argument my have political value to us, does not mean the argument is true. "

How right he is!
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 5:14:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 3:46:42 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

So varieties of other animals can be born with homosexual tendency, BUT, humans cannot have them instinctually because some guy says so.

Sigh. No animal is born with homosexual tendencies. Humans have the ability to NOT be governed by their instincts. The guy is saying that arguments are not right because you like them, or because they aid your personal position. He made no comment about whether animals can be homosexual.

Interesting.

You usually find your own positions interesting. I just wish you'd write in such a way that they didn't seem to be my positions.

So where does this idea come from that animals can be homosexual?

Observed behavior.

Homosexuality is not "sex with ones own gender". Homosexuality is sexual attraction to ones own gender.

And this is usually, USUALLY identified by choice of partner. However with out the ability to volunteer that information, and because these are animals, its very difficult information to extract.

Then confirming it as homosexuality is not science but an agenda laden tactic.

Animals do not have a concept of gender. They are sexually attracted based on chemicals given off by other animals. The right chemical will attract the animal regardless of the gender or species of the source.

So if homosexuality is simply the attraction, and according to you its chemically based, I am still not seeing how this some how alleviates homosexuality in humans: the attraction is present.

You are misunderstanding. Human homosexuals are attracted to the gender. Animals are attracted by the chemicals. With humans, sexual attraction is way more complex than just pheromones. A male dog for example, is not attracted to other male dogs. He isn't even attracted to females dogs. (out of season, male dogs mostly treat female dogs with little sexual interest) He is attracted to scent.

Humans have gone past that. Many more things decide our sexual attraction than just scent.

And why are so many people behaving like lemmings and believing it without one ounce of critical thought?

Because its hard to argue with observed behavior.

Except when its 300+ years of observation of life only from life. In that case, observation be damned. Press on for abiogenesis.

Origins of life wasn't part of the discussion here, Ethan. Gender on same gender interactions have been observed, I think we can both agree with that.

First, the subject was "observation" as evidence for a claim. If you want to use that concept, you have to be consistent with it. I will not let you use it here for animal homosexuality and then disallow it when we talk about abiogenesis.

Second, gender on same gender interactions is not necessarily homosexuality.

Life only from life 100% of the time doesn't assist your worldview, so the consistent observation there is ignored.

Because it wasn't present in your argument to now, just sort of tacked on, and I am still not sure why.

Your inconsistent use of scientific "observation" is now in question. And you brought up observation as justification.

But male dogs mounting male dogs 2% of the time instantly becomes rock solid evidence that homosexuality is natural. Just a coincidence that that nugget does agree with your worldview.

Even though it occurs. <----- that is the part you need to dispel, not frequency or result of it.

Agreed, but what occurs (the "it" above), is NOT homosexuality. That is my entire point.

Anyone whose been around animals will know that males animals sometimes mount males, other specie, and will sometimes mount inanimate objects. No sensible person thinks of this as homosexual behavior.

No one is denying that males in the animal kingdom sometimes mount other males, we are denying that such animals can correctly be called homosexual.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 5:26:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 4:01:40 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/21/2015 5:37:18 PM, ethang5 wrote:

I think calling an animal "homosexual" is nothing but PC nonsense. An animal mates on instinct. It is not expressing choice. It has no real concept of gender.

I am confused. Do humans also not possess instinctual attributes that result in heterosexuality or homosexuality?

I don't think so. What would those attributes be?

I have always viewed homosexuality as a feeling or preference of sorts. For example, I prefer certain tastes of food over others. To a degree, I do have some control over this. Likewise, I do have a degree of control over sexual preference; however, it seems to largely be controlled by genetic and/or environmental factors. Just as I can force myself to eat disgusting things, I can likewise force myself to engage in sexual activities I am not attracted to.

Correct. Thus, the simple act of sex with your gender is not enough to determine if you are actually a homosexual.

This doesn't change my preferences, of course. I do not seem to choose how I feel about these preferences, even if I do have a degree of control over them.

True, but an animals preference is not to gender, but to sex. An animal has no concept of gender. Consider this scenario....

At a party, a gay man becomes attracted to another person he thinks is male. He feels a strong attraction. Upon approaching the person, he discovers the person is actually female. His attraction evaporates. Were he simply attracted to sex, he would have pressed on at the discovery.

Would a dog, if he could "discover" that the dog he is mounting is also male, dismount? I don't think so. I don't think he would care. He is attracted to the scent, and the scent remains true regardless of the gender of the dog he is mounting.

Calling animals homosexual is actually an insult to human homosexuals. We aren't dogs in heat. Homosexuals don't operate on base instinct.

Likewise, an animal, which possesses lower intellectual power as compared to humans, would act based on it's feelings or instincts. Unlike animals, however, humans are not complete slaves to their desires. We are capable of transcending this boundary and controlling our desires. This, in part, is what makes us human.

I wrote my comment above before I read your comment above. I agree whole- heartedly. Good post.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 5:31:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
So varieties of other animals can be born with homosexual tendency, BUT, humans cannot have them instinctually because some guy says so.

Sigh. No animal is born with homosexual tendencies. Humans have the ability to NOT be governed by their instincts. The guy is saying that arguments are not right because you like them, or because they aid your personal position. He made no comment about whether animals can be homosexual.


So where does this idea come from that animals can be homosexual?

Observed behavior.

Homosexuality is not "sex with ones own gender". Homosexuality is sexual attraction to ones own gender.

And this is usually, USUALLY identified by choice of partner. However with out the ability to volunteer that information, and because these are animals, its very difficult information to extract.

Then confirming it as homosexuality is not science but an agenda laden tactic.

If you consider your definition of homosexuality to be what fits, then yes. Homosexuality could also be defined of sex acts between the same gender, though I am confident that is not what you are interested in discussing.

Animals do not have a concept of gender. They are sexually attracted based on chemicals given off by other animals. The right chemical will attract the animal regardless of the gender or species of the source.

So if homosexuality is simply the attraction, and according to you its chemically based, I am still not seeing how this some how alleviates homosexuality in humans: the attraction is present.

You are misunderstanding. Human homosexuals are attracted to the gender. Animals are attracted by the chemicals.

Always? Remember, 2% that don't follow the norm is the benchmark, were I to understand this correctly.

With humans, sexual attraction is way more complex than just pheromones. A male dog for example, is not attracted to other male dogs. He isn't even attracted to females dogs. (out of season, male dogs mostly treat female dogs with little sexual interest) He is attracted to scent. Humans have gone past that. Many more things decide our sexual attraction than just scent.

When specific to dogs, sure. Our sexual attraction hinges on a lot of things because we also have a different set of senses than say your canines.

And why are so many people behaving like lemmings and believing it without one ounce of critical thought?

Because its hard to argue with observed behavior.

Except when its 300+ years of observation of life only from life. In that case, observation be damned. Press on for abiogenesis.

Origins of life wasn't part of the discussion here, Ethan. Gender on same gender interactions have been observed, I think we can both agree with that.

First, the subject was "observation" as evidence for a claim. If you want to use that concept, you have to be consistent with it. I will not let you use it here for animal homosexuality and then disallow it when we talk about abiogenesis.

I don't recall ever bringing up abiogenesis in this discussion, Ethan. I have contend such is a strong possibility, and there is research on it in other threads, some promising, some not. The research on finding same sex relations in the animal kingdom was a pretty short one.

Second, gender on same gender interactions is not necessarily homosexuality.

Depending upon definition and its application, though I would prefer not to get caught up in semantics. As I have stated earlier "occasionally" and "probably" are reasonable answers to that dilemma.

Life only from life 100% of the time doesn't assist your worldview, so the consistent observation there is ignored.

Because it wasn't present in your argument to now, just sort of tacked on, and I am still not sure why.

Your inconsistent use of scientific "observation" is now in question. And you brought up observation as justification.

Sure, and such observations and research are on going. Abiogenesis has not been found. Same gender relations in the animal world have. One, I contend would be much harder to spot or recreate. ;)

But male dogs mounting male dogs 2% of the time instantly becomes rock solid evidence that homosexuality is natural. Just a coincidence that that nugget does agree with your worldview.

Even though it occurs. <----- that is the part you need to dispel, not frequency or result of it.

Agreed, but what occurs (the "it" above), is NOT homosexuality. That is my entire point.

Anyone whose been around animals will know that males animals sometimes mount males, other specie, and will sometimes mount inanimate objects. No sensible person thinks of this as homosexual behavior.

No one is denying that males in the animal kingdom sometimes mount other males, we are denying that such animals can correctly be called homosexual.

And this denial is based on what variety of research that can be applied consistently? Not being facetious, I am genuinely curious about what variety of animal psychology and sexuality has been researched, I honestly don't even know where to look for that.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 5:47:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I hear people claim all the time that animals can be homosexual, and I wonder, "What do they mean by "homosexual"?

Do they mean that given the choice of mating with either gender, the animal will most often prefer it's own gender?

Occasionally.

Untrue. Most animals have a mating "season" and will attempt to mate with whatever is available during that time. They do not "choose" a gender in any meaningful sense of the word.

Bold sounds a little... I dunno... subjective to me. I fail to see how "occasionally" doesn't apply. If both genders are present and both genders are used, it seems an apt word, especially if such a season is not the only time mating occurs.

It isn't true choice.

Explain, please.
Homosexual is preference for the same gender as we are using it, what would you propose in its stead?

Instinct. A choice for ones own gender requires a concept of gender. The male dog mounting another male does not know of care (and thus does not prefer) that his object of lust is male. He is operating on instinct.

Do you think if he had such a concept as "revulsion" to such an act, he would disengage?

Does not the sexual "preference" imply sentience?

No.

Then it isn't sexual, it is instinctual.

okay.... and?

Then it isn't choice and cannot correctly be called homosexuality.

As you define it with preference, because only humans can excessive preference, ergo sexuality (among humans) is a choice. Correct?

You asked if preference implied sentience, I wasn't aware preference was part of sentience.

I did not say preference was part of sentience. But sexual preference requires sentience.

Are there other preferences that require sentience?

I have seen various animals pick and choose what they eat for a meal, such exercise is preference, I don't think it implied sentience.

Because that isn't true preference. You don't even know if it is preference. Were we able to ask the animal why he picked this over that, his answer could well be, "I don't know" or "I was going eat both and just took this one first."

Have you ever owned a cat?



If you then placed another male into the enclosure, would he gravitate to that lone male and ignore the females?

I think this has already been found in certain captive colonies.

I have not come across a single instance of such. Can you cite one?

I think it was Roy and Silo, https://en.wikipedia.org...

Roy and Silo (born 1987) are chinstrap penguins who were a same sex male pair in New York City's Central Park Zoo. They were noted by staff at the zoo in 1998 to be performing mating rituals, although no actual sexual acts were witnessed,...

So this seems like a social preference, not a sexual one.

Even though they engaged in mating rituals?

Like many couples, Roy and Silo drifted apart after several years, and in 2005 Silo paired with a female penguin called Scrappy.

Did Silo lose his "taste" for males? Was he bi? Note that Silo and Scrappy had both sex and children.

As do many homosexuals in the human world, it is quite possible that each thought the other was a member of the opposite sex, that doesn't eliminate they obviously chose eachother. For some reason. In which they engaged in mating rituals. Hm.

Roy and Silo met at the zoo and they began their relationship in 1998, and although staff never saw them in a sexual act, they were observed conducting other mating rituals typical of their species including entwining their necks and mating calls.

But no sex.
(was observed)

Wonder why, if they were homosexual that is? In fact, no penguin is said to have had homosexual sex in the entire article. Penguins are special in that both males and females incubate eggs. How are two males who go into their routine instinct at an egg - homosexual? This is yet again liberals bending the truth to fit their worldview.

??!?!? You specifically asked about penguins and I specifically provided an article about penguins engaging in the habits of same sex courtship. I let you read it and come to your own conclusions.

I've seen videos of male dolphins trying to mount human men. I've seen dogs mount goats, and my wife's leg. What was that dog? What was that dolphin?

Attempting to assert dominance, genuinely confused about its choice of mate, or what its own specie was, attempting to demonstrate itself as submissive to a pack leader, etc etc.

But when the same male dog or dolphin tries to mount another male dog or dolphin, suddenly he's homosexual?

Or could still be asserting dominance, still confused as to what our and its specie is, still wanting to submit to a pack leader, etc. I don't think animals view sexuality exactly as humans do, which lends my answers to have a lot of " ly " words.

lol. Yet you are ready to claim the animals are homosexual. "...animals [don't] view sexuality exactly as humans do,..."

Because my definition of homosexual is different than yours, it seems.

You don't say? How do they "view" sexuality?

Good question! Shall we research it?

The instincts are not towards the same gender. In animals, they are simply towards sex. That is why a dog in heat will attempt to mount a goat or a human. The animal does not have a concept of gender.

Or apparently specie.

Do you think animals have a concept of specie?

I don't know. I would be inclined to believe that captive/domesticated animals and animals in the wild have different views, yes.

It is hormonal and instinctual. Sprinkle some female canine pheromones on a sofa, and male doge will mount it.

I can see that, sure. But that in mind, you are chemically inducing a predictable reaction, and then seeming shocked when the chemical reaction induces said reaction.

No shock. I am saying sprinkling female canine pheromones on a male dog is not homosexuality when another male dog mounts him. That is what libs are trying to say.

And when no sprinkling occurs? Its JUST a male dog and male dog?

Consistency is called for. If one will claim a dog is "homosexual" because it mounts another male dog, why isn't it pansexual if it tries to mount another species? What is the underlying logic system used to claim the dog is homosexual?

Then we would need to analyze the subject. Extracting meaningful answers from animals about their sexual preference seems to be a bit tough, currently. In your example, I would be more interested if it was the same gender across specie.

Fine. But the simple observation is not enough to justify the claim of homosexuality. No true claim of animal homosexual has ever been shown, but the liberal lemmings view it as established scientific fact.

I think that is because the "lemmings" in your anecdote believe preference of any variety can indeed be expressed, even in the animal world, without requiring sentience to be pondered.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 5:56:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 5:31:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So varieties of other animals can be born with homosexual tendency, BUT, humans cannot have them instinctually because some guy says so.

Sigh. No animal is born with homosexual tendencies. Humans have the ability to NOT be governed by their instincts. The guy is saying that arguments are not right because you like them, or because they aid your personal position. He made no comment about whether animals can be homosexual.

So where does this idea come from that animals can be homosexual?

Observed behavior.

Homosexuality is not "sex with ones own gender". Homosexuality is sexual attraction to ones own gender.

And this is usually, USUALLY identified by choice of partner. However with out the ability to volunteer that information, and because these are animals, its very difficult information to extract.

Then confirming it as homosexuality is not science but an agenda laden tactic.

If you consider your definition of homosexuality to be what fits, then yes. Homosexuality could also be defined of sex acts between the same gender, though I am confident that is not what you are interested in discussing.

An word describing an act is a different thing from a word describing person. A person who isn't a cook can cook, a person who isn't a homosexual can engage in a homosexual act. The word "homosexual", when used to describe a person refers not
to their simple act but their sexual preference. This is why a person who has never had sex can yet be homosexual.

Calling animals homosexual is a misuse of the word to push an agenda.

Animals do not have a concept of gender. They are sexually attracted based on chemicals given off by other animals. The right chemical will attract the animal regardless of the gender or species of the source.

So if homosexuality is simply the attraction, and according to you its chemically based, I am still not seeing how this some how alleviates homosexuality in humans: the attraction is present.

You are misunderstanding. Human homosexuals are attracted to the gender. Animals are attracted by the chemicals.

Always? Remember, 2% that don't follow the norm is the benchmark, were I to understand this correctly.

A human can let go of his inhibitions and be what we would call a "horndog", but even then, he is capable of instantly going back to sentience and throttling instinct. Animals cannot. They aren't sentient.

With humans, sexual attraction is way more complex than just pheromones. A male dog for example, is not attracted to other male dogs. He isn't even attracted to females dogs. (out of season, male dogs mostly treat female dogs with little sexual interest) He is attracted to scent. Humans have gone past that. Many more things decide our sexual attraction than just scent.

When specific to dogs, sure. Our sexual attraction hinges on a lot of things because we also have a different set of senses than say your canines.

Agreed.

And why are so many people behaving like lemmings and believing it without one ounce of critical thought?

Because its hard to argue with observed behavior.

But the observed behavior among animals is not homosexual behavior.

Origins of life wasn't part of the discussion here, Ethan. Gender on same gender interactions have been observed, I think we can both agree with that.

First, the subject was "observation" as evidence for a claim. If you want to use that concept, you have to be consistent with it. I will not let you use it here for animal homosexuality and then disallow it when we talk about abiogenesis.

I don't recall ever bringing up abiogenesis in this discussion, Ethan. I have contend such is a strong possibility,...

But why? There is no evidence for it. All observation points to the opposite. Why is observation so disrespected in this case but so respected in the other?

...and there is research on it in other threads, some promising, some not.

Yes, but why are scientists chasing the opposite of what all observation has shown to date? How come its so easy to argue against observation here?

Second, gender on same gender interactions is not necessarily homosexuality.

Depending upon definition and its application, though I would prefer not to get caught up in semantics. As I have stated earlier "occasionally" and "probably" are reasonable answers to that dilemma.

Those answers are semantics. But if you don't want to use the normal accepted definitions of homosexuality, ok.

Your inconsistent use of scientific "observation" is now in question. And you brought up observation as justification.

Sure, and such observations and research are on going. Abiogenesis has not been found. Same gender relations in the animal world have. One, I contend would be much harder to spot or recreate. ;)

Even though it occurs. <----- that is the part you need to dispel, not frequency or result of it.

Agreed, but what occurs (the "it" above), is NOT homosexuality. That is my entire point.

Anyone whose been around animals will know that males animals sometimes mount males, other specie, and will sometimes mount inanimate objects. No sensible person thinks of this as homosexual behavior.

No one is denying that males in the animal kingdom sometimes mount other males, we are denying that such animals can correctly be called homosexual.

And this denial is based on what variety of research that can be applied consistently? Not being facetious, I am genuinely curious about what variety of animal psychology and sexuality has been researched, I honestly don't even know where to look for that.

There is little research because the claim of homosexuality in the animal kingdom would require us to change the established definitions of sentience, choice, preference, and and homosexuality. The resulting conclusions would have very little value to science.

This is why those who push this idea are LGBT liberals and not scientists.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 6:25:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 5:47:16 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

It isn't true choice.

Explain, please.

One must be aware of the difference between the choices. If not, it cannot be true choice. This is simply logic. Animals do not have a concept of gender.

Do you think if he had such a concept as "revulsion" to such an act, he would disengage?

Depends on how strong the revulsion was in relation to the attraction of the chemical signals. I've missed the point of this question.

Then it isn't choice and cannot correctly be called homosexuality.

As you define it with preference, because only humans can excessive preference, ergo sexuality (among humans) is a choice. Correct?

Sorry, I did not understand your comment.

Are there other preferences that require sentience?

Yes. There are preferences which we (and animals) have evolved the automatic mechanism to take care of. Holding breadth underwater, sucking milk from moms breast, pulling away from hot objects, etc. Those do not require sentence. But some higher level decisions do require sentience.

Have you ever owned a cat?

Yes. I've missed the point of this question.

Roy and Silo (born 1987) are chinstrap penguins who were a same sex male pair in New York City's Central Park Zoo. They were noted by staff at the zoo in 1998 to be performing mating rituals, although no actual sexual acts were witnessed,...

So this seems like a social preference, not a sexual one.

Even though they engaged in mating rituals?

But if I engage in a "mating ritual" with someone I do not know is a male, how can that be called homosexuality???

Like many couples, Roy and Silo drifted apart after several years, and in 2005 Silo paired with a female penguin called Scrappy.

Did Silo lose his "taste" for males? Was he bi? Note that Silo and Scrappy had both sex and children.

As do many homosexuals in the human world, it is quite possible that each thought the other was a member of the opposite sex,....

Huh? I know of no homosexual who though his partner was female. And if he did, he could not be called homosexual!

...that doesn't eliminate they obviously chose each other. For some reason. In which they engaged in mating rituals. Hm.

Whatever the reason, it was not because the other was the same gender. The mating ritual would have been the same even if the partner was female, so that proves nothing. Sex directly follows the ritual. What happened?

Roy and Silo met at the zoo and they began their relationship in 1998, and although staff never saw them in a sexual act, they were observed conducting other mating rituals typical of their species including entwining their necks and mating calls.

But no sex.
(was observed)

I see observation doesn't matter here either when you want to push your pet agenda.

??!?!? You specifically asked about penguins and I specifically provided an article about penguins engaging in the habits of same sex courtship. I let you read it and come to your own conclusions.

There is no homosexual behavior in your article. No justification for calling the animals gay or claiming they chose partners because of gender.

lol. Yet you are ready to claim the animals are homosexual. "...animals [don't] view sexuality exactly as humans do,..."

Because my definition of homosexual is different than yours, it seems.

What is your definition of homosexual?

You don't say? How do they "view" sexuality?

Good question! Shall we research it?

If you haven't researched it, how do you know it different?

Do you think animals have a concept of specie?

I don't know. I would be inclined to believe that captive/domesticated animals and animals in the wild have different views, yes.

lol. I don't think any animal has a concept on any species at all.

It is hormonal and instinctual. Sprinkle some female canine pheromones on a sofa, and male doge will mount it.

I can see that, sure. But that in mind, you are chemically inducing a predictable reaction, and then seeming shocked when the chemical reaction induces said reaction.

No shock. I am saying sprinkling female canine pheromones on a male dog is not homosexuality when another male dog mounts him. That is what libs are trying to say.

And when no sprinkling occurs? Its JUST a male dog and male dog?

One dog is responding to the scent of the other. That's it. there is no preference for genders. It's just that one dog has a scent the other finds sexually attractive. Was the same scent on a female dog, he would go for that too.

Fine. But the simple observation is not enough to justify the claim of homosexuality. No true claim of animal homosexual has ever been shown, but the liberal lemmings view it as established scientific fact.

I think that is because the "lemmings" in your anecdote believe preference of any variety can indeed be expressed, even in the animal world, without requiring sentience to be pondered.

Of course they believe that, but they cannot logically defend that belief. It is irrational. Most of them don't even go that far. They simply believe because that is what the other lemmings believe.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 6:35:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago

An word describing an act is a different thing from a word describing person. A person who isn't a cook can cook, a person who isn't a homosexual can engage in a homosexual act. The word "homosexual", when used to describe a person refers not
to their simple act but their sexual preference. This is why a person who has never had sex can yet be homosexual.

Calling animals homosexual is a misuse of the word to push an agenda.

It sounds as though this particular assertion is based on a paucity of evidence, or application of human understanding to animals, which... I don't think is the entirety of the "liberal" argument, or what you are suggesting, either.

Animals do not have a concept of gender. They are sexually attracted based on chemicals given off by other animals. The right chemical will attract the animal regardless of the gender or species of the source.

So if homosexuality is simply the attraction, and according to you its chemically based, I am still not seeing how this some how alleviates homosexuality in humans: the attraction is present.

You are misunderstanding. Human homosexuals are attracted to the gender. Animals are attracted by the chemicals.

Always? Remember, 2% that don't follow the norm is the benchmark, were I to understand this correctly.

A human can let go of his inhibitions and be what we would call a "horndog", but even then, he is capable of instantly going back to sentience and throttling instinct. Animals cannot. They aren't sentient.

I think this is tying back to preference though, we simply don't know which is instinct or preference and some (admittedly) assume that expression of action can be taken as evidence of expression of preference.

With humans, sexual attraction is way more complex than just pheromones. A male dog for example, is not attracted to other male dogs. He isn't even attracted to females dogs. (out of season, male dogs mostly treat female dogs with little sexual interest) He is attracted to scent. Humans have gone past that. Many more things decide our sexual attraction than just scent.


And why are so many people behaving like lemmings and believing it without one ounce of critical thought?

Because its hard to argue with observed behavior.

But the observed behavior among animals is not homosexual behavior.

That is an unknown, the assumption being worked with is that expression of sexuality demonstrates their preference, though granted that might not be true in all situations. Would it be possible to agree that in say... 2%, such is?

Origins of life wasn't part of the discussion here, Ethan. Gender on same gender interactions have been observed, I think we can both agree with that.

First, the subject was "observation" as evidence for a claim. If you want to use that concept, you have to be consistent with it. I will not let you use it here for animal homosexuality and then disallow it when we talk about abiogenesis.

I don't recall ever bringing up abiogenesis in this discussion, Ethan. I have contend such is a strong possibility,...

But why? There is no evidence for it. All observation points to the opposite. Why is observation so disrespected in this case but so respected in the other?

Time, mostly. Its hard to observe something that might not have favorable environs, currently, that being research seems to a point to a time when the earth was a lifeless rock, just a soup of varying chemicals. Such environment might be more favorable to such a thing, but now, not so much.

...and there is research on it in other threads, some promising, some not.

Yes, but why are scientists chasing the opposite of what all observation has shown to date? How come its so easy to argue against observation here?

Because no one has seen life be created from void, as a whole organism, across entire ecosystems either, and super beings with the ability to do such seems a lot more complicated than potentially finding the answer on our own planet as opposed to the heavens.

Second, gender on same gender interactions is not necessarily homosexuality.

Depending upon definition and its application, though I would prefer not to get caught up in semantics. As I have stated earlier "occasionally" and "probably" are reasonable answers to that dilemma.

Those answers are semantics. But if you don't want to use the normal accepted definitions of homosexuality, ok.

Which are strictly preferential? That being no definitions exist to describe homosexual acts sans preference?

Your inconsistent use of scientific "observation" is now in question. And you brought up observation as justification.

Sure, and such observations and research are on going. Abiogenesis has not been found. Same gender relations in the animal world have. One, I contend would be much harder to spot or recreate. ;)

Even though it occurs. <----- that is the part you need to dispel, not frequency or result of it.

Agreed, but what occurs (the "it" above), is NOT homosexuality. That is my entire point. Anyone whose been around animals will know that males animals sometimes mount males, other specie, and will sometimes mount inanimate objects. No sensible person thinks of this as homosexual behavior. No one is denying that males in the animal kingdom sometimes mount other males, we are denying that such animals can correctly be called homosexual.

Because a preference cannot be extracted from the animal in any meaningful way, correct?

And this denial is based on what variety of research that can be applied consistently? Not being facetious, I am genuinely curious about what variety of animal psychology and sexuality has been researched, I honestly don't even know where to look for that.

There is little research because the claim of homosexuality in the animal kingdom would require us to change the established definitions of sentience, choice, preference, and and homosexuality. The resulting conclusions would have very little value to science.

This is why those who push this idea are LGBT liberals and not scientists.

Which is why its not unreasonable to claim a small percentage of the population at any given time might be exhibiting preference rather than instinct. I don't see why that is a distinct impossibility.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 4:59:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Sorry for the tardiness of my reply.
It isn't true choice.

Explain, please.

One must be aware of the difference between the choices. If not, it cannot be true choice. This is simply logic. Animals do not have a concept of gender.

I am not sure this is true. My current experience with various kingdoms of animals doesn't lend itself to this conclusion as an absolute. If you would like citation, it wouldn't be unreasonable, but I would like to compile it in a different thread should you have the interest.

Do you think if he had such a concept as "revulsion" to such an act, he would disengage?

Depends on how strong the revulsion was in relation to the attraction of the chemical signals. I've missed the point of this question.

That given the subject, a chemical induction should be so strong it overpowers preference. In the absence of a chemical induction, an animal might behave contrary to a traditional male female dynamic.

Then it isn't choice and cannot correctly be called homosexuality.

As you define it with preference, because only humans can excessive preference, ergo sexuality (among humans) is a choice. Correct?

Sorry, I did not understand your comment.

Homosexuality, as I understand it from your definition, hinges solely on a preference, not act, correct? If this is true, we continue, if not, please disregard and I will frame a different question.

Are there other preferences that require sentience?

Yes. There are preferences which we (and animals) have evolved the automatic mechanism to take care of. Holding breadth underwater, sucking milk from moms breast, pulling away from hot objects, etc. Those do not require sentence. But some higher level decisions do require sentience.

But those aren't preferences. Those are imperatives to the entity as a whole. While anecdotal, I can recite a series of preferential examples from my history regarding the various creatures I have witnessed. Across various specie, but again, anecdotal.

Have you ever owned a cat?

Yes. I've missed the point of this question.
Surely you must appreciate their diet as wholly preferential as opposed to instinctual. I have spent many days trying to figure what my various cats cuisine and dietary compliments are. I find it hard to believe that the varying variety is instinctual. That should mean should I find a meal, they won't reject it in the future. You have seen this, yes?

Roy and Silo (born 1987) are chinstrap penguins who were a same sex male pair in New York City's Central Park Zoo. They were noted by staff at the zoo in 1998 to be performing mating rituals, although no actual sexual acts were witnessed,...

So this seems like a social preference, not a sexual one.

Even though they engaged in mating rituals?

But if I engage in a "mating ritual" with someone I do not know is a male, how can that be called homosexuality???

It would seem awfully coincidental that two males got such a miswiring.

Like many couples, Roy and Silo drifted apart after several years, and in 2005 Silo paired with a female penguin called Scrappy.

Did Silo lose his "taste" for males? Was he bi? Note that Silo and Scrappy had both sex and children.

As do many homosexuals in the human world, it is quite possible that each thought the other was a member of the opposite sex,....

Huh? I know of no homosexual who though his partner was female. And if he did, he could not be called homosexual!

Fair point, thought I was attempting to demonstrate a preference. Perhaps such a preference failed. Many homosexuals find a mate in the opposite gender in the human world, and this is mirrored in the animal kingdom.

...that doesn't eliminate they obviously chose each other. For some reason. In which they engaged in mating rituals. Hm.

Whatever the reason, it was not because the other was the same gender. The mating ritual would have been the same even if the partner was female, so that proves nothing. Sex directly follows the ritual. What happened?

Good question. I will investigate further to observe penguin mating habits, and if the zoo in question kept a watch on the pair 24 7.

Roy and Silo met at the zoo and they began their relationship in 1998, and although staff never saw them in a sexual act, they were observed conducting other mating rituals typical of their species including entwining their necks and mating calls.

But no sex.
(was observed)

I see observation doesn't matter here either when you want to push your pet agenda.

Observation is the report of instance. I can only attest to what I can find of observed instance.

??!?!? You specifically asked about penguins and I specifically provided an article about penguins engaging in the habits of same sex courtship. I let you read it and come to your own conclusions.

There is no homosexual behavior in your article. No justification for calling the animals gay or claiming they chose partners because of gender.

How many dudes have you shacked up with under the auspices of rearing a child? It seems penguins do. Do you?

lol. Yet you are ready to claim the animals are homosexual. "...animals [don't] view sexuality exactly as humans do,..."

Because my definition of homosexual is different than yours, it seems.

What is your definition of homosexual?

An excellent question. With no context, I divert to an interaction in which the sexual engagement is same sex.

You don't say? How do they "view" sexuality?

Good question! Shall we research it?

If you haven't researched it, how do you know it different?

That wasn't the question. I think we both agree there is a paucity of genuine research to either assumpt. I suggest we both compile data points to attempt to compare it to something analogous to human existence.

Do you think animals have a concept of specie?

I don't know. I would be inclined to believe that captive/domesticated animals and animals in the wild have different views, yes.

lol. I don't think any animal has a concept on any species at all.

See my previous suggestion.

It is hormonal and instinctual. Sprinkle some female canine pheromones on a sofa, and male doge will mount it.

I can see that, sure. But that in mind, you are chemically inducing a predictable reaction, and then seeming shocked when the chemical reaction induces said reaction.

No shock. I am saying sprinkling female canine pheromones on a male dog is not homosexuality when another male dog mounts him. That is what libs are trying to say.

And when no sprinkling occurs? Its JUST a male dog and male dog?

One dog is responding to the scent of the other. That's it. there is no preference for genders. It's just that one dog has a scent the other finds sexually attractive. Was the same scent on a female dog, he would go for that too.

But its not, that's my point.

Fine. But the simple observation is not enough to justify the claim of homosexuality. No true claim of animal homosexual has ever been shown, but the liberal lemmings view it as established scientific fact.

I think that is because the "lemmings" in your anecdote believe preference of any variety can indeed be expressed, even in the animal world, without requiring sentience to be pondered.

Of course they believe that, but they cannot logically defend that belief. It is irrational. Most of them don't even go that far. They simply believe because that is what the other lemmings believe.

So then we are both about to research our assertions, yes?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...