Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
A poster claimed that homosexuality was unnatural. I mentioned the prevalence of homosexuality in animals to show that it is indeed natural. Not all male and female animals produce offspring, and many primate species are built on the notion that only one male out of like every five mates. Therefore, homosexuality has no bearing on the survival of the species.
I believe my last question was which orientation is BEST suited towards the propogation of the species. Which you did not answer. And at some point the male primate does mate with a female, correct?
Occurance in nature of homosexuality does not make the behavior prevelant. It's an abberation, the exception rather than the rule. Occurance of certain behaviors or physical mutations in nature does not mean the rest of the species will adopt those behaviors or will become mutated in the same manner as the others. For instance...there was a case in the last 5-6 years somewhere in the US (I can't remember where) of a large number of small frogs who were being born with only 1 leg. The people investigating could not identify an environmental cause (ie: No chemical pollution). This did not indicate a condition that would affect the rest of the species.
Quote
As for being “hard-wired” into a genetic makeup, well, I doubt my peacock has a homosexual gene. It simply likes roosters. I don’t know why, but the peacock’s happy and the rooster doesn’t seem to mind, so who does it harm?
Again, sexual habits/orientation are LEARNED. I did not say they were genetic. Refer to one of my previous posts...I said anyone who's ever taken Behavioral Psych 101 will say the same thing. That's why people who were formally homosexual have changed and become heterosexual. It does happen.
Quote
Bottom line: calling homosexuality "abnormal" is not a judgement based on any reality ... you're basing it on taste. You might also be basing it on an interpretation of the bible, but I think such interpretations are sketchy at best (re: was Sodom really destroyed because of homosexuality, or the fact that the townspeople wanted to rape an angel?). Now, if you're the sort of person who can't see behavioral similarities between mankind and the animal world ... have fun living in your oblivion.
No, actually I'm basing it on what is being proven...it's not genetic, it's not natural. It's learned. To observe your peacock and make the leap that the behavior is "prevelant in nature"...now who's living in oblivion?
Quote
Being pro-choice means that I believe every woman can make up her own mind if the cells in her body are conscious. After all, the cells will essentially be a parasite consuming the woman's resources for nine months if she so chooses. If the woman chooses not to provide the resources, the cells can not grow into a human being. If a woman chooses not to provide nourishment to her newborn child, the child can still live if someone else provides the nourishment.
So now it's a utilitarian consideration? Convenience trumps life?
Quote
Not all women think as I do, either. People are different... kinda like how some mothers believe her baby is smiling and other think the babe's just passing gas. It’s still good to have choices.
This is pure relativism, which is part of the larger problem. If one person considers the unborn child alive, and the other doesn't, it's ok to have an abortion? Perhaps you should watch the film "The Silent Scream" and tell me if the unborn child is alive.
Quote
Personally, I think the most responsible route to choose is that of birth control if one wants to experience sex without reproducing. I’ll also admit that late-term abortions when the mother’s life is not at stake leave me uneasy. Yet I don't believe abortion is especially irresponsible .... it's more responsible than bearing a baby you will not love and are not willing to provide care for.
You've heard of adoption, right? However, I too believe birth control is a good alternative. Partial birth abortion can never be justified. The entire basis for the anti-life position collapses under the weight of this issue. They cannot say that life begins at birth, and then have the "right" to terminate life at this point.
Quote
"Better off is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."
Assuming that life begins at birth, which is not the case...and this seems almost like the evil of abortion will somehow make the world a better place...
I was going to let this thread go....oh well.
