Heterosexuality and the heterosexual lifestyle.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Do you really want to legitimise deviant forms of human behaviour by saying "well, other animals do it"?

Should I bother even trying to have a civil debate with you?

Oh well -- I guess I'm being overly optimistic, but here goes . . . .



SlowwHand and a couple of others here have brought up the fact of sex behavior between animals of the same gender. And I am weary of using the "it's natural" argument because sex behavior is different for humans than it is for other animals in that we engage in sex for non-reproductive reasons.

I also am beginning to wonder about the "it's not a choice" argument as well that is used by many gay activists. True, sexual orienation is not a choice, but as I have said before, I think right to conscience and right to intimate life are better, and more sound grounds to argue for human dignity of gays and for equal rights.


Too often, willfully ignorant people and homophobes obsessively degrade and dehumanize gays through negative stereotypes that reduce possibility of love between two people of the same gender exclusively to their sex acts. Heterosexual love for instance, is acknowledged to involve more complexity than just sex, but this same level of human dignity is not given to gays who are in love with one another.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
By being pragmatic.

Please elaborate. Your answer is vague enough to be essentially meaningless.

And anyway, natural is not always synonomous with "good".

Which is why I said that just because something is "natural" does not necessarily mean that it isn't "deviant." However, if your only justification for labelling homosexuality "deviant" is based on your claim that it is "unnatural," then you're either being a bigot or a megalomaniac.

[MrFun]

Also, the fallicious argument that any intimate relationship is not legitimate if it's not based on reproductive reasons dehumanizes people who are in such relationships.

By saying that only relationships centered around reproductivity are legitimate for humans, is to dehumanize those people to the level of other animals by obsessively centering relationships around a purely biological function (which, for humans, it's not purely biological function).

[Caligastia]

Who cares if homosexuality can be considered "natural" or not? It's not something they choose, so how can it be "wrong"?

[SlowwHand]

MrFun. Before you dismiss me as being insulting, you might need to realize the full ramifications of my point.

Man is the only species with advanced reasoning abilities; the ability to make decisions, to choose.
If other animals are known to exhibit seeming homosexual behavior, does that not indicate that it's not a choice, but rather a mindset with which one is born ?

**********************************

Yeah, yeah. ****ing redneck Texan hicks.
I'm going to stop making points in your damned behalf.

[bipolarbear]

true dat slowwhand.

[Japher]

Aye, Sloww, but animals exhibit homosexual behavior because of their "any hole will do" mentality. Humans, on the other, select/ choose their "holes".

[Caligastia]

I don't think "choosing holes" has anything to do with sexuality.

[Spiffor]

If it was only a question of holes, women fit as targets to any sexual orientation.

[Caligastia]

Um...not really. The prospect of buttsex would not be enough to lure a gay man into having sex with a woman.

[Spiffor]

That's why it's not only a question of holes

[Caligastia]

Oh, right, sorry, I skim-read your post.

[Japher]

I was just pointing out that Slowws suggestion that man's ability to reason has nothing to do with attraction. Reason only relates to behavior in this matter.

[bipolarbear]

skim reading

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Do you really want to legitimise deviant forms of human behaviour by saying "well, other animals do it"?