"Everyone is Created in God's Image"

LOVE1516:

Two okay so if someone feels an attraction to an animal say monkey, dog, crocodile, etc.. Then it's all genetic or whatever therefore it's not wrong because he had an attraction?

My answer is I pretty sure he chooses to be attracted to an animal..

Nope, still not a choice. No one's saying "if it's not a choice it's not wrong". Whether one is attracted to humans or animals, it comes from chemical, cerebral and hormonal aspects of our biological makeup. It doesn't have any bearing on whether it's "right" or "wrong" (although the fact that homosexuality is not a choice is part of why there should be no discrimination against gay people). The clincher that makes homosexuality okay and zoophilia not okay is that when one acts upon the former, it's generally a mutually consenting adult relationship and no one is harmed, and when one acts upon the latter, there's no mutual consent.

I'll ask you again; do you believe that you (personally) choose whom you fall in love with/whom you find attractive?

@ LOVE1516

LOVE1516:

Okay one you can't say, I lack of biological knowledge.

THEN PROVE IT.

Quote

Just because I don't agree with your side of the science doesn't make me dumb, there more than one side in science.

I am well aware of this. I am a scientist. However, you do not attempt to back up any of your claims. If you can't back it up with rigorous, scientific evidence then you have no argument, you have no case.

Quote

Two okay so if someone feels an attraction to an animal say monkey, dog, crocodile, etc.. Then it's all genetic or whatever therefore it's not wrong because he had an attraction?

My answer is I pretty sure he chooses to be attracted to an animal..

There are many things I would like to say to this but there is only one thing I can say.

Do you choose to fall in love with someone? If I told you that I was going to give you a million dollars if you fell in love with someone of the same sex, could you do that?

Quote

Gay teen suicide happens because people with low self-esteem like to pick on people.. There are plenty people that don't agree with gays but, don't tease them and call the foul names, that's wrong...

But, you can't say they're all hypocrites because they don't want to alter your way..

I would generally suggest that the fact that people like to spread misconceptions about who they are based on ignorance is just as bad. It implies that they are not good enough for that society.

Ugh! I'm not saying gay people will go fuck dogs!

I'm saying if it's internal and biological, DNA, whatever you want to say it is, then it shouldn't be wrong for a person to be attracted to an animal..

Oh and about the teen gay suicides, what about the teens that are 'prudes' they get teased just as much and some lead to suicide...

Science said Nebraska Man was used in Science to explain we came from Apes, All they found was a tooth and somehow made a whole half ape half human, then they made him a wife, yes from his tooth. Then they later found out the tooth came from a pig.

Oh and then there 'Lucy' she was found by a geologist named Donald Johanson. We they put her together and guess what her knee was found a year earlier, 70 meters lower and a mile away. Saint Louis Zoo put human feet on 'lucy' not one single foot bone or hand bone was found. Yet they called it science at the time..

I have so many more Science things that were proven false and a lie but, it was science at the time..

LOVE1516:

Ugh! I'm not saying gay people will go fuck dogs!

I'm saying if it's internal and biological, DNA, whatever you want to say it is, then it shouldn't be wrong for a person to be attracted to an animal..

Let me refer you to my previous comment -

Alex; periphery.:

Nope, still not a choice. No one's saying "if it's not a choice it's not wrong". Whether one is attracted to humans or animals, it comes from chemical, cerebral and hormonal aspects of our biological makeup. It doesn't have any bearing on whether it's "right" or "wrong" (although the fact that homosexuality is not a choice is part of why there should be no discrimination against gay people). The clincher that makes homosexuality okay and zoophilia not okay is that when one acts upon the former, it's generally a mutually consenting adult relationship and no one is harmed, and when one acts upon the latter, there's no mutual consent.

I'll ask you again; do you believe that you (personally) choose whom you fall in love with/whom you find attractive?

- so it's not inherently morally wrong to be attracted to animals; it's wrong to act upon it, because with an animal there's no mutual consent. With two homosexual men or women, there is.

@ LOVE1516
I feel like you're ignoring everything we're trying to say to you. There is a massive difference between bestiality and homosexuality, just as their is a massive difference between attractions and actions. Acting upon attractions to an animal is wrong because it harms the animal. The animal cannot give consent to a relationship or sex with a human therefore, it is harmful because it is forcing an innocent creature into something they are unable to consent to. With homosexuality, there is consent. Acting upon homosexuality is not harmful because it has consent of all people involved. An attraction to an animal is not wrong per say, acting upon it is because it is acting upon it that causes the harm.

I'm a little confused, weren't you just defending a science that has been proven to be inaccurate? You were defending science claiming that homosexuality is a choice, "science" that has been debunked numerous times as false and inaccurate. I'm not really understanding your point. How can you defend junk science but turn around and accuse a completely unrelated science of being false? I think you may have missed my point in my last post though. My point was that science saying homosexuality (or any sexuality) is a choice is almost always junk science, otherwise known as science that is known to be false and inaccurate.

In some sense you don't choose who you fall in love with I mean I love my mom, sister, girl-friends, and other girl family members so I know that's not exactly what you're talking about...

I was saying that those 'junk' science was science at the time and people argued it's proof, there no fault, yada, yada, yada... But, then they found out years later it was fake...

I'm going to just stop talking about this post until I read up on some more of it because having to search and read for hours just to find something is getting annoying. I've not exactly specialized in this area, but you may not say since I don't master in biology that I'm dumb or stupid.. And yes when you say that you are calling me stupid...

I have known plenty of stupid people that mastered in biology ...

@ LOVE1516

Look.

Yes, science makes mistakes because it is not infallible. However, science is also forever building and forever changing. It's known as paradigm shifts as described by Kuhn.

Not ONCE have you actually stated any evidence to support your hypothesis that homosexuality is a choice. Nothing. All you have done is make false syllogisms and bring up mistakes that happened in a different field of science. That doesn't make your argument any more credible.

Because seriously, if "science" is a lie then I am eager to find out what your evidence for your hypothesis is and to see how much of "a lie" that is.

Why would God make other animals gay and not humans?

LOVE1516:

In some sense you don't choose who you fall in love with I mean I love my mom, sister, girl-friends, and other girl family members so I know that's not exactly what you're talking about...

Okay, I'm not talking about familial love. I'll rephrase my question. Thinking about people you've had crushes on, fallen in romantic love with or had sexual desires for, did you choose them? Or did they occur to you?

When I have a crush on someone, it's not that I like him because I've decided on him as opposed to anyone else; I like him because when I look at him, talk to him or when I'm around him, my brain is awash with endorphins and oxytocin and what have you. And from an evolutionary point of view, it's rather apparent that human attraction is built into our nature to highly increase the likelihood of finding a mate. (Otherwise, it'd be fair to postulate that we would have a sex drive even more pathetic than that of the giant panda.) If this is the case for attraction to specific people, why on earth would heterosexuality or homosexuality in general be a choice?

Yeah I knew what you're talking about alright, hands up I surrender!

I need to research more oh and -The Master- I'll get you some research to back it up...

I have never seen an animal gay?!?!

@ LOVE1516

I hope you do because I shall be treating it like every other study I have to read. Don't worry about giving me journal articles, I will be able to access them.

And yes, around 190~ species in the Animal Kingdom of varying cognitive abilities display homosexual behaviour.

Are they gay or showing dominance? I've seen plenty animals show 'gay' signs guess what, it's called showing dominance.. Animals are my subject..

@ LOVE1516

Homosexual behaviour is described as sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding and same sex parenting.

When a female dog humps a female dog it's called dominance, stress, or excitement. Same with males.

Okay if there licking each other mouths it not kissing, in wolf pack which dogs descended from. A higher ranking wolf would get groomed by not higher ranking wolves...

A dogs sexuality is taken from them instantly if they're neutered, so a neutered animal humping or licking is most likely submission, dominance, excitement, or stress..

@ LOVE1516

...I know it is not kissing. And no, this is not about dominant behaviour. This is about other aspects beyond what you have described.

Consider this, 10% of rams - even when there are ewes in ovulation mode - will refuse to copulate with them but will readily display all heterosexual animal courtship aspects with other rams.

Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

The first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

@ LOVE1516

Thanks for taking the time to copy and paste an argument from a biased website, it is most appreciated.

Firstly, no. Whilst cannibalism and filicide are committed by others in the animal kingdom, these behaviours are maladaptive in the human morality. These undoubtably hurt other people. Homosexuality hurts nobody and to bring such lame excuses for an argument is pure pandering at best.

1. Adaption to circumstances can still be described as deterministic. Causality to any and all adaptions to environment can be seen both in the short and long term. To imply that this adaption incurs some special, non-deterministic treatment is a false conclusion to build.

2. I find it amusing that the is the suggestion that human perception is sophisticated. Human perception regularly fails, particularly with information processing biases. Furthermore, the person who wrote this is heavily implying that animals have a purely bottom-up processing style whereas humans have a top down style which is not entirely true.

3. All I am hearing here is bog standard behaviourism dogma veiled in impressive sounding words.

You're welcome;)
All I'm hearing is excuses, why people are gay we go from biology to animals. If we're going to say that if animals do it then why don't we, then cannibalism is in fact okay.

It is still possible however that the animal instinct gets messed up, if he had trouble when he was born or from a recent attack. Then his senses could be messed up, so he might think a male is a female..

I do not care if you choose to like the same sex it really isn't a big deal for me but, you can't imply we are animals....

Chimpanzee family engages in what seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states.

Animal are limited to how they communicate, in less of coarse you think they have a secret language? But, I don't so, some of the things they do can be similar to what they do to reproduce. But, does not mean they're gay.. They are either dominate, stressed, excited, showing affection or are making sure the animals knows his place..

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality.

If the site I get my information is biased, what are your websites?

@ LOVE1516

Excuses? Oh, yes. Because that's how the endocrine system works, it only works when we choose it to.

Ultimately, this is merely the indication of why people act that way. Unless you mean to say that the entire system of psychology is making excuses for behaviour? Because, really, that would really amuse me.

Because animals are a part of biology, maybe? Our development as a species was not any different to theirs.

And yes, I can imply we are animals all I please since it is true! We are part of the primate classification of the Animal Kingdom. Unless of course new evidence has emerged that we are in fact some hyper intelligent form of wheat.

Can I just say that some of the examples you used are also used to classify homosexual behaviour, thanks.

Yes, one scientist says one thing. I don't particularly care. There are many scientists who say contradictory things. It is a matter of how strong the evidence gained is, is it not?

Also, I don't use websites per se. I use journal articles, usually found on databases like Web of Knowledge or Science Direct. However, if you are really keen to look these over for yourself, the names and dates are usually enough to find them on Google Scholar. If not, I could send you PDF files of the articles themselves so you can read over them at your leisure, given adequate internet transportation.

Well i believed you should be amused...

Behavior for human is different for animals, i'm sorry but I didn't come from a Ape... my great-great-great-great-great-great-great- grandpa was not soup that came alive and my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandma was not fish that had no gills and died and magically came back alive and had gills..

It is, but i see no evidence?

Oh i'd love to read them over for my leisure, so please send them:)