Time to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Ur a slow learner Hippie ... a VERY S-L-O-W learner.

Incredibly slow learner.....

Originally Posted by RickWhite
You are talking out of your ass.

First, animals are not aware of their sexuality and can not therefore be "gay." The notion that this is possible comes from something called anthropomorphic fallacy. This is assigning human attributed to non-humans. Saying an animal is "gay" is like calling a dog that kills another dog a murderer. Animals have been seen mounting other animals but this has more to do with the animal simply being confused. Also, many animal behavior is triggered by pheromones. So, if I sprayed you with the pheromones of a female moose and sent you up north - well it's just say you wouldn't be happy. Or maybe you would, IDK.

Anyway, you are incorrect. There is no know genetic link to homosexuality, only speculation.


Wow, and you say I'm talking out of my ass.

Animals can be 'gay' without making an anthropromorphic fallacy. Show me an animal that prefers to have sex with same-sex partners, and I'll show you a gay animal. Don't have to look too far to find many, many examples of this in the animal kingdom. And the animals are not confused - they are quite aware they are having gay animal sex and seek it out purposefully. Perhaps you are the one who is confused, or too lazy to simply do a quick internet search about the heaps of evidence before talking out of your ass.

And by the way, there is no known genetic link to homosexuality in humans. They have already found a 'gay gene' in other animals, and are fairly certain they will find something similar in humans too. They base this prediction off the many twin studies that have been done that consistently hint at a genetic component, as well as research into physical differences and similarities between homosexuals and heterosexuals. To call all that speculation is fair enough, but to base your beliefs on an appeal to ignorance is pure logical fallacy. So indeed, you are incorrect. There is a known genetic basis for homosexuality already and it is very likely there is one for humans and that we simply have not identified it - yet.

dukeofbaja said:

Originally Posted by RickWhite
You are talking out of your ass.

First, animals are not aware of their sexuality and can not therefore be "gay." The notion that this is possible comes from something called anthropomorphic fallacy. This is assigning human attributed to non-humans. Saying an animal is "gay" is like calling a dog that kills another dog a murderer. Animals have been seen mounting other animals but this has more to do with the animal simply being confused. Also, many animal behavior is triggered by pheromones. So, if I sprayed you with the pheromones of a female moose and sent you up north - well it's just say you wouldn't be happy. Or maybe you would, IDK.

Anyway, you are incorrect. There is no know genetic link to homosexuality, only speculation.


Wow, and you say I'm talking out of my ass.

Animals can be 'gay' without making an anthropromorphic fallacy. Show me an animal that prefers to have sex with same-sex partners, and I'll show you a gay animal. Don't have to look too far to find many, many examples of this in the animal kingdom. And the animals are not confused - they are quite aware they are having gay animal sex and seek it out purposefully. Perhaps you are the one who is confused, or too lazy to simply do a quick internet search about the heaps of evidence before talking out of your ass.

And by the way, there is no known genetic link to homosexuality in humans. They have already found a 'gay gene' in other animals, and are fairly certain they will find something similar in humans too. They base this prediction off the many twin studies that have been done that consistently hint at a genetic component, as well as research into physical differences and similarities between homosexuals and heterosexuals. To call all that speculation is fair enough, but to base your beliefs on an appeal to ignorance is pure logical fallacy. So indeed, you are incorrect. There is a known genetic basis for homosexuality already and it is very likely there is one for humans and that we simply have not identified it - yet.

Click to expand...

It is IMPOSSIBLE for animals to be gay. To be gay, one must be aware of their sexuality. Animals have no such awareness. That is why a dog will hump someone's leg, it isn't because it has a sexual preference for shin bones, it is because it is acting on instinct and unaware of what it is doing. Most animals can't even comprehend gender - their sexual instinct is triggered by pheromones and other biological cues.

Where do you get the idea that you know what animals "prefer," and where do you get this idiotic notion that animals seek out gay sex? Can you talk to animals? have they told you this? Really, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you say things like this? I bet you also think that dogs that bark at black people are racist too.

If they identified this "gay" gene, why don't you post a reference. In fact, post references for any of your nonsense. And learn what an appeal to ignorance is. I never said there is no genetic cause, just that one has not been demonstrated.

Stoney McFried said:

Of course.When we can't come up with a rebuttal,we insult the person we disagree with.This is number one on the internet troll's code of conduct. We all should stand in awe of RickWhite-after all,his reviews speak for themselves!

"He's the most intelligent man I've ever known!" RickWhite,some office chair,U.S.A
"Nobody knows half as much as RickWhite,just ask him!" R.W, RIU politics forums
"He's a legend in his own mind!" R White, dumbass redneck lair,America
"He totally would know how to find the clitoris,if he could ever shut his mouth long enough for a woman to consider taking her pants off around him!" Mr.White,undisclosed location



Gee, so sorry you had to "bother" translating Neanderthal into English for me, Rick.Having to actually address a woman as an equal when she doesn't have the good sense to remain in the kitchen must be taxing for you,especially since you have the answers to absolutely everything and you can't find a pen to write it all down for us mortals. Of course disagreement has to equal a lack of intelligence on the part of your opponent-otherwise, you might have to rethink your position,and that would cause a tear in the fabric of the universe.Don't let me keep you any more with my silly nonsensical prattle...you and Chuck Norris have to compare chest hair.

Click to expand...

Actually, your composition skills are so poor that it makes reading your posts downright painful.

And I say in all honesty, and without any attempt to insult you, that I just don't see any point in responding to most of what you say.

For instance, you suggest that a boy who grows up in a good intact home is more likely to commit violence against Gays. How and why does one respond to this? You should spend a little time in the neighborhoods of Detroit if you want to see the result of fatherless homes. Better yet, ask some of the women there what their opinion is on the matter.

Gee, Rick, ever heard of Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

It is not impossible for animals to be gay, even if you put the word 'impossible' in caps and continue to believe it with all your might in the face of overwhelming evidence. And I'm sure the two gay penguins who cared for and hatched the egg they were given probably were just confused, and didn't know what they were doing.

And also, do a google search for 'making flies gay'.

And the dog does not bark at the black person because it is racist, it does so because it takes non verbal cues from its owner. If the owner is uncomfortable or racist, the dog might bark.

As long as we are asking questions, where do you get the notion that most animals can't comprehend gender? That has to be one of the most absurd notions I have ever heard, and you might want to back up your assertion with some facts.

dukeofbaja said:

Gee, Rick, ever heard of Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

It is not impossible for animals to be gay, even if you put the word 'impossible' in caps and continue to believe it with all your might in the face of overwhelming evidence. And I'm sure the two gay penguins who cared for and hatched the egg they were given probably were just confused, and didn't know what they were doing.

And also, do a google search for 'making flies gay'.

And the dog does not bark at the black person because it is racist, it does so because it takes non verbal cues from its owner. If the owner is uncomfortable or racist, the dog might bark.

As long as we are asking questions, where do you get the notion that most animals can't comprehend gender? That has to be one of the most absurd notions I have ever heard, and you might want to back up your assertion with some facts.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia is NOT a valid source - anyone can enter or edit a topic. Do you have any other sources like this one?

Confused Identities. Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.(P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984).

And animals can not comprehend gender because they are not capable of higher reasoning. They can DETECT gender in certain ways, but they can not COMPREHEND gender, nor can they comprehend sexuality.

The authors in those Wikipedia articles are only observing meaningless animal behavior and LIKENING it to human homosexuality. One must be capable of higher reasoning to be gay, just like one must be capable of higher reason to commit a crime. I saw a video of a duck taking chips from a gas station. The duck was not committing a theft because it has no ability to comprehend its actions.

Do you have any science education at all?

I must not understand science at all. I thought if two animals preferred same-sex sexual relations, one would call them gay (or that they 'display homosexual behavior', if the shorthand of 'gay' is too much of an anthropromorphic fallacy for you).

By the way, wikipedia itself may be edited by anyone, but the various books referenced in those articles cannot be edited by anyone, and are valid.

You are way out in left field if you don't think animals can be gay. Or just willfully ignoring the tons and tons and tons of evidence that shows you are squarely wrong.

dukeofbaja said:

I must not understand science at all. I thought if two animals preferred same-sex sexual relations, one would call them gay (or that they 'display homosexual behavior', if the shorthand of 'gay' is too much of an anthropromorphic fallacy for you).

By the way, wikipedia itself may be edited by anyone, but the various books referenced in those articles cannot be edited by anyone, and are valid.

You are way out in left field if you don't think animals can be gay. Or just willfully ignoring the tons and tons and tons of evidence that shows you are squarely wrong.

Click to expand...

Evidently, your level of comprehension is pretty close to that of these animals.

A male dog that tries to hump another is not "gay." They do that because they just don't know any better. Why do you think they hump peoples legs? You think they prefer shin bone? This behavior in fact is an issue of dominance more than anything else.

And why do you use the word "prefer"? Have you taken an animal survey? How are you able to measure their preference? If I have three cats and the two males wrestle around more do you just assume they are gay because they "prefer" each other?

I was in fact a biology major and psychology has always been a fascination of mine, so I do have some background.

Assuming that a male monkey is "gay" because he tries to screw another male monkey is stupid. The exact same logic would be for one to watch a nature show and suggest that lions have a preference for cruelty because they murder lions from other prides.

Animals have very little reasoning ability. The are not capable of higher reasoning. They do not understand what sexuality is or why they want to try to stick their dick into something. They do it because of instinct. And insects act almost entirely based on their response to pheromones. I could make fruit flies try to screw a brick if I sprayed it with pheromones.

No, I'm afraid your author is nothing but a PC windbag.

How far did you get with that biology degree? BIO100?

I understand if a dog humps another dog, or your shin, or whatever, that is a dominance display. But when two animals of the same sex court, bond, and fuck each other when they have the option of fucking opposite sex animals, they are gay. Or, since that is too anthropromorphically fallacious for you to accept, they are animals that display homosexual behavior.

Google 'Roy and Silo'. There ya go. Gay penguins.

And you must have missed the part about the flies where they mentioned mutating the genetics of the flies to make them homo. Not that pheromones don't play a role as well, but they were able to change their sexual preference by altering their genetics.

And all these discoveries have come in a short amount of time, as this topic was not the basis of many studies historically. But that is changing, and in time science will definitely prove there is a genetic component.

BS Cellular & Molecular biology.

Evidently, you just aren't going to grasp this concept.

Yes - this is all anthropomorphic fallacy. A fruit fly can not be gay. It has zero ability to express sexual preference. Its actions are merely a product of simple chemical action. It does not surprise me that one could alter these chemical reactions to cause them to attempt to mate with another fly of the same sex. Like I said, I could make them attempt to mate with a brick - what does that make them brickosexual?

Like I said, you clearly aren't going to grasp this concept.

And you are clearly not going to grasp that animals that choose to have same-sex pair bonds and sexual relations despite the availability of opposite sex partners, are gay. The males know there are females out there, they fuck males. The females know there are males out there, they fuck females. How is that not homosexual?

This is laughable but I'm going to try this another way.

If a man convinces a 5 year old boy to willfully engage in sexual activity with him and the kid does it willingly, is the 5 year old gay? What if a profoundly retarded man is made to believe that certain sexual activity with other men is good to do but bad to do with women, and he buys into it - is he gay?

Explain why.

dukeofbaja said:

And you are clearly not going to grasp that animals that choose to have same-sex pair bonds and sexual relations despite the availability of opposite sex partners, are gay. The males know there are females out there, they fuck males. The females know there are males out there, they fuck females. How is that not homosexual?

Click to expand...

Because animals lack the ability to make choices.

And animals don't know anything because they lack the capacity of knowledge.

Are you 10 years old or something?

You guys seem to be going on two different definitions of homosexual/gay:

1. If two animals/people of the same sex engage a sexual relationship they're homosexual/gay.
2. If two self-aware animals/people of the same sex chose to have a sexual relationship they are homosexual/gay.

Personally, the first one is enough for me. If you look up the definition, it's going to basically say something like: having sexual desire within the same sex. Something that animals can do IMO. Unfortunately for conservatives, that doesn't go well with the whole sin/choice thing.

Once again, answer this question.

If a man convinces a 5 year old boy to willfully engage in sexual activity with him and the kid does it willingly, is the 5 year old gay? What if a profoundly retarded man is made to believe that certain sexual activity with other men is good to do but bad to do with women, and he buys into it - is he gay?

Explain why.


Also, is the dog in this South Park clip "gay"? Are the kids?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/74977

Why?

Before I attempt to answer, please explain to me who is coercing the animals to form same-sex pair bonds. Your examples both involve persuasion or coercion, those gay pengiuns were not coerced, forced, persuaded, or manipulated in any way to pair bond and hatch an egg.

Also, you stated....

"Because animals lack the ability to make choices.

And animals don't know anything because they lack the capacity of knowledge."

WTF? Do you seriously believe this? Do you have a shred of evidence to support this assertion? A huge assetion like this requires huge evidence to support it. And a lot of effort to willfully ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

dukeofbaja said:

Also, you stated....

"Because animals lack the ability to make choices.

And animals don't know anything because they lack the capacity of knowledge."

WTF? Do you seriously believe this? Do you have a shred of evidence to support this assertion? A huge assetion like this requires huge evidence to support it. And a lot of effort to willfully ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

Click to expand...

You need to stop discussing things like this.

The whole of science and the whole of human knowledge and understanding is abundantly clear that few animals posses any reasoning skills beyond the most basic. Animals are not self aware and can not contemplate their own existence much less their own sexuality or gender.

If you don't understand something so basic I see no reason to have dialog with you. Why should I explain why a square peg doesn't go into a round hole.