Andros-
Can I duck out of the way of this one? I dont think Rousseau knows the wrath that is about to beset him.
Good luck to you both though, I like you both.
Ahem. Homosexual behavior in animals is generally accepted as fact, I believe, and not just under isolation conditions. Sexual stimulation and arousal sure counts as sexual activity in my book.
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990807/queercreat.html
“In the mid-1970s Wolfe was in the wilds of Japan studying macaques. As she grew to know her troop of monkeys, it soon became apparent that the females were having sex with one another. And these encounters weren’t mere flings. Females paired off for days or weeks at a time, forming exclusive couples. They moved around together, and spent ages grooming one another between bouts of sexual activity that typically culminated in orgasm for both partners.”
"Describing behaviours as diverse as “lesbian” gulls that share a nest and rear chicks together or the homosexual “orgies” of male manatees, Bagemihl stresses that animal homosexuality is not a single, uniform phenomenon. His mission is to document its sheer diversity: “same-sex behaviour in animals exhibits every conceivable variation”. What he deplores is the prevailing “Noah’s ark” view of animal sexuality. Sometimes, preliminaries to homosexual encounters closely resemble heterosexual courtship, as in the “mutual ecstatic” displays of male humboldt penguins and the castanet-like teeth chattering of male walruses. But sometimes homosexual encounters elicit novel displays: male ostriches court other males with a unique “pirouette dance”, for instance, while female rhesus monkeys engage in “hide-and-seek” games played only during female-female interactions.
In about a quarter of the cases he documents, Bagemihl also finds signs of “affectionate” behaviours. These activities do not involve direct genital contact but “nevertheless have clear sexual or erotic overtones”. Male lions “head-rub” and roll around with each other, while vampire bats develop erections during erotic same-sex grooming and licking. Whales and dolphins rub their bodies together and stroke each other with their flippers or tail flukes. Male giraffes indulge in prolonged bouts of affectionate “necking”, often followed by mounting and culminating in apparent orgasm. Novel sexual postures and oral sex of various kinds are also commonplace, says Bagemihl, who notes that female long-eared hedgehogs are known to engage in mutual genital licking, while male orang-utans practice fellatio."
Other links: http://www.qrd.org/qrd/origins/1993/gay.animals-refs-12.31.93 http://www.qrd.org/qrd/origins/1993/homo.animals-01.07.93 http://www.qrd.org/qrd/origins/1993/homosexuality.in.animals-09.05.93 http://web.missouri.edu/~psycmm/bgnews/1997/msg00004.html http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990807/editorial.html
Back to your regularly scheduled spewing of bile. Ciao.
And I thought man was supposed to DISTINGUISH himself FROM THE ANIMALS not aspire to be LIKE THEM.
I was so wrong. Oh GOd forgive me for not being beastly enough.
The nerve of some people!
I humbly suggest you distinguish yourself from animals by not submitting to the powerful natural drive to reproduce. Be free! Be free!
Moderator speak for “practice reproducing manually with yourself vigorously”. How sheisty. I invite you to do the same. More so even, as this was your philosophy, not mine that you dispersed.
But of course you can always use your own statement to justify maybe grabbing your best galpal and going out for a night on the town of mutual genital licking right? Or maybe you guys can have a grooming session with a bikini wax too?
Is anyone else thoroughly amused by Rousseau saying yesterday what a wonderful person he is for trying to keep an open mind, and the very next day when asked his opinion about how the medical and scientific establishment disagrees with him on the origin of homnosexuality, says
While I can perfectly understand the level of anger and frustration that these discussions cause, I think that it would better serve your over-all intention if you didn’t use as an insult comparison to a woman. Bitch-slap is offensive on several levels… as are all “insults” that come from implying a man is a woman, or should be treated as one. Not much different from the childhood game where they would call each other “faggot” - but you didn’t call Diamond that, did you?
Rousseau
<snicker> This from someone who forgot since yesterday that he prides himself on keeping an open mind…
Me:
Oh please.
I’ve been “considering” the point of view of people who think like Diamond for decades.
I have a feeling I’ve spent more time thinking about the First Amendment than you have. I don’t need your high school civics lecture on First Amendment jurisprudence.
Expecting that my civil and Constitutional rights be respected and protected is selfish?
Yeah, I kind of figured you hadn’t put any thought into it.
You are free to assume that if you wish. You’d be wrong, but you’re free to do it.
Oh, the infamous Skokie case where the right of Nazis to assemble and march was upheld? You fucking idiot.
Gee, and here I thought that all of the amendments were part of the Constitution. I guess that women and 18 year olds don’t have a constitutional right to vote, seeing as how those amendments don’t fall between one and ten.
I’m not going to do your homework for you. Try searching for the USSC decision in Griswold (381 US 479 (1965)) for the genesis of the constitutional right to privacy and the amendments from which it is derived and Bowers v Hardwick (478 US 186 (1986)) and see how the Court refused to extend that right to homosexuals.
Which would indicate that stupidity is in fact genetic. What I said (and which you did not carefully consider) was that the term “sexual orientation” has specific psychological, sociological and legal meanings.
Me:
One thing? And how do you account for those people who have a homosexual orientation but who do not seek out either sexual or life partners?
I said that my anger at being denied my Constitutional rights does not detract from that which causes hardship to others. Here is the definition of the word detract: “to diminish the importance, value, or effectiveness of something.” The denial of my constituional rights does not diminish the importance of those hardships others feel. So as anyone with an ounce of sense can see, I never said anything about ignoring the hardships of others. You just read it wrong.
I’ll take that as a no.
By the way, Diamond was not "complaining about how tough it is to make it through life as a member of the planet’s most
privileged class." He was pointing out to you that straight white males have problems too.
[/quote]
He said: “You want discrimination? as a White Male Christian, I have to be sensitive, and oh so careful around other races, cultures and religious beliefs in this age of Political Correctness, but it’s open season on me.” Sounds like whining to me.
On providing examples of
I called Diamond neither a bitch nor a faggot. Nor did I compare him to a woman. And any man who’s insulted at the idea of being compared to a woman needs a shrink. Or am I misunderstanding you, and you think there’s something wrong with being a woman?
I’ll save Coldfire the time by saying,
“And take movies!”
Hey! What do you know? Going on three pages now, and the queers are winning!
Rah, rah, sis-boom-bah!
This is a great thread – thanks to all who have contributed. And yes, even the idiots (you know who you are.)
“I’m not an actor, but I play one on TV.”
[url+http://www.theonion.com/onion3604/sucking_my_cock.html]Diamond, Rousseau, Marvin, Cali–Click Here!
Well, that didn’t work very well.
Don’t worry, Drain, it was still funny.
>< DARWIN >
__L___L
I am making the following statement for the purpose of illistrating a point in first part of this post. It is not what I believe, but suppose Diamond, Marvin et al are right, to wit:
Homosexuality is a sin. God deplores such devient behavior and will damn those who engage in it to eternal hellfire.
My response is, so what? Isn’t that the concern of the individual? If he or she dosen’t believe it, they will suffer the consiquences when they die. Why do you care? Do you think God needs you help? ( jumping up and down and tugging on God’s robe"God, look! Otto’s fucking Esprix in the a-ass. look God, look!) Am I missing some homosexual telethon thats trying to recruit new gays?( we’ll get right back to our Barbara Streisand marathon in a moment, but first we urge you to call in and pledge to have sex with a member of your own gender as soon as possible. Our goal is 5000 sex acts, and so far we have collected 3498 pledges! Keep those phones ringing!)I mean, seriously, why should you care that one co-worker goes home to a wife and 3 kids and another goes home to his husband? Are you there? Do you hold his husband’s hand when he’s sick, worry with him when the mortgage is late or take his manly cock up your ass at night? No, you don’t, so MYOB. One thing that really bothers me is people who claim to be “christian” and then use it to justify spewing sorrid sewer filth from their mouths, in blatent defience of everything Jesus stood/stands for. They attack gays, not based on what Jesus said, but based on the writings of a homophobic Paul, who elsewhere admits that what he is writing is only his own opinion. In God’s eyes, sin is sin. The “sin” of a Homosexual is the same as the “sin” of a heterosexual who fucks someone else before marriage. This make you a hypocrite as well, unless you were a virgin at marriage. This is not a blanket condemnation of xans, far from it. This board is filled with Christians who respectfully argue their positions, and recognize, no, demand the right of others to disagree. Lib,Nav, RTFirefly,Laural and others exemplify this type of Christian. When they say that they hold X belief, I teend to believe them because I’ve seen their beliefs mirrored in their posts. Flaming homophobes who try to use the bible to justify their hate, well, you’ve got zero credibility, guy. I hope you are sentensed to prison and butt fucked unmercifly so I can laugh, laugh, laugh, laugh at your sad little lives.
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Hey my peter puffin friends, did we note that everyone has left this deplorable thread alone for nearly three days? ONly trolls would now attempt to restart it and keep it going. Its a dead subject, drop it, move on.
As for Drain, I had very little respect for your opinions and views before that little URL, but now, I have none. If that was your best attempt at persuasion, you should maybe try another line of work.
Now stop bringing it back up, and let it go. We can all agree to disagree, but dont go on making false statements and attributing them to me. I never claimed the Bible to be my backing. Just personal choice and preferance. Deal with the comments I actually made, not any you manufactured.
Over, done, fine.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift
Sorry Marvin. When Diamond said:
and you replied:
I took it that you agreed with him, and since he then went into a religious rant, I guess I painted you with the same brush. Mea Culpa. I still don’t see why you would care, though.
And Drain, pretty funny. Good link
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
I decided to take the weekend off from the SDMB, since I was growing tired of adolescent posturing and indecipherable statements. Instead, I watched the NBA All-Star Weekend.
But now I’m back.
Otto, hows about from now on you take your cue from Esprix, and read through all the new posts before replying?
First, in response to andros’s comment, which Otto just repeated like a third grader…the Amendments from 11 on are not “Constitutionally guaranteed rights.” Constitutionally guaranteed rights cannot be revoked. Remember that Amendment about Prohibition? The ones you mentioned (suffrage for women, blacks, 18 year olds) are just extensions/clarifications. And, naturally, you ignored the Amendments like the latest one about Congressional salaries. No, Amendments not in the Bill of Rights are not “Constitutionally guaranteed rights.” Sorry.
andros also posted the same goddamned links to book reviews as he did earlier (or maybe in another thread, I forget). I need to see a scientific report. Book reviews don’t prove anything to me. Besides, all the researchers who have found significant evidence of homosexual behavior among animals have been looking for it. That is, they expected to see it. One of the basic psychological facts about humans is that we look desperately for evidence to support out views, while often ignoring evidence that doesn’t (see andros and Otto’s statements about Constitutional Amendments).
You’re grasping at straws here, Otto. My feelings about scientific research in the field of animal homosexuality has nothing to do with my open mind. If anything, people who take what literary critics say about biased researchers as natural law is infinetly less open-minded than one who quesitons them. You can continue to dissect my posts, in search of some inkling of evidence that I share in the hypocrisy you know deep down you exercise, but you’re just going to embarass yourself further. Fair warning.
OK. Enough with the assumptions that you are more educated than I am. You’ve been making assertions like these for three pages now, and I’ve been letting it go, but I’ve had enough.
By the way, since you’re obviously a very smart guy and have read a whole lot about the First Amendment, why don’t you tell me exactly where I’m wrong? I assume, of course, that you have some statement of fact to support your argument, aside from “well, I know more than you.”
No, using the First Amendment as some kind of trump card that allows you to do or say whatever you want, while ignoring the feelings/rights of others, is selfishness of the highest order. You interpret statutory laws to suit you, despite your responsibilities as a member of a society. You are, as I said, a selfish, self-centered egomaniac.
Then why don’t you tell me, professor, exactly how your First Amendment rights are being abridged because you are gay?
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): The defendant, Michael Hardwick, was interrupted in his own bedroom, in flagrante, by an Atlanta police officer enforcing the state’s anti-sodomy law. Although the Georgia prohibitions, like those of many southern states, apply to any anal and oral sex between consenting adults, the Supreme Court effectively ignored the heterosexual permutations and ruled that there is no constitutional right to practice homosexuality.
There was a law against anal and oral sex. Two men were found breaking that law. End of story. The essential question was whether gay men should be exempt from this law, since they don’t have vaginas. I fail to see how this is a right to privacy issue.
OK, so if “sexual orientation” has psychological, sociological, and legal meanings, then what distinguishes it from a “lifestyle?”
OK, I’m sorry. I meant to come back and continue the list, but I guess I forgot. Here’s some more:
2. The psychological ramifications of your “sexual orientation.”
3. The sociological ramifications of your “sexual orientation.”
4. The legal ramifications of your “sexual orientation.”
Right. What you said was that it detracts from your consideration to and of the hardships of others. Your attitude is “I have hardships, and although I understand on some level that others do as well, I choose not to pay attention to them, on account of my ‘righteous rage.’”
OK, you want to see them again?
Happy?
If by “whining” you mean “asserting a viewpoint that conflicts with Otto’s warped perception of reality,” then yes, he was “whining.” But, I must say, “It wears on me day after day to have to justify my existence to these loser assholes,” sounds more like whining than what Diamond said.
Not too good at synthesizing information, are we? You’re the type who needs everything spelled out for him in order to understand it. You want an example of hypocrisy? You accused Diamond of “whining,” while you yourself said “It wears on me day after day to have to justify my existence to these loser assholes.” That’s hypocrisy.
(By the way, to the rest of you, I apologize that I have
[hijack]
So, what is your reconciliation of Amendment XVI to the paragraph in I;9 that it modifies? Was there, somehow, not a Constitutionally guaranteed right to be free of a direct tax? I find no portion of the Constitution that claims that only the original document or the original document plus ten modifications are “Constitutionally guaranteed” while later modifications are somehow not “Constitutionally guaranteed.”[/hijack]
Tom~
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a2.html#Q38 :
Because of the 10th Amendment.
>< DARWIN >
__L___L