Homosexuality

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Right Dre, I'm sorry to ask this of you, but can you please respond to my earlier post. Basically, I said that:

• Homosexuality doesn't really hurt anyone if it occurs between 2 consenting adults. (Moral Consequentialism.)
• Homosexuality is natural it occurs in nature, and it is therefore a natural process.
• And finally, people don't choose to be or not be homosexual, it something they are. I believe that it's wrong to call people evil, because of what they are.

Okay, I know that you may have "refuted" this argument earlier, but I really can't be bothered to read the whole thread, in search of one post. If you would link me to the post, that would be fine, but really, I can't be bothered.

 

[Dre89]

You know that you can't defend your point with high grades. just saying.

In can in reference to Succumbio's comments. he has frequently said my arguments are so ba dthat they're indefensible.

If they're so bad that they're indefensible, why is that my lecturer, who disagrees with my arguments, and is far more of an authority on these issues than any of us, gave me the fourth highest mark he has ever given in his career?

I'm not saying ym arguments are right, but how on Earth could my arguments be so flawed they're indefensible?

No offence to any of you guys, but it comes down to you guys not understanding/appreciating philosophy, or him being totally wrong, and I think you know which one is more logical to accept.

Why? First you define sexual stimulation, or a sexual act, s something that involves stimulation of the male genitalia or a male orgasm, and now you just say the above without giving any further reasoning why.

There are also a lot of obscure "sexual" acts that don't even involve stimulation of either genders genitalia. how do you think about these acts?

I've covered this many times. Any fetish, erotic act etc. is a corruption, and I've shown that humans can corurpt their own natures.

Right Dre, I'm sorry to ask this of you, but can you please respond to my earlier post. Basically, I said that:

• Homosexuality doesn't really hurt anyone if it occurs between 2 consenting adults. (Moral Consequentialism.).

• 
  
  Consequentialism forces people to do unnatural things at times, but yes consequentialism is a strong theory and it'd be ignorant to think I could simply dismiss it in one post.
  
  

  [*]Homosexuality is natural it occurs in nature, and it is therefore a natural process..

  No, I've shown that humans can corrupt their own natures. Saying that something is natural just because it happens means nothing would be unnatural. Humans destroying the entire planet, and obliterating all life would be natural in that case, which it clearly isn't because it would defeat the purpose of living beings in the first place if life was not a natural good.
  
  

  [*]And finally, people don't choose to be or not be homosexual, it something they are. I believe that it's wrong to call people evil, because of what they are.

.

People also don't chose to be attracted to kids or to hurting women. Just because they didn't chose it doesn't mean it's ok. And I never said they were evil, they just do an evil, it's different.

Okay, I know that you may have "refuted" this argument earlier, but I really can't be bothered to read the whole thread, in search of one post. If you would link me to the post, that would be fine, but really, I can't be bothered.

Here's a post which relates to this. It basically states why just letting people do whatever they want except for harm others defeats the purpose of being human beings.

Your argument is essentially that anything is ok as long as you don't harm others. We'll just call this the 'preservation of social order'. The reason why you say this is because you believe social order is an objective good that needs to be upheld.

So in preventing pedophilia, you are preventing the pedophile from achieving happiness because it violates what you consider to be an objective good, that is, social order.

The difference with me is that I'm arguing that are other objective goods that need to be upheld aside from social order. So if I can prove that these are in fact objective goods, don't I have a right to forbid homosexulaity if I believe it violates an OG? Because that's what you're doing with pedophilia.

Secondly, the only reason your OG is in fact just that, is to allow for my OGs. What my my OGs are are 'human flourishing', that is, being good for it's own sake.

If social order was the only OG, apart from the fact that it's unlikely there would only be one OG in the world, it defeats the purpose of being living beings. What good is the preservation of humanity if all it is going to achieve is...the preservation of humanity?

Yes preserving humanity is good, but why? So that there can be human flourishing.

In other words, the whole point of why social order is a good, is to allow for the kinds of goods I am proposing.

If that's too abstract here's a more simple example. Think of a car, the purpose of a car is transportation, let's call that its 'flourishing'. If the car breaks down, its owner takes it to the mechanic, to 'preserve' it, so this is the equivalent of preserving social oder in humanity. Obviously, the reason why the owner maintains the car is so that it will flourish, ie. he can drive it. He doesn't keep it alive...just so it can survive.

But that's what I think you are doing with humanity, you are just letting it survive..so it can survive.

 

[Deleted member]

I've covered this many times. Any fetish, erotic act etc. is a corruption, and I've shown that humans can corurpt their own natures.

The whole point is that these things are merely labelled "sexual".
Some people get pleasure out of being hit. this ISN'T a sexual pleasure, just pleasure.
And as I pointed out, lesbian intercourse has NOTHING to do with procreation, which is what your argument is based upon

No, I've shown that humans can corrupt their own natures. Saying that something is natural just because it happens means nothing would be unnatural. Humans destroying the entire planet, and obliterating all life would be natural in that case, which it clearly isn't because it would defeat the purpose of living beings in the first place if life was not a natural good.

You haven't shown animals can't corrupt their own nature.
And nobody said "it is natural because it happens", people have said "it is natural because it happens in nature", where nature stands for everything minus humans and their actions.

If that's too abstract here's a more simple example. Think of a car, the purpose of a car is transportation, let's call that its 'flourishing'. If the car breaks down, its owner takes it to the mechanic, to 'preserve' it, so this is the equivalent of preserving social oder in humanity. Obviously, the reason why the owner maintains the car is so that it will flourish, ie. he can drive it. He doesn't keep it alive...just so it can survive.

A lot of people have a car to just ride around, not actually getting somewhere.
as someone once said "it the journey that counts, not the destination."

This is a counter example to show that thins don't necessarily have a single goal, as the "car" can flourish both in transportation and letting people "just drive".

 

[Dre89]

The whole point is that these things are merely labelled "sexual".
Some people get pleasure out of being hit. this ISN'T a sexual pleasure, just pleasure.
And as I pointed out, lesbian intercourse has NOTHING to do with procreation, which is what your argument is based upon

There is pleasure, and there is sexual pleasure.

Men who want to get hit and dominated by women get sexual pleasure from that.

You haven't shown animals can't corrupt their own nature.
And nobody said "it is natural because it happens", people have said "it is natural because it happens in nature", where nature stands for everything minus humans and their actions.

I have shown previously why animals can't corrupt their own natures. It was in the paragraph from the essay that I posted here before.

A debate about it goes more indepth in the 'life is unfair' topic, so you can look at that.

A lot of people have a car to just ride around, not actually getting somewhere.
as someone once said "it the journey that counts, not the destination."

This is a counter example to show that thins don't necessarily have a single goal, as the "car" can flourish both in transportation and letting people "just drive".

That's just playing with words. Driving would still be flourishing, because it is still what a car is supposed to do. You're still being transported, just not to a specific location.

 

[Crimson King]

From CK
Before I reply to the quote, Dre, explain the function of the clitoris. It serves only for sexual pleasure and orgasms, has no method of procreation, and is easy to stimulate. If sex for pleasure only corrupts the biological intentions for the act of sex, why does it even exist?

The clitorus is also considered to consist of the ******l walls as well.

You didn't answer my question.

grade stuff

Grades =/= real world. This is not related to this, but it's how it is. I made a 100% in an advanced tech writing class (no less than 100 on every single thing turned in) with a 4.0 in the curriculum. When I graduated, I applied to loads of tech writing jobs that were entry level, and got rejected because I lacke real world experiences. The few jobs that passed me on to a test required samples that were beyond anything I had approached. Point being? College is there to prepare you for a career, but learning does not stop. Teachers are instructed to reward good practices over good ideas.

You were given constructive criticism by numerous people; take that and learn.

 

[Dre89]

You didn't answer my question.

I did, because that shows the insertion of the ***** affects the clitorus.

Secondly, I have no obligation to answer it anyway, considering you haven't answered any of the challenges I've given to you.

Grades =/= real world. This is not related to this, but it's how it is. I made a 100% in an advanced tech writing class (no less than 100 on every single thing turned in) with a 4.0 in the curriculum. When I graduated, I applied to loads of tech writing jobs that were entry level, and got rejected because I lacke real world experiences. The few jobs that passed me on to a test required samples that were beyond anything I had approached. Point being? College is there to prepare you for a career, but learning does not stop. Teachers are instructed to reward good practices over good ideas.

You were given constructive criticism by numerous people; take that and learn.

And debating is the real world is it?

I didn't show my grades to prove my argument was right.

It was in response to Sucumbio, who not only said my argument are wrong (which is fair enough) but are so falwed that they're indefensible.

Do you realise the gravity of that sort of statement?

My arguments can be wrong, but how can you they get a ridiculously high mark from someone who is knowledgeable in the field, who disagrees with them , yet be so flawed they're indefensible?

I'm assuming now that you ifnd my arguments so flawed that they're indefensible too.

In that case, actually answer one of my challenges and provide me an anti-gay argument that you would accept as good, to prove that you're not letting your personal bias affect your judgement.

I doubt you'll do it though because I know your bias anyway, I knew that ever since you told me the cosmoligical argument is 'laughable at best', and then your reason was based on a misunderstanding of the argument anyway.

If you're going to consider one of the most prominent metaphysical arguments 'laughable at best' then it's evident you won't accept any arguments that oppose yours as good.

 

[Mewter]

Dre, I think what Bob Jane T-Mart was saying was that just like eating, sleeping, and dumping waste, homosexuality may be another thing seen between animals and humans that they have in common.

I guess you could say that if something as "basic" as that is a trait that can be found in humans as well as other animals in nature it may just mean that homosexuality is naturally occurring for whatever reason, and thus doesn't corrupt a "natural good."

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html
I'm leery of citing wikipedia, but here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

 

[Sucumbio]

he has frequently said my arguments are so ba dthat they're indefensible.

I'm not saying ym arguments are right, but how on Earth could my arguments be so flawed they're indefensible?

...

(this is the one time I actually said so, and it was in regards to a single topic of yours, not your whole debate strategy.

The difficulty here is that if you were to take on ANY argument that didn't eviscerate Nuckols' piece, you were going to have to come up with some serious stuff. Real serious. As it turned out, you did present -an- argument, but it had too many holes. So many that not 1 or 2 but several posters each took a stab at pointing them out. Yes, you were ganged up on, but to an end... to (hopefully) get you to realize the weakness in your idea.

If anything I'd offer to back YOU up, and write a separate piece defending your points. The difficulty here is that 1.) I'm already in the DH, and it's kind of a moot point at this stage 2.) there's really no defending your position. That's yet another trick to good debate. Always choose your arguments carefully (something even I will sometimes neglect in the heat of the moment). You can argue the Earth is flat for all I care, but when you do it, you make sure your argument is so solid, and ready for the attacks, that you're prepared for anything that's thrown at you. And if you can think of an argument against what you're saying and can't think of a rebuttal, it's a bad argument, and you should abate.

I realize it's been a while since I posted that, but do you see what's happened? You've taken that one incident and convoluted it into "frequently." I don't think your arguments are always indefensible. I believe that specific topic's position is fairly indefensible. I was admitting that even I would have trouble making a good strong argument supporting your position.

Sorry for the OT, everyone. Dre., if you want to further discuss this, post it in the Center Stage.

 

[Aesir]

Exactly what does showing that clitoris responds to pleasure meant to show us exactly? I'm not following you here.

Dre getting ganged up against is part of internet debating, there's been countless times I've been ganged up before and I take it and just respond to everyone. Yeah you're going to have to repeat your self, repetition is good debating. Otherwise how are the people on the fence going to know you're argument 5 posts later? You're not debating to change your opponents mind you're debating to sway the folks on the fence.

Repetition helps give you the edge in swaying the fence sitters, not only does it refresh their memories what it is you're arguing, but if you're repeating your self 5-6 times it makes the opposition look weak and unintelligent.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I did, because that shows the insertion of the ***** affects the clitoris.

Well, you've argued that the natural purpose of sex is to practice the "natural act", basically meaning with the intent of procreation. CK's question is asking you why women have an organ only for pleasure if sex for pleasure is outside our natural behavior. Yes, the ***** affects the clitoris, but the point is that the clitoris exists naturally, yet doesn't support your belief that "natural" sex is only for procreation.

 

[Sucumbio]

"It was once thought that women have orgasms so the muscle contractions could shepherd sperm toward the cervix, what Barash calls, alarmingly, “the uterine suck-up theory.” But this has been more or less proven false.

Shlain believes orgasm is a reward to women, a little something to entice them to have sex rather than focus on the prospect of death in childbirth. “Once she knows death is associated with sex, she needs to have an impetus to keep having her do it,” he says." -source

It's interesting, men have an obvious ... payload. The process feels great. Women, many complain they don't even know what an orgasm feels like. Some argue that a female orgasm doesn't feel at all like what a man feels, though such a thing would be almost impossible to prove, it'd have to be based on description more than anything. The idea that sexual intercourse feels good for no other reason than to perpetuate its commission is not new. And of course if sex didn't feel good, would we still do it? Would we intellectually reason that by not doing it, regardless of how it felt, we'd die out as a species? I think the answer lies in understanding how the body works.

We must also understand that sex for pleasure vs sex for procreation though not the same thing, is not necessarily two sides to a coin. It's natural for people to practice having sex so that the chances of successful procreation may be increased. True, virgin couples are reported to get pregnant first time out. But normally, males and females during puberty experiment with sexual acts in an attempt to understand their bodies, to practice for the eventual mating, and to experience this new, joyous feeling. It's not far fetched to then further correlate the importance of procreation and the family unit to love, then to love making. From there, one can easily see that love making between two same-sex partners becomes a sole expression, rather than practice for procreation.

It's all still natural. Two gay men or women having sex to express love, to bond, and to establish their pathways of intimacy may do so because they too wish to formulate a strong unit. Procreation and genes are all about perpetuation. Being high order intelligence-based lifeforms, it should not be a stretch to imagine how in some people, passing on a gene legacy may be less important than passing on a familial legacy (adoption, etc.)

In other words, we should not look at homosexuality as threatening our species (which would be the only reason to consider it against natural order). An interesting but highly difficult thing to prove: perhaps homosexuality is natural in more than just endorsing the same expression of bonding that all humans hetero and homo express alike... perhaps it's to keep population growth in check! Perhaps... I mean some species of frogs change gender to increase procreation if the population is threatened. Is it not possible that the biological groundwork for the opposite could exist?

My wife, a lesbian, once said: "IF God didn't want chicks to have sex, he wouldn't have made it so HOT."

The biological explanation of sexual intercourse is one thing. The biological explanation of arousal is something else. Reacting to arousal, is a choice. And so long as it is not detrimental to the parties involved, should be considered natural by default, regardless of the gender of the participants.

 

[rvkevin]

Let me get this straight. Eating chocolate is unnatural. The natural purpose of eating is to survive, that is evident. Eating chocolate is an action only taken to attain pleasure. People who eat chocolate aren't doing it for the purpose it is clearly designed for: survival. Eating chocolate corrupts the biological intentions for the act of mastication. Therefore, eating chocolate is antithetical to the natural purpose of eating and therefore is unnatural and immoral.

Not to mention that any seasoning that isn't a means to the end of survival would also be considered unnatural since the only reason we use them is to make the act of eating more pleasurable. Seasonings would also be a good example because of the added benefit that humans are the only species that I know of that flavors their food so it could genuinely said to be "unnatural." Similar examples could be made between drinking to stay hydrated, and drinking soda or beer would being antithetical to that end. This seems like a silly method of determining morality.

I think I'm missing something because I suspect you don't equate eating a seasoned steak to be as immoral as homosexual acts. So what am I missing?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

No, I've shown that humans can corrupt their own natures. Saying that something is natural just because it happens means nothing would be unnatural. Humans destroying the entire planet, and obliterating all life would be natural in that case, which it clearly isn't because it would defeat the purpose of living beings in the first place if life was not a natural good.

Uh yeah. But animals do homosexuality. It occurs in animals that cannot "corrupt" their nature. This means that homosexuality is part of their nature. If this is the case, then homosexuality its a natural process. And if that's the case, it doesn't corrupt anything.

Here's a link, to show you the extent of homosexuality in animals:
http://www.timelessspirit.com/SEPT04/cristina.shtml

People also don't chose to be attracted to kids or to hurting women. Just because they didn't chose it doesn't mean it's ok. And I never said they were evil, they just do an evil, it's different.

Hey, they're not actually hurting anyone. It's not like they're rapists or pedophiles. What's going on is between 2 consenting adults. There's a rather large difference don't you think?

Okay, I'm responding to the earlier post now.

So in preventing pedophilia, you are preventing the pedophile from achieving happiness because it violates what you consider to be an objective good, that is, social order.

Okay, the reason pedophilia is wrong, is because it harms children, not because it disrupts social order.

Yes preserving humanity is good, but why? So that there can be human flourishing.

So, innocent people can go about their daily lives, happily without massive amounts of pain caused by the destruction of humanity.

In other words, the whole point of why social order is a good, is to allow for the kinds of goods I am proposing.

If that's too abstract here's a more simple example. Think of a car, the purpose of a car is transportation, let's call that its 'flourishing'. If the car breaks down, its owner takes it to the mechanic, to 'preserve' it, so this is the equivalent of preserving social oder in humanity. Obviously, the reason why the owner maintains the car is so that it will flourish, ie. he can drive it. He doesn't keep it alive...just so it can survive.

But that's what I think you are doing with humanity, you are just letting it survive..so it can survive.

You're assuming we have an innate purpose. That is debatable, I believe.

 

[Dre89]

Two pages of text is just too much for me to refute. I breifly skimmed through it and I still managed to find something like four counters that relied on twisting my premises again, or people who clearly hadn't read my previous posts.

I understand you all want to pounce on me like vultures because my views coflict with your own, but it's not going to be productive if 500 people keep posting against me.

If you're actually concerned with hearing my side, and having a good, mature debate, instead of just wanting to bash someone who disagrees with you, elect one person to debate me and I'll do it. It'll be far more productive.

 

[blazedaces]

Two pages of text is just too much for me to refute. I breifly skimmed through it and I still managed to find something like four counters that relied on twisting my premises again, or people who clearly hadn't read my previous posts.

I understand you all want to pounce on me like vultures because my views coflict with your own, but it's not going to be productive if 500 people keep posting against me.

If you're actually concerned with hearing my side, and having a good, mature debate, instead of just wanting to bash someone who disagrees with you, elect one person to debate me and I'll do it. It'll be far more productive.

Look Dre... I get it... two pages is a lot of text to refute... boo effing hoo. I've responded against 10+ pages of text a time. You don't have to respond to EVERY post, especially if people repeat themselves. This is the debate hall (or the pg, whatever)... it's going to happen. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.

You also don't look impressive by throwing up your hands and saying people twisted your premises. Just quote them, and explain to them the error of their ways in a constructive manner. I know your professor gave you an A. You are not talking to a professor. You are discussing something on a forum full of young adults, some even younger. You have to understand the audience you are talking to and adapt your statements to that audience. If 9/10 people can't understand you, then it's not that 9/10 people are stupid, it's that you need to RE-EXPLAIN yourself.

Just correct and explain in a calm manner. Stop thinking about this as winning an argument in the shortest amount of time possible, and simply enjoy some intellectual discussion. Being in a rush to win is not going to get you anywhere.

Notice my post has absolutely nothing to do with your argument, it's just about your debate style/attitude. I ask that you take that as helpful criticism and not just ignore me and claim that since I don't have a PhD yet, nothing I say is worth your time.

Lastly Dre, no one is pointing a gun to your head. No one is making you post here. Stop caring. This is an internet forum. If you think too many people are ganging up on you on an issue, stop posting about it. Move on. There are other threads, and plenty of other things to do. I'm just saying, if you really don't want to post and reply to everyone because it's too much NO ONE IS GOING TO JUDGE YOU... I refer you to the following amazing xkcd comic:

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Again, I didn't reference my marks because I was saying people didn't understand my premises.

I only referenced them because one of the paragraphs from my essay which I did very well in was put in this thread, yet Sucumbio said my arguments were so flawed they're indefensible.

I only showed the mark to point out that if someone who disagreed with them gave it such a high mark, yes the argument can be wrong, but surely not so flawed its indefensible.

I shouldn't have to be writing walls of texts every time someone twists my premises, or doesn't read my previous posts. I'm happy to correct people occassionally, but it's just become too much. Virtually every second post twists my premises and straw-mans my argument.

Again, I'll refence Guest as an example of someone who doesn't misunderstand them. Vi Veri came pretty close too. Guest's argument was also the first time I felt my natural law argument has been shaken, and I openly admit it, so I don't understand where all these labels of me being narrow-minded and ignorant are coming from.

Actually hold on I'll find Guest's argument.

So do you deny that airplanes allow humans to fly?

Natural law holds that what is good = what is natural

Is flying in humans natural? No, else we would have wings, yet we fly using airplanes
through that logic, natural law would then conclude that the airplane is bad.

However transportation is natural, and in that sense natural law condones the use of the airplane.

This example shows how natural law contradicts itself. Therefore natural=/=good. Saying otherwise is allowing countless other contradictions to exist.

Now I do have a response to that, but nevertheless from a neutral standpoint I consider that a very good argument.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think the most important argument here is, as usual, "what is natural"? Why can you define natural, why couldn't I define natural differently? I read 11 pages and I did not see a decent answer to that question.

 

[Mewter]

What do you say in response to my post, Dre.?

Dre, I think what Bob Jane T-Mart was saying was that just like eating, sleeping, and dumping waste, homosexuality may be another thing seen between animals and humans that they have in common.

I guess you could say that if something as "basic" as that is a trait that can be found in humans as well as other animals in nature it may just mean that homosexuality is naturally occurring for whatever reason, and thus doesn't corrupt a "natural good."

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/ma...animals-t.html
I'm leery of citing wikipedia, but here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior

 

[Dre89]

Really Budget? I thought I covered it before.

Firstly, you have to determine if there is in fact 'natural' and 'unnatural'.

The fact that humans can will and cause the obliteration of all life means that there are unnatural states, because no appreciating and desiring life defats the purpose of being living beings.

Causing unnatural states are what I call corruptions.

The thing is, only humans can cause these corruptions, animals are stuck in their ecosystems, they cannot alter other ecosystems. Humans are governed by no ecosystem, and they can corrupt other ones. I go more in depth on this so if you need more explanation let me know.

Basically, the fact that humans can cause unnatural states, not just the obliteration of life, more realistic things like female genital mutilation, corrupting ecossytems etc. which jeopardise the continuation and flourishing of existence means there is right and wrong for humans.

I concluded that what is right and wrong is determined b ywhat is natural because if there is right and wrong (I showed before that there is), it wouldn't be rocket science. It wouldn't take a one off genius' logic to work it out. It would be common sense, what is natural.

Now alot of what I say doesn't seem like common sense nowadays, but that's because we live in urbanised individualistic societies so dettached from nature.

If we however went back to the first humans, alot of what I say would be sensible. Without contraception, you wouldn't have sex with someone you weren't willing to have kids with. In a tribe of 100 people, you couldn't afford to have 30% of your community gay, because the continuation of the tribe in terms of future generations would be in jeopardy.

Basically, my natural law theory is designed to accommodate for the first humans, because that's where natural law and morality would have begun.

My theory is obviosuly alot more indepth than this, and this is a gross simplification, but I'll just keep it brief and explain anything you have trouble understanding or disagree with.

Mewter: I know people will call me narrow-minded, but I'm skeptical of the claims of wide-scale homosexuality in animals. I lost faith in the scientific community once they tried to say that there was a gay gene, when we know that sexuality is in fact psychological, and there is plenty of evidence for that.

There may be courting practices which appear 'flirtatious', but I believe the number of instances where same-sex animals participiate in the sexual act merely to to gratify sexual desires is limited if not non-existant.

I'd really like to see animal homosexuality on video, because I have never seen any homosexual activity in the wild. Particularly in the modern climate, it would be flaunted at any chance possible. As I said before, I have never heard, read or seen anything about it at all, only heterosexual practice..

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Really Budget? I thought I covered it before.

Firstly, you have to determine if there is in fact 'natural' and 'unnatural'.

The fact that humans can will and cause the obliteration of all life means that there are unnatural states, because no appreciating and desiring life defats the purpose of being living beings.

Okay. So we have established one unnatural state-the extinction of all life on earth. I think this is a pretty reasonable thing to call an "unnatural" state.

Causing unnatural states are what I call corruptions.

The thing is, only humans can cause these corruptions, animals are stuck in their ecosystems, they cannot alter other ecosystems. Humans are governed by no ecosystem, and they can corrupt other ones. I go more in depth on this so if you need more explanation let me know.

But... what if a monkey catches the plague and kills his whole tribe? What if a whale accidentally whacks a rock that was holding back a massive geyser of oil, killing half the animals in the ocean? The concept that animals cannot alter their ecosystems seems scientifically laughable to me.

Basically, the fact that humans can cause unnatural states, not just the obliteration of life, more realistic things like female genital mutilation, corrupting ecossytems etc. which jeopardise the continuation and flourishing of existence means there is right and wrong for humans.

Okay, there is right or wrong...

I concluded that what is right and wrong is determined b ywhat is natural because if there is right and wrong (I showed before that there is), it wouldn't be rocket science. It wouldn't take a one off genius' logic to work it out. It would be common sense, what is natural.

All right. I claim that homosexuality is natural because it is found in animals. I claim that flying/driving is unnatural because if we were supposed to fly or drive, we would have wings or wheels.

Now alot of what I say doesn't seem like common sense nowadays, but that's because we live in urbanised individualistic societies so dettached from nature.

But doesn't this, in and of itself, change what is natural for us as humans? Comparing a "natural state human" from hundreds of thousands of years ago to a modern human and expecting them to have the same natural conditions, rules, and norms is like comparing a dolphin to a badger. We have changed our environment and our needs.

If we however went back to the first humans, alot of what I say would be sensible. Without contraception, you wouldn't have sex with someone you weren't willing to have kids with. In a tribe of 100 people, you couldn't afford to have 30% of your community gay, because the continuation of the tribe in terms of future generations would be in jeopardy.

Of course. IF we went back. However, at the moment, we are suffering from overpopulation, are we not? The really usable land is quite full of humans.

Basically, my natural law theory is designed to accommodate for the first humans, because that's where natural law and morality would have begun.

My theory is obviosuly alot more indepth than this, and this is a gross simplification, but I'll just keep it brief and explain anything you have trouble understanding or disagree with.

But does your theory hold room for modulation based on the changes of the human environment and/or condition? If not, it seems very, very far-fetched.

I'm trying to think of a good example as to why we cannot compare our modern morality to that of prehistoric man.

I lost faith in the scientific community once they tried to say that there was a gay gene, when we know that sexuality is in fact psychological, and there is plenty of evidence for that.

>losing faith in science because it was wrong once

...

Spoiler

Just pointing that out...

I'd really like to see animal homosexuality on video, because I have never seen any homosexual activity in the wild. Particularly in the modern climate, it would be flaunted at any chance possible. As I said before, I have never heard, read or seen anything about it at all, only heterosexual practice..

I'll PM you about it, I know some good ones.

Oh wait, you said animal...


...

 

[SuperBowser]

Mewter: I know people will call me narrow-minded, but I'm skeptical of the claims of wide-scale homosexuality in animals. I lost faith in the scientific community once they tried to say that there was a gay gene, when we know that sexuality is in fact psychological, and there is plenty of evidence for that.

I'd like to see this evidence.

Common sense would tell you that homosexuality is like most other conditions of the mind. It is a combination of biological, psychological and social factors. Most homosexual people will tell you their sexuality was basically set before puberty.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Dre, you wanted a video of animal homosexuality?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE

 

[GoldShadow]

If we however went back to the first humans, alot of what I say would be sensible. Without contraception, you wouldn't have sex with someone you weren't willing to have kids with. In a tribe of 100 people, you couldn't afford to have 30% of your community gay, because the continuation of the tribe in terms of future generations would be in jeopardy.

Basically, my natural law theory is designed to accommodate for the first humans, because that's where natural law and morality would have begun.

We, not so long ago, found out that early humans killed Neanderthals (http://m.discovermagazine.com/2009/nov/30-did-we-mate-with-neanderthals-or-murder-them). What does this say about the morality of humans and about natural law?

You ask, what if 30% of a group were homosexual. What if there's a certain maximum threshold below which homosexual behavior is not harmful to the survival of the group, or even beneficial to it? Say, 20%, 10%, 5%, something like that. Is it still wrong?

Mewter: I know people will call me narrow-minded, but I'm skeptical of the claims of wide-scale homosexuality in animals. I lost faith in the scientific community once they tried to say that there was a gay gene, when we know that sexuality is in fact psychological, and there is plenty of evidence for that.

The scientific community never purported the existence of some "gay gene," that was the media with its usual attention-grabbing use of terms. What the scientific community has found is that homosexuality is largely under genetic or epigenetic control, and that is true. That's the general consensus supported by the evidence. I suggest you do some research on this.

 

[rvkevin]

All right. I claim that homosexuality is natural because it is found in animals. I claim that flying/driving is unnatural because if we were supposed to fly or drive, we would have wings or wheels.

You're comparison is not on par to his. He is saying that the end of natural actions are the same. When you use a plane instead walking, the end action (transportation), is the same, all you have done is changed the means of accomplishing that end. This is why chocolate and seasonings are much better comparisons, the end of satiating hunger is changed to gratification. Chocolate would indeed be foreign to early man, and it would only be able to saturate a certain percentage of their diet before the continuation of the tribe is jeopardized. It fits every criteria laid out for what is unnatural, yet I don't see people claiming it is immoral, which challenges the link between unnatural and immoral.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

All right, then let's use that comparison. Or, alternatively, road trips (in the sense that that would be your vacation)-you don't move for the purpose of getting somewhere, you move for gratification.

Either way, the theory seems to have more than enough holes in it to be completely false.

 

[Sieguest]

Let me get this straight. Eating chocolate is unnatural. The natural purpose of eating is to survive, that is evident. Eating chocolate is an action only taken to attain pleasure. People who eat chocolate aren't doing it for the purpose it is clearly designed for: survival. Eating chocolate corrupts the biological intentions for the act of mastication. Therefore, eating chocolate is antithetical to the natural purpose of eating and therefore is unnatural and immoral.

Not to mention that any seasoning that isn't a means to the end of survival would also be considered unnatural since the only reason we use them is to make the act of eating more pleasurable. Seasonings would also be a good example because of the added benefit that humans are the only species that I know of that flavors their food so it could genuinely said to be "unnatural." Similar examples could be made between drinking to stay hydrated, and drinking soda or beer would being antithetical to that end. This seems like a silly method of determining morality.

I think I'm missing something because I suspect you don't equate eating a seasoned steak to be as immoral as homosexual acts. So what am I missing?

I see what you're getting at, but I feel you're example is a bit shaky.

Mastication is only the act of chewing, chewing is done with the teeth, and there are no taste buds on the teeth. So chewing cannot possibly be done for pleasure. Therefore part in red of your claim is false.

In reference to the part I've highlighted in Green: that is also inaccurate. The body is prompted to eat whenever the brain sends signals telling your stomach it's empty and needs to be filled in order to provide energy to survive. This initial prompt of hunger leads to you eating something to satiate that hunger, chocolate therefore becomes a means to that end if it is ingested in this case, it therefore goes to fulfilling the natural process of satiating hunger.

Outside of that is also the natural inclination to obtain pleasure. The brain releases Serotonin is a chemical released that gives creatures the sensation of being "happy". It is factually true that we wish to obtain pleasure, else why does our brain produce a chemical provides this sensation whenever we obtain it? Pleasure then is a natural goal as it is derived from natural happenings. So in another sense, your example can said to just be incorrect as you've provided an inaccurate chain of logic seeing as how the ingestion of chocolate can be shown to have a dual purpose: meeting those two natural goals, each warranting a respective purpose and therefore not a corruption.

The above could be said in reference to the seasoning example as well.

Basically, the fact that humans can cause unnatural states, not just the obliteration of life, more realistic things like female genital mutilation, corrupting ecossytems etc. which jeopardise the continuation and flourishing of existence means there is right and wrong for humans.

I disagree:
Lets look at the definition of what is natural I'll display those relevant to the topic however, you may view the link directly and see if you feel any others are related:

1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>

I found this definition to be the most directly related to what I take yours to be.
The key word is inherent. In the context that it is used, inherent is in reference to the individual, evidenced by the following word "sense" being a feeling, feelings may vary among individual to individual. With that in mind, the "right" and "wrong" in this definition are relative to the individual sense.

2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

Now this definition. What can be definitively determined by nature? Things we lay witness to in it, now we can only lay witness to tangible things. What we can constitute to be natural are things we find in nature, therefore, wildlife, predation, primary and secondary succession etc. can be described as natural. Anything we cannot witness in nature or are outiside of nature therefore are unnatural. Intangible items such as thoughts, feelings, morality etc. can't be classified as natural because we do not see these exist in nature.

8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>

This definition takes into consideration intangible ideas, but the human is an individual, their reason is from their own mind and as many may not think the same. The thought is only relative that person.

12 a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person> b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>

This definition complements number two. What is tangible vs. what is intangible.

Those are the definitions I found most related to the topic, the other definitions either have it as an adjective synonymous to the word "pure"- and that refers something that is unaltered, uncorrupted, or unchanging throughout- or in relation to family, or in reference to nature as a study. You may still my source to verify it or use another definition you find is pertinent.

The definitions I provided from the entry take two basic takes on what is "natural"
Either what is tangible
or
What the individual feels as normal or "right' vs what is akward or "wrong"

The definitions tell either that what is natural has absolutely nothing to do with morality in one sense, due to the intangibility of it. Or that what is natural is subjective to each person as we each see what is "natural" or normal differently. In this case even if natural=good then it would still be relative from person to person still essentially displaying the nonexistence of an objective moral truth.

All right, then let's use that comparison. Or, alternatively, road trips (in the sense that that would be your vacation)-you don't move for the purpose of getting somewhere, you move for gratification.

Either way, the theory seems to have more than enough holes in it to be completely false.

See the beginning of this post.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I lost faith in the scientific community once they tried to say that there was a gay gene, when we know that sexuality is in fact psychological, and there is plenty of evidence for that.

Yeah, did you know that our genes can influence our brains, which influence our psychology?

There may be courting practices which appear 'flirtatious', but I believe the number of instances where same-sex animals participiate in the sexual act merely to to gratify sexual desires is limited if not non-existant.

Well, its happened, and people have observed it. Honestly, you can't deny it. It's happened, I've linked you to a site, and so have a few others.

I'd really like to see animal homosexuality on video, because I have never seen any homosexual activity in the wild. Particularly in the modern climate, it would be flaunted at any chance possible. As I said before, I have never heard, read or seen anything about it at all, only heterosexual practice..

How often have you been in the "wild"?

 

[rvkevin]

@Guest438
I don't care whether each part is true or not, just whether it is relevant to Dre's argument. If it is false, it is a strike against part of his argument, if it is true, it goes to my example that eating chocolate is as unnatural as homosexual acts and using natural/unnatural as a proxy for morality fails. You missed the point completely.

Just a note on the comment about mastication, it was only to demonstrate that the intended means for eating would be chewing, but some people consume chocolate by a different means, namely, letting it melt in your mouth effectively "corrupting" the biological intentions of teeth. But your comments intrigue me, if you don't mind me asking facetiously, do people really eat chocolate for its nutritional (or survival) value (when other options are available)?

 

[Sieguest]

@Guest438
I don't care whether each part is true or not, just whether it is relevant to Dre's argument. If it is false, it is a strike against part of his argument, if it is true, it goes to my example that eating chocolate is as unnatural as homosexual acts and using natural/unnatural as a proxy for morality fails. You missed the point completely.

No, my post is showing that your example is incorrect (not necessarily saying your premise is true or false but that the way you put forward the premise is incorrect, eliminating it's intended premise). Using an unsound example is what breaks its relevance to the argument. It's like if you're trying to disprove that multiplication isn't a faster means of addition that you use
3+3=/=6. Your example at its core can be shown to be false making it lose its relevance.

Just a note on the comment about mastication, it was only to demonstrate that the intended means for eating would be chewing, but some people consume chocolate by a different means, namely, letting it melt in your mouth effectively "corrupting" the biological intentions of teeth. But your comments intrigue me, if you don't mind me asking facetiously, do people really eat chocolate for its nutritional (or survival) value (when other options are available)?

One of the few times I'll answer a question with a question but:

Do people have favorite foods? Do people eat those foods for their nutrional value when there are other options availiable?

Another way of addressing it: Alternative means wouldn't be a corruption as the natural goal of eating is digestion. Whether it melted in the mouth or was chewed, it still proceeded to fit the natural goal of digestion. In other sense, we are able to drink correct? That's a natural means, so what's to say that the natural means of eating chocolate can't be changed to another means that is also natural? In that way there is no corruption.

But, your post reminded me of one thing I'm still not sure of.
Does natural law equate the natural process to morality or does it equate natural goals to morality.

 

[rvkevin]

Do people have favorite foods? Do people eat those foods for their nutritional value when there are other options available?

Yes. No. It may be that their favorite food may be nutritious, but generally a favorite food is decided on gratification alone.

Another way of addressing it: Alternative means wouldn't be a corruption as the natural goal of eating is digestion. Whether it melted in the mouth or was chewed, it still proceeded to fit the natural goal of digestion. In other sense, we are able to drink correct? That's a natural means, so what's to say that the natural means of eating chocolate can't be changed to another means that is also natural? In that way there is no corruption.

Digestion is still part of the means of eating. The goal or end of eating is to survive. The means would be anything that fulfills this end of survival: chewing, drinking, digestion, any other way to extract energy out of the environment. If you eat to fulfill a different end, namely gratification, you are "corrupting" the biological end of eating. This misunderstanding should not have occurred since I said "The natural purpose of eating is to survive, that is evident." I don't necessarily agree with this, but I think it is as well founded as Dre's claim that the end of sex is procreation. To diverge off of this point would be to miss the point.

If the means is irrelevant, then I would just drop that part of it, I only included it because I felt that it may have part of Dre's argument. Without it, the example is still as relevant. Just change it to "Eating chocolate corrupts the biological intentions for the act of eating." I don't follow the rest of your comment.

 

[Sieguest]

Yes. No. It may be that their favorite food may be nutritious, but generally a favorite food is decided on gratification alone.

Now answer me this: Is pleasure a natural end/goal?

Digestion is still part of the means of eating. The goal or end of eating is to survive. The means would be anything that fulfills this end of survival: chewing, drinking, digestion, any other way to extract energy out of the environment. If you eat to fulfill a different end, namely gratification, you are "corrupting" the biological end of eating. This misunderstanding should not have occurred since I said "The natural purpose of eating is to survive, that is evident." I don't necessarily agree with this, but I think it is as well founded as Dre's claim that the end of sex is procreation. To diverge off of this point would be to miss the point.

Depending on your answer to the question I proposed above will affect how this goes.

If yes, then could the ingestion of chocolate not be reasoned to be fulfilling that natural end? And does chocolate have nutritional value? Both of those answers would be yes. Then we can conclude that chocolate doesn't corrupt an end, but instead is serving two different ends.

If no, then I'd have to disagree with you and argue why the answer would be yes.

If the means is irrelevant, then I would just drop that part of it, I only included it because I felt that it may have part of Dre's argument. Without it, the example is still as relevant. Just change it to "Eating chocolate corrupts the biological intentions for the act of eating." I don't follow the rest of your comment.

Then how do you address the question of uncertainty?
Dre. concludes homosexuality is unnatural because it corrupts the natural end of procreation correct? Since homosexual couples cannot procreate then there is only one goal left, pleasure. So the you can't propose the a question of uncertainty here. However with your example, since chocolate has nutritional value and also has an end in pleasure, and seeing as how you can't eliminate one or the other to reason that there is one certain goal the person is going for, you can't say that "a person eats chocolate solely for gratification." How do you know? Could that person not eat it because it has the perfect amount of calcium or some other vitamin or mineral needed to meet their DVs could it be they eat it because of a health factor unigue to them? You can't pinpoint with certainty that pleasure is the sole intention for eating chocolate.

Now you may have noticed that I earlier said that Dre. could say with certainty that homosexual couples only have sex with each other for pleasure, and that above I'm arguing that pleasure is a natural end. If that is true, then could I not say that sex is there to fulfill two different natural ends as does chocolate? The difference being that chocolate fills both of its ends respectively, while homosexuality doesn't.

This begs the question what does Natural Law do about an act that is supposed to meet two natural ends, but results in one end being corrupted and the other remaining uncorrupted?

A thunderstorm is approaching so I have to cut this short, I'll edit the rest of my post later.

 

[rvkevin]

Now answer me this: Is pleasure a natural end/goal?

I don't care. I would go with whatever Dre agrees with because each answer is detrimental to his case. If yes, then homosexual acts are natural because they fulfill a natural end. If not, then chocolate fits the description of unnatural and whether something is natural or not fails as a proxy for morality.

Then how do you address the question of uncertainty?

I think a study concluded that more than 100 calories or so of chocolate a day is unhealthy. So anyone eating more than that would be due to gratification and not for nutritional reasons. Also, Dre made the point that if X% of the population were homosexual, then the end of procreation would not be fulfilled. I can similarly say that if X% of your diet is chocolate, then the end of survival would not be fulfilled.

 

[Sieguest]

I don't care. I would go with whatever Dre agrees with because each answer is detrimental to his case. If yes, then homosexual acts are natural because they fulfill a natural end. If not, then chocolate fits the description of unnatural and whether something is natural or not fails as a proxy for morality.

Saying yes would defeat the premise of your example, but what you've stated here is correct. I guess from there it would be trivial to go further into your example.

I think a study concluded that more than 100 calories or so of chocolate a day is unhealthy. So anyone eating more than that would be due to gratification and not for nutritional reasons. Also, Dre made the point that if X% of the population were homosexual, then the end of procreation would not be fulfilled. I can similarly say that if X% of your diet is chocolate, then the end of survival would not be fulfilled.

I'm actually intrigued by this. I think a person could take in more than 100 calories of chocolate and still be on the healthy side. Even though that is probably a totally different discussion.

I can agree with the rest of your post, you've made a good point.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well obviously there is some variability among different people, but I assume the average is around 100 calories.

Rvkevin, you have made a solid point. HOWEVER, when citing a study, you really should link to it. Otherwise, it's unusable information. I myself looked for a while, but all I could find was "don't eat too much". However, I came across an article that makes a similar point:http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/how-much-chocolate-is-too-much-chocolate. Basically, it states milk chocolate and white chocolate are not healthy at all; only dark chocolate is healthy, and even that is only beneficial when consumed 6.7 grams or less per day. So anything else is just for gratification.

 

[rvkevin]

Rvkevin, you have made a solid point. HOWEVER, when citing a study, you really should link to it. Otherwise, it's unusable information.

The number is not important. The only point that is important is that at a certain quantity, it becomes unhealthy, and I didn't think anyone disagreed with that point. If they do, then they can substitute chocolate with something from this site. Now that I think about it, I might as well substitute chocolate with doughnuts so I can call my analogy the "doughnut defense."

In case you think there is something healthy about this sugary toroid, "'When it comes to health, the only thing good about them is the hole,' said Carla Wolper, nutritionist at the New York Obesity Research Center."

 

[Dre89]

Just wanted to clear something up here-

Then how do you address the question of uncertainty?
Dre. concludes homosexuality is unnatural because it corrupts the natural end of procreation correct? Since homosexual couples cannot procreate then there is only one goal left, pleasure.

Homosexuality isn't wrong because it corrupts the natural end of procreation. It is wrong because it corrupts the natural act, which is meant for procreation, there's a difference.

The act is designed to be done with someone you're willing to have kids with. As long as you do this is there is nothing wrong, because you are doing the natural act. This is why it is ok for infertile couples to have sex, because they are still doing it the way it is designed.

The reason why homosexuality is wrong is because sexual pleasure is meant solely for the natural act, which in turn only exists for procreation. Homosexuality is wrong because it takes sexuality, which is meant only for the natural act, and employs it outside of said act.

Yes pleasure is a natural end, but the means must be natural too. For example, is it right for me to befriend a wealthy woman merely to exploit such wealth?

Both the means and the end (friendship and seeking personal wellbeing) are not necessarily wrongs independantly, but the structure of that process clearly is clearly what makes it wrong.

It's the same with the homosexual act, they are taking sexuality and applying it for the wrong reason. I've showed before that sexual pleasure isn't an end in itself, it is a means towards the end of procreation, because the sexual act is fulfilled only once the ejaculation has occurred.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

EDIT: Never mind, lemme reformulate this.

 

[Dre89]

The nature of sexual pleasure (existing solely for the purpose procreation) means it is merely a tool and never an end in itself.

The only reason why we get pleasure is to entice us into the act.

I'm not sure if I answered you correctly because I'm not totally sure I understand what you're asking sorry.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Actually, before I try any harder to argue against your philosophy, would you please refute the refutations in this post: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10496310&postcount=220

I think I did a pretty good job at destroying one of the key points in this argument, and that is that animals are unable to affect their ecosystem, and for that reason they cannot corrupt the means or the end.

EDIT: another two things come to mind. Specifically, **** and murder. **** is procreational sex, both in and outside of the animal kingdom. Murder has one sole natural goal in and outside of nature, and that is killing who you want to have dead (be it because they were with your mate, or because they stole your spot in the tribal hierarchy). Both are natural, are they not? Does that mean they are good?

 

[Dre89]

Okay. So we have established one unnatural state-the extinction of all life on earth. I think this is a pretty reasonable thing to call an "unnatural" state.

That's not the only unnatural state, it's just one that is obviously unnatural, and obviously possible, proving that there are natural states.

But... what if a monkey catches the plague and kills his whole tribe? What if a whale accidentally whacks a rock that was holding back a massive geyser of oil, killing half the animals in the ocean? The concept that animals cannot alter their ecosystems seems scientifically laughable to me.

Both those instances are either a result of human intervention, or an animal altering its ecosystem through circumstances forced upon it by external factors, not on its own accord. The animals are still chess pieces being moved around by a greater power. If I gave you the paragraph on it from my essay this would have been more clear.

Okay, there is right or wrong...



All right. I claim that homosexuality is natural because it is found in animals. I claim that flying/driving is unnatural because if we were supposed to fly or drive, we would have wings or wheels.

The development of technology is natural, so there is nothing wrong with it. Flying and driving serve the end of transportation, which is a human good, but they don't corrupt any goal or natural practice.

I'm not convinced about animal homosexuality for reasons I've stated previously.


But doesn't this, in and of itself, change what is natural for us as humans? Comparing a "natural state human" from hundreds of thousands of years ago to a modern human and expecting them to have the same natural conditions, rules, and norms is like comparing a dolphin to a badger. We have changed our environment and our needs.

No, we've changed our environment and our wants.

What is natural is still the same now as it was back then, if it had changed, the nature of the human person would change too, but it hasn't. A coffee machine created now still has the same purpose in 1000 years, the only way it would have a different purpose is if the very nature of the object was altered.

Of course. IF we went back. However, at the moment, we are suffering from overpopulation, are we not? The really usable land is quite full of humans.

The heavy urbanisation of human society means that the up-keep of one person costs far more resources than it really needs to. We are only over-populated in relation to what our societal systems (government, urbanisation etc.) can sustain. There are plenty of places like Egypt and Australia where there is alot of unused spaced.

Besides, without immigration, western civilisation would actually be dying out. For a civilisation to last over 25 years, every couple needs a fertility rate of 2.11 children. A rate of 1.8 has never been reversed in history, and a rate of 1.3 has never been reversed.

All western countries have rates beteen 1 and 2.

But does your theory hold room for modulation based on the changes of the human environment and/or condition? If not, it seems very, very far-fetched.

I'm trying to think of a good example as to why we cannot compare our modern morality to that of prehistoric man.

I covered this before. This moral theory is based on the nature of the human person, that is why I find it so convincing, and why I think it gives me a right to say it surpasses other moral theories, because it is founded on empirical observation, unlike other theories. The point is, the human person hasn't chnaged, so what is natural hasn't either.

>losing faith in science because it was wrong once

...

Spoiler

Just pointing that out...

Ever since I discovered scientists had political agendas I've lost faith in them. I disagree with their claims on this because I've never witnessed any evidence of this ever, only heterosexual practice. Even when I used to volunteer at a Zoo there was never any mention or practice of this at all.

I'm justified in discrediting the scientist's stance on this, because there has never been any evidence of this outside of testimony, and I know that scientists have had political agendas for homosexuality before.

I'll PM you about it, I know some good ones.

Oh wait, you said animal...


...

Haha.