Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Uhhhh ok.....and your point is?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Good lord. What's the world coming to when Flipper is a fag!
ohio?
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Dominance and submission can be great aspects of sexual behavior. But that is a whole different topic. And I recall Damo saying I would catch hell from posters for discussing it on these forums.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Unfortunately there are no oceans near Ohio dude.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
dang, now liberals will want to issue them marriage licenses......
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Agreed but my point was to correct you that one male dog humping the other was purely about dominance and submission and not about sexuality. That is observably wrong. If it wasn't sexual the male dogs wouldn't be sexually aroused.
As for the dominance/submissive thing. I used to think of gays as being on the fringe. Then I went to a "Anything for love" convention where the whips and chains and really alternative life style crowd showed up and after that experience gay people seemed pretty vanilla to me.
My point is that it is stupid to say, "Dolphins do it, so it must be the same thing for humans."
It's equally silly to suggest that humping dogs is the same thing.
If we play this game fully we'd live in packs with one Alpha male getting all the sex, kill other people's children so that our genes are the ones that pass on...
It's just a stupid game.
I still can't even figure out why people care if it is a choice or not, it makes literally no difference at all to me.
You probably don't need this explained, but making it a "choice" allows people to justify & rationalize their bigotry & intolerance.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Why not? They could probably do better than you.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you don't need choice for people to justify bigotry or intolerance. see - racism
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Unfortunately there are no oceans near Ohio dude.
no shit? daaayang.
Sorry, but we are animals, do you all forget that and as Animals there are behaviors that we share with other animals.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No it's not stupid. What is stupid is not observing the well established fact that almost all human behavior has its parallel in the animal kingdom and that very little of human behavior is unique to humans.
Besides, the point isn't that we are "exactly like these animals" the point is to discredit this idiotic notion that homosexual behavior is "unnatural" when such behavior has easily observed parallels in the animal kindgom. Though I didn't need this research article to draw that conclusion.
In what way?
Seriously, that argument is just stupid. They have no business making the choice for others if it is a choice.
None of this will make any sort of sense to me in any meaningful way because I can't force myself to think like that. Their life isn't mine, if it is their "choice" and I believe in a right to the pursuit of happiness then there is zero justification for any attempt of mine to limit that choice. Either I believe in personal freedoms and responsibility or I try to use government to force people to do as I believe and that is repulsive to me in either direction. Government doesn't exist to sanctify anything, nor is it capable of listing every "right" we have to act in our own interest. It should be used only to put limits on the victimization of others, not to define living arrangements.
No, but it helps, which is why people who don't like homosexuals invoke the "choice" aspect so much. They have "chosen" their sinful behavior.
Then, of course, they add that they don't "hate" the sinner, just the sin. But I rarely believe them when they say that.
Well, it would depend on how they act towards other sins. There is nothing more "sinful" about being gay than there is in say robbing banks. I don't see idiots with signs telling them that they are going to "hell" and that god hates "thugs"... Those people are just hate, attempting to live the life of others.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Aint that the truth!
"God, gays & guns" - I'm always amazed when I hear those as the top issues for some voters.
To hear some conservatives and religious folks talk about homosexuality, I would expect to open a Bible and see Christ talking about it roughly 80% of the time - railing against it, denouncing it as a sin, judging it. I really don't get how it has become one of the #1 issues for religious voters.
And "sanctity of marriage" is just another smokescreen.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I'm amazed that the only people who use the phrase "God, guns, and gays" are liberal democrats, trying to denigrate the religious right. It's also pretty amazing you claim you hear these as top issues for voters, yet none of the GOP candidates have any of this on their websites. Now, maybe they are just out of touch with their base, but I would think they would have done a focus group on it, wouldn't you?
You don't understand how gay marriage is an issue because you dismiss the "sanctity of marriage" argument as a smokescreen. To escape your bigotry, you need to try and realize, religious people are always going to be opposed to homosexuality... just the way she goes. You don't have to agree with their reasons, you aren't expected to accept their rationale, you are free to have a difference of opinion. Religious people generally also believe in the importance of family in building a civil society, and marriage is a foundation and cornerstone of family. So, with the exception of some rare and unusual denominations, most religious people are always going to be against gay marriage. You can call that hate or bigotry, you can insult them and call them names, they still have every right in the world to their opinion, same as you.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Sorry, but reading the article, all I see is a bunch of, what sounds like, liberal wishful thinking. They observed "sexual" behavior... they don't elaborate... what does it mean? My male dog is not gay or bi, however, he has been known to hump my leg. Animals instinctively react to stimulation triggers, it has nothing to do with their "feelings of sexuality." Did they observe these dolphins going to gay bars? Did they observe them making uncomfortable overtures toward straight dolphins? Did they actually observe dolphins having butt sex? My guess is, no... they speculated, based on their own preconceived idea or notion. The gay lobby has been doing this for a while now, the previous argument included 'gay' penguins. What is happening is, liberal mush-brains who want desperately to have something to hang this argument on, have looked around until they found something that appears to support their viewpoint, and they have proclaimed it to be valid, legitimate, and honest... we aren't to question that, else we will branded as racist bigots who hate gays.