Debate Now Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

[Michelle420]

LGBT Terms and Definitions International Spectrum

Here are some of the words and acronyms that are commonly used in American English for LGBT issues.

LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQA, TBLG: These acronyms refer to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, and Asexual or Ally. Although all of the different identities within “LGBT” are often lumped together (and share sexism as a common root of oppression), there are specific needs and concerns related to each individual identity.

Ally: Typically any non-LGBT person who supports and stands up for the rights of LGBT people, though LGBT people can be allies, such as a lesbian who is an ally to a transgender person.

Asexual: A person who generally does not feel sexual attraction or desire to any group of people. Asexuality is not the same as celibacy.

Gender expression: A term which refers to the ways in which we each manifest masculinity or femininity. It is usually an extension of our “gender identity,” our innate sense of being male, female, etc. Each of us expresses a particular gender every day – by the way we style our hair, select our clothing, or even the way we stand. Our appearance, speech, behavior, movement, and other factors signal that we feel – and wish to be understood – as masculine or feminine, or as a man or a woman.

Intersex: A person whose sexual anatomy or chromosomes do not fit with the traditional markers of "female" and "male." For example: people born with both "female" and "male" anatomy (penis, testicles, vagina, uterus); people born with XXY.

Pansexual: A person who experiences sexual, romantic, physical, and/or spiritual attraction for members of all gender identities/expressions, not just people who fit into the standard gender binary (i.e. men and women).
Please Note: It is very important to respect people’s desired self-identifications. One should never assume another person’s identity based on that person’s appearance. It is always best to ask people how they identify, including what pronouns they prefer, and to respect their wishes

 

[Lilah]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

Hi Lilah and Delta4Embassy
The way one person said it at a gay rights discussion
there were no homosexual people, only homosexual relationships.

If you want to identify yourself according to your relationships you have the right and freedom to do so
FOR YOURSELF, and for others who agree to that way of identification.
But it clearly becomes problematic for people who DON'T believe in that.

It is a personal matter based on one's private choices, beliefs or faith
and cannot be imposed on others through public laws.

So it is causing conflicts to list "orientation" along with race.

And even areas of "gender" that are no longer purely physical but now argued as "internal identity and not based on birth"
or "disability" where people's OCD or ADHD can be disabilities now is getting problematic.

I can foresee identifying a third level of law, besides civil and criminal, to handle subjective
areas where people have conflicting beliefs so these can be mediated instead of imposing one over the other.
Maybe a Constitutional ethics level, so facilitating conflict resolution can be offered directly to citizens to work out
their own solutions, and then the people decide whether to keep it private, in churches or parties, or
work out an agreed solution they can pass as a law or reform through the govt by consensus that includes all beliefs.

My opinion is the whole gay or straight terminology came about as a way of opposing people other people didn't like. "We're straight and normal. They're gay and abnormal." But the reality is these terms are just artificial constructs, not scientific realities. Bonobo chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins are what in a human would be bisexual. They have sex freely with either sex but unless we're prepared to anthropomorphisize animals as gay, straight, or lesbian, why would we willingly characterize ourselves as those when we too are animals? Are there gay cockroaches too?

Humans are not animals. Surely you know the differences.
Terms are used to describe almost everything and everyone. If you don't like the terms, change them.
If you're curious about cockroaches, ask an entomologist if some are gay.

Humans are animals, 'homo sapiens' ring a bell? But that you don't think we're animals tells me all I need to know.

My dogs are my pets; not my peers. I talk to them, but they can't talk back nor can they reason with me.

 

[Boss]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

 

[RKMBrown]

(doing it this way as too many replies make them squish together on my system)

Lilah said, "My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites."

As one of the very few open members of the LGBT community on this board I can tell you I know a lot more about it than you. As a bisexual in particular I can tell you who I have sex with is always the result of my making a choice to pursue a sexual relationship with someone. I may find either sex attractive, even desireable, but who I have sex with is me deciding to do that.

Even Kinsey's 5 or 6 point scale of orientation shows it isn't gay or straight but something in-between most of the time. Assuming a bell curve, most people aren't gay or straight, but somewhere in-between. That's irrefutable. I'd simply go further and show how ridiculous it is to pretend being gay or straight is an absolute. You can always choose to try a lesbian relationship yourself. And if the number of 50+ men who only after getting married, raising kids, then becomming transgendered is any inidication, 'trying it out' is something many eventually do. If you don't you really have nothing to contribute to a discussion on the subject.

I think you know more about yourself than I, but I don't think you know everyone's story, and you simply cannot paint them with the same brush.
You're wrong, I cannot ever choose to try to be a lesbian because I am not attracted to women in a sexual way; only men.
If you are the only one who is qualified to contribute to a discussion, then perhaps you should get out of your mind.

There is a binary spectrum, this is known in LBGT community.

The Kinsey Institute - Kinsey Sexuality Rating Scale

Breaking through the binary Gender explained using continuums

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

Hi Lilah and Delta4Embassy
The way one person said it at a gay rights discussion
there were no homosexual people, only homosexual relationships.

If you want to identify yourself according to your relationships you have the right and freedom to do so
FOR YOURSELF, and for others who agree to that way of identification.
But it clearly becomes problematic for people who DON'T believe in that.

It is a personal matter based on one's private choices, beliefs or faith
and cannot be imposed on others through public laws.

So it is causing conflicts to list "orientation" along with race.

And even areas of "gender" that are no longer purely physical but now argued as "internal identity and not based on birth"
or "disability" where people's OCD or ADHD can be disabilities now is getting problematic.

I can foresee identifying a third level of law, besides civil and criminal, to handle subjective
areas where people have conflicting beliefs so these can be mediated instead of imposing one over the other.
Maybe a Constitutional ethics level, so facilitating conflict resolution can be offered directly to citizens to work out
their own solutions, and then the people decide whether to keep it private, in churches or parties, or
work out an agreed solution they can pass as a law or reform through the govt by consensus that includes all beliefs.

My opinion is the whole gay or straight terminology came about as a way of opposing people other people didn't like. "We're straight and normal. They're gay and abnormal." But the reality is these terms are just artificial constructs, not scientific realities. Bonobo chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins are what in a human would be bisexual. They have sex freely with either sex but unless we're prepared to anthropomorphisize animals as gay, straight, or lesbian, why would we willingly characterize ourselves as those when we too are animals? Are there gay cockroaches too?

Humans are not animals. Surely you know the differences.
Terms are used to describe almost everything and everyone. If you don't like the terms, change them.
If you're curious about cockroaches, ask an entomologist if some are gay.

Humans are animals, 'homo sapiens' ring a bell? But that you don't think we're animals tells me all I need to know.

My dogs are my pets; not my peers. I talk to them, but they can't talk back nor can they reason with me.

My dogs reason, and though they don't have vocal chords they try their best to communicate.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

All sexual orientations are artificial constructs, not natural facts or truth. Sexual orientation definitions are fairly new and haven't been with humanity all along. Prior to their creation, people just had sex with whomever and were never described until post-orientation times as gay or straight.

Even now the terms are meaningless as who you have sex with is always the result of your making a choice to have sex. Who you may be attracted to, or have an orientation towards, doesn't mean you then have sex with them too. So the orientation is no more tangible than any other thought or feeling.

Fluidity of sexual desire and the meaningless of sexual orientations are best illustrated by Thailand's 'ladyboys.' Men who look like women. Very attractive women at that. A straight man who doesn't know he's looking at ladyboys or transsexuals may well feel sexual desire even though under normal circumstances he'd never consider a homosexual relationship or sexual act. This proves the terms we use to factionalize sexuality are meaningless, worthless, and prejudicial.

No genes in our bodies can short-circuit our consciousness and make us do things. We always make the choice to have sex. And will have sex with the same sex if we believe it's the opposite sex. And we'll have same-sex sex if deprived of opposite sex options as in prison. But once back out in public, prisoners who had homosexual relationships incarcerated wont continue those relationships once females are once again available.

Very way we define sexual orientations is subjective further proving the whole idea is wrong. In South American cultures, a "heterosexual" man may choose to have sex with a gay man, but if he's in the dominant role he isn't thought of as gay. It's only the one in the submissive role who's considered gay.

The question then isn't is homosexuality the result of choice or genes but rather is homosexuality itself real? It isn't. Everyone's simply sexual. Or not-sexual.

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

Hi Lilah and Delta4Embassy
The way one person said it at a gay rights discussion
there were no homosexual people, only homosexual relationships.

If you want to identify yourself according to your relationships you have the right and freedom to do so
FOR YOURSELF, and for others who agree to that way of identification.
But it clearly becomes problematic for people who DON'T believe in that.

It is a personal matter based on one's private choices, beliefs or faith
and cannot be imposed on others through public laws.

So it is causing conflicts to list "orientation" along with race.

And even areas of "gender" that are no longer purely physical but now argued as "internal identity and not based on birth"
or "disability" where people's OCD or ADHD can be disabilities now is getting problematic.

I can foresee identifying a third level of law, besides civil and criminal, to handle subjective
areas where people have conflicting beliefs so these can be mediated instead of imposing one over the other.
Maybe a Constitutional ethics level, so facilitating conflict resolution can be offered directly to citizens to work out
their own solutions, and then the people decide whether to keep it private, in churches or parties, or
work out an agreed solution they can pass as a law or reform through the govt by consensus that includes all beliefs.

My opinion is the whole gay or straight terminology came about as a way of opposing people other people didn't like. "We're straight and normal. They're gay and abnormal." But the reality is these terms are just artificial constructs, not scientific realities. Bonobo chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins are what in a human would be bisexual. They have sex freely with either sex but unless we're prepared to anthropomorphisize animals as gay, straight, or lesbian, why would we willingly characterize ourselves as those when we too are animals? Are there gay cockroaches too?

Humans are not animals. Surely you know the differences.
Terms are used to describe almost everything and everyone. If you don't like the terms, change them.
If you're curious about cockroaches, ask an entomologist if some are gay.

Lilah

On this planet, you have three choices.

You are animal, vegetable or mineral.

So - broccoli? Gravel?

Humans are indeed animals.

You cannot compare higher animals, such as humans, with lower animals, such as insects.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Another aspect of this discussion ...

No one would willingly choose the difficult life that our society and others have set for the homosexual. Indeed, as we know, many gays try desperately to live a "straight" life, even going to far as to have children with straight partners. It has cost many people untold heartache and broken lives. Even suicide - all to fit in.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

Hi Lilah and Delta4Embassy
The way one person said it at a gay rights discussion
there were no homosexual people, only homosexual relationships.

If you want to identify yourself according to your relationships you have the right and freedom to do so
FOR YOURSELF, and for others who agree to that way of identification.
But it clearly becomes problematic for people who DON'T believe in that.

It is a personal matter based on one's private choices, beliefs or faith
and cannot be imposed on others through public laws.

So it is causing conflicts to list "orientation" along with race.

And even areas of "gender" that are no longer purely physical but now argued as "internal identity and not based on birth"
or "disability" where people's OCD or ADHD can be disabilities now is getting problematic.

I can foresee identifying a third level of law, besides civil and criminal, to handle subjective
areas where people have conflicting beliefs so these can be mediated instead of imposing one over the other.
Maybe a Constitutional ethics level, so facilitating conflict resolution can be offered directly to citizens to work out
their own solutions, and then the people decide whether to keep it private, in churches or parties, or
work out an agreed solution they can pass as a law or reform through the govt by consensus that includes all beliefs.

My opinion is the whole gay or straight terminology came about as a way of opposing people other people didn't like. "We're straight and normal. They're gay and abnormal." But the reality is these terms are just artificial constructs, not scientific realities. Bonobo chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins are what in a human would be bisexual. They have sex freely with either sex but unless we're prepared to anthropomorphisize animals as gay, straight, or lesbian, why would we willingly characterize ourselves as those when we too are animals? Are there gay cockroaches too?

Humans are not animals. Surely you know the differences.
Terms are used to describe almost everything and everyone. If you don't like the terms, change them.
If you're curious about cockroaches, ask an entomologist if some are gay.

Humans are animals, 'homo sapiens' ring a bell? But that you don't think we're animals tells me all I need to know.

My dogs are my pets; not my peers. I talk to them, but they can't talk back nor can they reason with me.

Where did anyone say that 'dogs are the peers of humans'?

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

 

[Lilah]

Hi Lilah and Delta4Embassy
The way one person said it at a gay rights discussion
there were no homosexual people, only homosexual relationships.

If you want to identify yourself according to your relationships you have the right and freedom to do so
FOR YOURSELF, and for others who agree to that way of identification.
But it clearly becomes problematic for people who DON'T believe in that.

It is a personal matter based on one's private choices, beliefs or faith
and cannot be imposed on others through public laws.

So it is causing conflicts to list "orientation" along with race.

And even areas of "gender" that are no longer purely physical but now argued as "internal identity and not based on birth"
or "disability" where people's OCD or ADHD can be disabilities now is getting problematic.

I can foresee identifying a third level of law, besides civil and criminal, to handle subjective
areas where people have conflicting beliefs so these can be mediated instead of imposing one over the other.
Maybe a Constitutional ethics level, so facilitating conflict resolution can be offered directly to citizens to work out
their own solutions, and then the people decide whether to keep it private, in churches or parties, or
work out an agreed solution they can pass as a law or reform through the govt by consensus that includes all beliefs.

My opinion is the whole gay or straight terminology came about as a way of opposing people other people didn't like. "We're straight and normal. They're gay and abnormal." But the reality is these terms are just artificial constructs, not scientific realities. Bonobo chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins are what in a human would be bisexual. They have sex freely with either sex but unless we're prepared to anthropomorphisize animals as gay, straight, or lesbian, why would we willingly characterize ourselves as those when we too are animals? Are there gay cockroaches too?

Humans are not animals. Surely you know the differences.
Terms are used to describe almost everything and everyone. If you don't like the terms, change them.
If you're curious about cockroaches, ask an entomologist if some are gay.

Humans are animals, 'homo sapiens' ring a bell? But that you don't think we're animals tells me all I need to know.

My dogs are my pets; not my peers. I talk to them, but they can't talk back nor can they reason with me.

Where did anyone say that 'dogs are the peers of humans'?

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

"Humans are indeed animals. But, non-human animals do "talk"
You can't have it both ways.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

My opinion is the whole gay or straight terminology came about as a way of opposing people other people didn't like. "We're straight and normal. They're gay and abnormal." But the reality is these terms are just artificial constructs, not scientific realities. Bonobo chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins are what in a human would be bisexual. They have sex freely with either sex but unless we're prepared to anthropomorphisize animals as gay, straight, or lesbian, why would we willingly characterize ourselves as those when we too are animals? Are there gay cockroaches too?

Humans are not animals. Surely you know the differences.
Terms are used to describe almost everything and everyone. If you don't like the terms, change them.
If you're curious about cockroaches, ask an entomologist if some are gay.

Humans are animals, 'homo sapiens' ring a bell? But that you don't think we're animals tells me all I need to know.

My dogs are my pets; not my peers. I talk to them, but they can't talk back nor can they reason with me.

Where did anyone say that 'dogs are the peers of humans'?

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

"Humans are indeed animals. But, non-human animals do "talk"
You can't have it both ways.

My statement, in context, is completely different from what you "quoted".

Here again is what I actually wrote:

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

 

[Lilah]

Humans are not animals. Surely you know the differences.
Terms are used to describe almost everything and everyone. If you don't like the terms, change them.
If you're curious about cockroaches, ask an entomologist if some are gay.

Humans are animals, 'homo sapiens' ring a bell? But that you don't think we're animals tells me all I need to know.

My dogs are my pets; not my peers. I talk to them, but they can't talk back nor can they reason with me.

Where did anyone say that 'dogs are the peers of humans'?

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

"Humans are indeed animals. But, non-human animals do "talk"
You can't have it both ways.

My statement, in context, is completely different from what you "quoted".

Here again is what I actually wrote:

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

You said, "Humans are indeed animals." If humans are animals, are animals human?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Humans are animals, 'homo sapiens' ring a bell? But that you don't think we're animals tells me all I need to know.

My dogs are my pets; not my peers. I talk to them, but they can't talk back nor can they reason with me.

Where did anyone say that 'dogs are the peers of humans'?

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

"Humans are indeed animals. But, non-human animals do "talk"
You can't have it both ways.

My statement, in context, is completely different from what you "quoted".

Here again is what I actually wrote:

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

You said, "Humans are indeed animals." If humans are animals, are animals human?

According to your logic, all animals are equal to all other animals.

And yet, we know that some animals are smarter, have larger brains and better powers of reasoning.

Sorry, but its simply not true that all higher animals are the same as all other higher animals.

Additionally, all animals cannot be judged or measured by the same criteria. IOW, not being able to write a sonnet doesn't mean an animal is without intelligence.

And to make it even more complex, not all of one species can be judged or measured by the same criteria. For example, judging a human from an educated background and living in a major city in a first world country would not be comparable to judging a human who lives in the Amazon jungle.

Their knowledge and experience are simply not comparable and neither could compete in the other's world.

 

[Lilah]

My dogs are my pets; not my peers. I talk to them, but they can't talk back nor can they reason with me.

Where did anyone say that 'dogs are the peers of humans'?

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

"Humans are indeed animals. But, non-human animals do "talk"
You can't have it both ways.

My statement, in context, is completely different from what you "quoted".

Here again is what I actually wrote:

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

You said, "Humans are indeed animals." If humans are animals, are animals human?

According to your logic, all animals are equal to all other animals.

And yet, we know that some animals are smarter, have larger brains and better powers of reasoning.

Sorry, but its simply not true that all higher animals are the same as all other higher animals.

Additionally, all animals cannot be judged or measured by the same criteria. IOW, not being able to write a sonnet doesn't mean an animal is without intelligence.

And to make it even more complex, not all of one species can be judged or measured by the same criteria. For example, judging a human from an educated background and living in a major city in a first world coungtry would not be comparable to judging a human who lives in the Amazon jungle.

Their knowledge and experience are simply not comparable and neither could compete in the other's world.

It wasn't my logic, it was yours.
Seems it would follow that if all humans are animals, then all animals are human.

 

[Syriusly]

Where did anyone say that 'dogs are the peers of humans'?

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

"Humans are indeed animals. But, non-human animals do "talk"
You can't have it both ways.

My statement, in context, is completely different from what you "quoted".

Here again is what I actually wrote:

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

You said, "Humans are indeed animals." If humans are animals, are animals human?

According to your logic, all animals are equal to all other animals.

And yet, we know that some animals are smarter, have larger brains and better powers of reasoning.

Sorry, but its simply not true that all higher animals are the same as all other higher animals.

Additionally, all animals cannot be judged or measured by the same criteria. IOW, not being able to write a sonnet doesn't mean an animal is without intelligence.

And to make it even more complex, not all of one species can be judged or measured by the same criteria. For example, judging a human from an educated background and living in a major city in a first world coungtry would not be comparable to judging a human who lives in the Amazon jungle.

Their knowledge and experience are simply not comparable and neither could compete in the other's world.

It wasn't my logic, it was yours.
Seems it would follow that if all humans are animals, then all animals are human.

No- all sharks are fish- but not all fish are sharks.
All bats are mammals- but not all mammals are bats.
All plumbers are human- but not all humans are plumbers.

Not hard to understand the group- and subgroup.

 

[Lilah]

"Humans are indeed animals. But, non-human animals do "talk"
You can't have it both ways.

My statement, in context, is completely different from what you "quoted".

Here again is what I actually wrote:

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

You said, "Humans are indeed animals." If humans are animals, are animals human?

According to your logic, all animals are equal to all other animals.

And yet, we know that some animals are smarter, have larger brains and better powers of reasoning.

Sorry, but its simply not true that all higher animals are the same as all other higher animals.

Additionally, all animals cannot be judged or measured by the same criteria. IOW, not being able to write a sonnet doesn't mean an animal is without intelligence.

And to make it even more complex, not all of one species can be judged or measured by the same criteria. For example, judging a human from an educated background and living in a major city in a first world coungtry would not be comparable to judging a human who lives in the Amazon jungle.

Their knowledge and experience are simply not comparable and neither could compete in the other's world.

It wasn't my logic, it was yours.
Seems it would follow that if all humans are animals, then all animals are human.

No- all sharks are fish- but not all fish are sharks.
All bats are mammals- but not all mammals are bats.
All plumbers are human- but not all humans are plumbers.

Not hard to understand the group- and subgroup.

Read his/her statement that ALL HUMANS ARE ANIMALS. Very specific, wouldn't you say?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

My statement, in context, is completely different from what you "quoted".

Here again is what I actually wrote:

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

You said, "Humans are indeed animals." If humans are animals, are animals human?

According to your logic, all animals are equal to all other animals.

And yet, we know that some animals are smarter, have larger brains and better powers of reasoning.

Sorry, but its simply not true that all higher animals are the same as all other higher animals.

Additionally, all animals cannot be judged or measured by the same criteria. IOW, not being able to write a sonnet doesn't mean an animal is without intelligence.

And to make it even more complex, not all of one species can be judged or measured by the same criteria. For example, judging a human from an educated background and living in a major city in a first world coungtry would not be comparable to judging a human who lives in the Amazon jungle.

Their knowledge and experience are simply not comparable and neither could compete in the other's world.

It wasn't my logic, it was yours.
Seems it would follow that if all humans are animals, then all animals are human.

No- all sharks are fish- but not all fish are sharks.
All bats are mammals- but not all mammals are bats.
All plumbers are human- but not all humans are plumbers.

Not hard to understand the group- and subgroup.

Read his/her statement that ALL HUMANS ARE ANIMALS. Very specific, wouldn't you say?

All humans are animals- true.

But not all animals are human.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

My statement, in context, is completely different from what you "quoted".

Here again is what I actually wrote:

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

You said, "Humans are indeed animals." If humans are animals, are animals human?

According to your logic, all animals are equal to all other animals.

And yet, we know that some animals are smarter, have larger brains and better powers of reasoning.

Sorry, but its simply not true that all higher animals are the same as all other higher animals.

Additionally, all animals cannot be judged or measured by the same criteria. IOW, not being able to write a sonnet doesn't mean an animal is without intelligence.

And to make it even more complex, not all of one species can be judged or measured by the same criteria. For example, judging a human from an educated background and living in a major city in a first world coungtry would not be comparable to judging a human who lives in the Amazon jungle.

Their knowledge and experience are simply not comparable and neither could compete in the other's world.

It wasn't my logic, it was yours.
Seems it would follow that if all humans are animals, then all animals are human.

No- all sharks are fish- but not all fish are sharks.
All bats are mammals- but not all mammals are bats.
All plumbers are human- but not all humans are plumbers.

Not hard to understand the group- and subgroup.

Read his/her statement that ALL HUMANS ARE ANIMALS. Very specific, wouldn't you say?

All humans are animals
But not all animals are human

 

[Mertex]

And historically this is what often happened, for women less by choice, by men in order to produce heirs/children to support them.

Then from this premise I am forced to conclude that if they can make a choice to mate with the opposite sex AND someone they don't particularly like (or plaster themselves with vodka beforehand), then becoming a homosexual may also be a choice. Behavior is a choice in and of itself. Acknowledging the need for continuance of a family line further acknowledges the heterosexual side of the human species.

To me there is a lot of common sense and contradictions all at once...

Wrong again. There are heterosexual men who have experimented and have had sex with homosexual men.....that didn't mean they were also homosexuals. They made a choice to have sex with a homosexual but it didn't make them gay.

You keep claiming it is a choice and give nothing to back up your statements. Your claims have been debunked over and over, so it has become a matter of "choice" for you to believe that homosexuality is a matter of choice.

The following study destroys your belief completely.

Nearly one in 10 men who say they’re straight have sex with other men, a recent New York City survey found. And 70% of those straight-identified men having sex with men are married to women.
In fact, 10% of all married men in the survey report same-sex behavior during the past year.

In 2003, a team led by Preeti Pathela, DrPH, of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, performed telephone interviews with nearly 4,200 New York City men. Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Greek, Korean, Yiddish, Polish, and Haitian Creole.

In nearly every previous study of sexual behavior, the percentage of men who reported sex with men was higher than the percentage of men who reported being gay.
Study Straight Men are Having Gay Sex EDGE United States

Psychology Today has a fascinating article up on why straight guys have sex with other men.
I've said it repeatedly on the site, but if it weren't for straight guys I wouldn't have had as much sex when I was younger. I'd say a good 50% of my experiences have been with straight guys. Most of my closest friends have been straight guys and I'd say I had sex with 99.9% of them.
Why Do Straight Guys Have Sex with Men The Bilerico Project

The truth is that many men who have sex with men aren't gay or even bisexual. Although their mental and emotional state resembles that of the initial stages of coming out, gay and bisexual men go on to develop a gay or a bisexual identity, whereas these men don't.
Why Some Straight Men Are Romantically or Sexually Attracted to Other Men Joe Kort Ph.D.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Humans are not animals. Surely you know the differences.
Terms are used to describe almost everything and everyone. If you don't like the terms, change them.
If you're curious about cockroaches, ask an entomologist if some are gay.

Humans are animals, 'homo sapiens' ring a bell? But that you don't think we're animals tells me all I need to know.

My dogs are my pets; not my peers. I talk to them, but they can't talk back nor can they reason with me.

Where did anyone say that 'dogs are the peers of humans'?

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

"Humans are indeed animals. But, non-human animals do "talk"
You can't have it both ways.

My statement, in context, is completely different from what you "quoted".

Here again is what I actually wrote:

But, non-human animals do "talk", albeit in a different way and on a different level than human animals do. We don't usually understand their language near as well they understand ours but that's doesn't mean they don't communicate on a fairly high level.

Dolphins including the largest species, orcas (aka killer whales,) are self-aware and their communication recognizes individuals. It's also true that orcas in particular have a vastly superior emotional intelligence to humans. Their love is far more elaborate and complex than our's. Some speculate this is why whales and dolphins frequently mass-strand together. If one is in trouble, or gonna die, they'd rather die together, or not let one of their comrades die alone.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

My sexual orientation is not an artificial construct. I am and always will be a straight woman, who is sexually attracted to men.
If homosexuality is not real, you may want to meet with the LGBT Human Rights Organization and inform them that they are fighting a fictitious battle, and then you might want to meet with all the families who have lost loved ones to suicide because they could not live with their artificial sexual orientation.
But why stop there, you may want to offer your dissertation on hermaphrodites.

Hi Lilah and Delta4Embassy
The way one person said it at a gay rights discussion
there were no homosexual people, only homosexual relationships.

If you want to identify yourself according to your relationships you have the right and freedom to do so
FOR YOURSELF, and for others who agree to that way of identification.
But it clearly becomes problematic for people who DON'T believe in that.

It is a personal matter based on one's private choices, beliefs or faith
and cannot be imposed on others through public laws.

So it is causing conflicts to list "orientation" along with race.

And even areas of "gender" that are no longer purely physical but now argued as "internal identity and not based on birth"
or "disability" where people's OCD or ADHD can be disabilities now is getting problematic.

I can foresee identifying a third level of law, besides civil and criminal, to handle subjective
areas where people have conflicting beliefs so these can be mediated instead of imposing one over the other.
Maybe a Constitutional ethics level, so facilitating conflict resolution can be offered directly to citizens to work out
their own solutions, and then the people decide whether to keep it private, in churches or parties, or
work out an agreed solution they can pass as a law or reform through the govt by consensus that includes all beliefs.

My opinion is the whole gay or straight terminology came about as a way of opposing people other people didn't like. "We're straight and normal. They're gay and abnormal." But the reality is these terms are just artificial constructs, not scientific realities. Bonobo chimpanzees and bottlenose dolphins are what in a human would be bisexual. They have sex freely with either sex but unless we're prepared to anthropomorphisize animals as gay, straight, or lesbian, why would we willingly characterize ourselves as those when we too are animals? Are there gay cockroaches too?

Humans are not animals. Surely you know the differences.
Terms are used to describe almost everything and everyone. If you don't like the terms, change them.
If you're curious about cockroaches, ask an entomologist if some are gay.

Humans are animals, 'homo sapiens' ring a bell? But that you don't think we're animals tells me all I need to know.

My dogs are my pets; not my peers. I talk to them, but they can't talk back nor can they reason with me.

"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent." - Episode 1 Star Wars

If you bothered to study a bit, you'd learn a great deal about how your dogs communicate. What the angle of their tail means, other body language cues. They're hardly mute.

 

[Mertex]

"Humans are indeed animals. But, non-human animals do "talk"
You can't have it both ways.

What do you mean you can't have it both ways? Not all animals talk, and those who do are just mimicking, you can't consider that talking. Dogs don't develop languages.
Humans and animals are both part of the Animal Kingdom. Maybe that is where you are getting confused, but it's something that is learned in elementary school.