Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

i am for phil

I've seen the 'argument' that we are trying to push our beliefs on them but we are upset that they are doing the same, but no one wants to point out our beliefs take nothing away from anyone......their's do. The Pro equality argument is a detriment to no one, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise. The Pro inequality argument is ripe with hate, discontent, and oppression.
 
I've seen the 'argument' that we are trying to push our beliefs on them but we are upset that they are doing the same, but no one wants to point out our beliefs take nothing away from anyone......their's do. The Pro equality argument is a detriment to no one, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise. The Pro inequality argument is ripe with hate, discontent, and oppression.

It's an interesting thought. I didn't watch the whole thing, but my fiance had one of those old 30 days with Morgan Spurlock on the other day. In it a woman against gay marriage was talking to a gay man. She said "I'm morally opposed to this". He said, "I'm not telling you you HAVE to do anything. You're the one telling me I can't do things."

I'm getting married in June to a beautiful woman. I'm really excited. Someone who is gay in America will also get married today. I can't imagine my brain working in a sense where I'd change any way how I feel about my June wedding based on some gay couple in a different state. Or even if it was in my state! I'd still be super happy and excited.

How does the gay couple who gets married today change my wedding? It doesn't in any sense. If gay marriage never existed or if it was legal in 50 states I would feel the exact same way about my wedding.

I'm waiting for those who disagree with me to explain why their beliefs trump someone else's? Why we should deny rights to people based on what THEY believe is correct? I'm not saying they have to change how they believe. America is land of the free is it not? Free to make our own choices and decisions as long as they do not harm others? Logical arguments for how it harms someone do NOT exist. Fear mongering and "oh man if gays get rights then terrorists win" is pretty much the only ammo left.

If a strong logical argument based on reason existed for denying gays rights we would have already seen it in this thread. I think the fact that this thread is almost 40 pages and we haven't yet is pretty telling.
 
I guess he's just tired of trying to step around the PC toes as well. Doesn't diminish his point at all imo. I found it rather funny. :-)

I did as well. Louis C.K. is a comedian. Comedians may be vulgar. The point stands pretty well imo.

What's interesting is people are against "PC" when it goes against their point (see Phil's comments) but seem to be for it when someone argues the counter.

Vulgar or not vulgar what exactly is wrong about his point? Damn, CHILDREN don't go see Louis perform. ADULTS do. I just saw Wolf of Wall Street which is largely disgusting and vulgar. It's also awesome. I wouldn't want kids to see it. That's why it is rated R.
 
Wait, you have a problem with this, but not what Phil said!?

phil is a big boy and can defend himself, i think he knew he would get criticism for his statements but chose to say it. i can see where some would have a problem with what he said and it's expected that he would be critized.

BUT i never think that belittling and name calling of children is acceptable, especially by an adult. when one child does it to another it's called bullying, how could you possibly think that it is appropriate for an adult to do it?
 
phil is a big boy and can defend himself, i think he knew he would get criticism for his statements but chose to say it. i can see where some would have a problem with what he said and it's expected that he would be critized. BUT i never think that belittling and name calling of children is acceptable, especially by an adult. when one child does it to another it's called bullying, how could you possibly think that it is appropriate for an adult to do it?

If that's what you see, then you've completely missed the point. It's clearly a statement aimed at adults because one of the talking points is, "What about the children!?" when it comes to gay marriage.

Also, you're a complete hypocrite. Neither of the statements are PC, yet you take offense only to the opposing stance.
 
U

If that's what you see, then you've completely missed the point. It's clearly a statement aimed at adults because one of the talking points is, "What about the children!?" when it comes to gay marriage.

Also, you're a complete hypocrite. Neither of the statements are PC, yet you take offense only to the opposing stance.

His quote has nothing to do with children. Either bigt is against it because it isn't his view or he doesn't understand it. It's a comment about adults and it's from a comedian.

I agree if one is against louis ck's quote but defends phil's then it is completely backwards. Louis is trying to be funny. He is a comedian and that was aimed at adults. Phil's comments were aimed at gay people and those who love them. He compared it to Bestiality which again is as cruel as cruel gets. And if phil can defend himself why make a thread...defending him?!?

Doesn't make sense on multiple levels.
 
If that's what you see, then you've completely missed the point. It's clearly a statement aimed at adults because one of the talking points is, "What about the children!?" when it comes to gay marriage.

Also, you're a complete hypocrite. Neither of the statements are PC, yet you take offense only to the opposing stance.

no, you are wrong...i take offense at including offensive statements about children in an adult discussion. i am very consistant in my belief that family comes 1st, if you find one single post of mine where i belittle children in any way post it up!!!
 
no, you are wrong...i take offense at including offensive statements about children in an adult discussion. i am very consistant in my belief that family comes 1st, if you find one single post of mine where i belittle children in any way post it up!!!

Nobody said you did that, but your statements are inconsistent and hypocritical. There's so many logical fallacies in your posts that I can't keep up with them. So, family comes first, but only what you deem to be an appropriate family. There's nothing offensive in his snippet and you, once again, have missed the ethos he was conveying. For your age, there's not a lot of wisdom coming from you.
 
I will condemn anyone whose faith posits that disease is merely revenge of a creator who supposedly has it in their power to prevent such suffering. It is a warped and dangerous mindset on multiple levels, and should not be condoned nor accepted simply because it's "faith."

Roll through an intersection without brakes and tell me if you have faith you won't get hit. Or do you believe in brakes, the product of scientific progress, inquiry, and innovation?
I'm okay with whatever way you believe or any way a christian believes...never heared many call that "revenge" so to speak. I have heard many explanations but revenge has been sparingly at best...nevertheless, both sides make for great entertainment for me at least.
 
Nobody said you did that, but your statements are inconsistent and hypocritical. There's so many logical fallacies in your posts that I can't keep up with them. So, family comes first, but only what you deem to be an appropriate family. There's nothing offensive in his snippet and you, once again, have missed the ethos he was conveying. For your age, there's not a lot of wisdom coming from you.

and for someone as inteligent as you are, i can't believe you find nothing offensive at vulgarity towards children....you can call me names, thats fine, but i don't see any wisdom to be gained by demeaning children.
 
and for someone as inteligent as you are, i can't believe you find nothing offensive at vulgarity towards children....you can call me names, thats fine, but i don't see any wisdom to be gained by demeaning children.

I take zero offense to a joke to ADULTS (not children) and you're missing the point by harping on this.
 
and for someone as inteligent as you are, i can't believe you find nothing offensive at vulgarity towards children....you can call me names, thats fine, but i don't see any wisdom to be gained by demeaning children.

I take zero offense to a joke to ADULTS (not children) and you're missing the point by harping on this.
 
and for someone as inteligent as you are, i can't believe you find nothing offensive at vulgarity towards children....you can call me names, thats fine, but i don't see any wisdom to be gained by demeaning children.

I have tried explaining this to you via pm bigT but you're completely reading that wrong. Honestly I can't really figure out how anyone sees that graphic and comes to your conclusion. Either you don't want to get it or you can't get it but in no way is he saying what you keep accusing him of. It's like he said 1 and 1 is 3 ha ha and you said OMG it's not 3 it's 2 and you're hurting kids by teaching them math wrong!

How you think that is vulgarity TOWARDS children baffles me. At this point we aren't speaking the same language we are so far off.
 
no, you are wrong...i take offense at including offensive statements about children in an adult discussion. i am very consistant in my belief that family comes 1st, if you find one single post of mine where i belittle children in any way post it up!!!

Does Phil Robertson think family comes first? His comments certainly suggest that family comes first unless you happen to be gay and then you're committing beastiality. Thank goodness Phil doesn't have gay people in his family because he clearly doesn't think they are worthy of being first. Equality is a family first position. Unequal rights is not family first. It's family first if you're straight.
 
There is absolutely no vulgarity directed toward children in Rodja's picture. LouIs C.K. is describing other parents' kids in unflattering terms. To think otherwise is just wrong, and is a lack of reading comprehension. I'd be floored if bigT was seriously misreading that picture...please let this not be so.
 
I think I might make this my last post in this thread unless something else groundbreaking comes up. Honestly it's been a bit exhausting at times, but it's a good cause. I have had numerous people PM me and say my posts have made them reconsider the position they have. That's encouraging to hear. Changing people's opinions on something is a long process, but a worthwhile endeavor. It was worth it at many times when society needed changing that I have brought up and it is worth it again.

To those who feel differently than me: I only ask that you carefully consider the arguments I've laid out. I don't think I have seen a single logical position yet in this thread that explains why gay people should not have equal rights. I understand some people may be against homosexuality. That is absolutely fine with me. I understand some people may think it is gross. That is absolutely fine with me. Ask yourself does any of it REALLY harm you? Does a gay couple being allowed to express their love for each other really effect your life? Does a black man marrying a white woman (we used to be against that)? I think you'd be hard pressed if you were honest with yourself to say it does.

I understand that for some people it is a religion thing. I will not trample your right to believe that. In fact you can believe ANYTHING you want about homosexuals. Believe they are immoral. Believe they will burn for eternity. Believe whatever you want. Does the U.S. Constitution argue we should make public policy because of religious views? It does not. In fact, it explicitly says the opposite. Not everyone believes what you do. Why do you think your belief is better than anyone else's? Would you support Muslims making public policies in regards to their religion? How about Mormons? Do you really think these faiths should be making public policy based on what THEY believe? If no, why do you?

I would NEVER ask someone not to believe in God simply because I do not. Why do you ask people to believe what you believe and why deny people rights based on your beliefs? How would you feel if I argued for Christians not to be allowed to be married (I never would)? Wouldn't that be something you would ardently defend? Rights for some and not for others just isn't a fair position to take. It's not an American position to take. "All men are created equal." Not all men are created equal as long as they love women.

Finally ask yourself if it logically makes sense to deny people right's based on how they were born. Some people refuse to accept gay people are born that way. It's fine to refuse to accept it but you are WRONG. No one chooses to be gay. No one says "well we have two options. The first one people will accept us and love us because we love the opposite sex. The second many people will despise us, ostracize us, maybe damn us to hell, and say they are disgusted by us. I'll pick gay!" That doesn't make ANY logical sense. Intolerance of any sense never really has and pretty much never really will. For the most part I think a lot of people who are against it have chosen to be because it's just easy for them. It's easier to be fearful and fight against change and pretend it will lead to horrible things. It's easier to say society should stay the same. Yet if we had said it should be the same as 1776 would this really be a better place? Think of ALL the people who did not have rights then simply because of how they were born. It wasn't fair. This is the EXACT same thing. People being denied rights simply because some people (currently a MINORITY according to public opinion polls) are opposed to it.

That's all I got.
 
There is absolutely no vulgarity directed toward children in Rodja's picture. LouIs C.K. is describing other parents' kids in unflattering terms. To think otherwise is just wrong, and is a lack of reading comprehension. I'd be floored if bigT was seriously misreading that picture...please let this not be so.

describing other peoples kids in unflattering terms is ok, but describing gays in unflattering terms isn't?

i think children are at least as worthy of defending as gays.
 
I think I might make this my last post in this thread unless something else comes up. Honestly it's been a bit exhausting at times, but it's a good cause. I have had numerous people PM me and say my posts have made them reconsider the position they have. That's encouraging to hear. Changing people's opinions on something is a long process, but a worthwhile endeavor. It was worth it at many times when society needed changing that I have brought up and it is worth it again.

To those who feel differently than me: I only ask that you carefully consider the arguments I've laid out. I don't think I have seen a single logical position yet in this thread that explains why gay people should not have equal rights. I understand some people may be against homosexuality. That is absolutely fine with me. I understand some people may think it is gross. That is absolutely fine with me. Ask yourself does any of it REALLY harm you? Does a gay couple being allowed to express their love for each other really effect your life? Does a black man marrying a white woman (we used to be against that)? I think you'd be hard pressed if you were honest with yourself to say it does.

I understand that for some people it is a religion thing. I will not trample your right to believe that. In fact you can believe ANYTHING you want about homosexuals. Believe they are immoral. Believe they will burn for eternity. Believe whatever you want. Does the U.S. Constitution argue we should make public policy because of religious views? It does not. In fact, it explicitly says the opposite. Not everyone believes what you do. Why do you think your belief is better than anyone else's? Would you support Muslims making public policies in regards to their religion? How about Mormons? Do you really think these faiths should be making public policy based on what THEY believe? If no, why do you?

I would NEVER ask someone not to believe in God simply because I do not. Why do you ask people to believe what you believe and why deny people rights based on your beliefs? How would you feel if I argued for Christians not to be allowed to be married (I never would)? Wouldn't that be something you would ardently defend? Rights for some and not for others just isn't a fair position to take. It's not an American position to take. "All men are created equal." Not all men are created equal as long as they love women.

Finally ask yourself if it logically makes sense to deny people right's based on how they were born. Some people refuse to accept gay people are born that way. It's fine to refuse to accept it but you are WRONG. No one chooses to be gay. No one says "well we have two options. The first one people will accept us and love us because we love the opposite sex. The second many people will despise us, ostracize us, maybe damn us to hell, and say they are disgusted by us. I'll pick gay!" That doesn't make ANY logical sense. Intolerance of any sense never really has and pretty much never really will. For the most part I think a lot of people who are against it have chosen to be because it's just easy for them. It's easier to be fearful and fight against change and pretend it will lead to horrible things. It's easier to say society should stay the same. Yet if we had said it should be the same as 1776 would this really be a better place? Think of ALL the people who did not have rights then simply because of how they were born. It wasn't fair. This is the EXACT same thing. People being denied rights simply because some people (currently a MINORITY according to public opinion polls) are opposed to it.

That's all I got.

Excellent post. You just said everything that I've fallen short of saying and wanted to. Kudos and well said.
 
describing other peoples kids in unflattering terms is ok, but describing gays in unflattering terms isn't?

i think children are at least as worthy of defending as gays.

He's not talking about anyone T. It's a made up story. He's using humor to prove a point. You're trying to defend imaginary kids from a comedian who made up an imaginary story that was actually targeted at the way some imaginary adults may think.

Ask yourself if that is worth getting mad about.
 
Excellent post. You just said everything that I've fallen short of saying and wanted to. Kudos and well said.

I figured it's the cliffs notes of my positions. It's just what I feel, not everyone may agree but I'm hoping everyone at least attempts to listen.
 
I think I might make this my last post in this thread unless something else groundbreaking comes up. Honestly it's been a bit exhausting at times, but it's a good cause. I have had numerous people PM me and say my posts have made them reconsider the position they have. That's encouraging to hear. Changing people's opinions on something is a long process, but a worthwhile endeavor. It was worth it at many times when society needed changing that I have brought up and it is worth it again.

To those who feel differently than me: I only ask that you carefully consider the arguments I've laid out. I don't think I have seen a single logical position yet in this thread that explains why gay people should not have equal rights. I understand some people may be against homosexuality. That is absolutely fine with me. I understand some people may think it is gross. That is absolutely fine with me. Ask yourself does any of it REALLY harm you? Does a gay couple being allowed to express their love for each other really effect your life? Does a black man marrying a white woman (we used to be against that)? I think you'd be hard pressed if you were honest with yourself to say it does.

I understand that for some people it is a religion thing. I will not trample your right to believe that. In fact you can believe ANYTHING you want about homosexuals. Believe they are immoral. Believe they will burn for eternity. Believe whatever you want. Does the U.S. Constitution argue we should make public policy because of religious views? It does not. In fact, it explicitly says the opposite. Not everyone believes what you do. Why do you think your belief is better than anyone else's? Would you support Muslims making public policies in regards to their religion? How about Mormons? Do you really think these faiths should be making public policy based on what THEY believe? If no, why do you?

I would NEVER ask someone not to believe in God simply because I do not. Why do you ask people to believe what you believe and why deny people rights based on your beliefs? How would you feel if I argued for Christians not to be allowed to be married (I never would)? Wouldn't that be something you would ardently defend? Rights for some and not for others just isn't a fair position to take. It's not an American position to take. "All men are created equal." Not all men are created equal as long as they love women.

Finally ask yourself if it logically makes sense to deny people right's based on how they were born. Some people refuse to accept gay people are born that way. It's fine to refuse to accept it but you are WRONG. No one chooses to be gay. No one says "well we have two options. The first one people will accept us and love us because we love the opposite sex. The second many people will despise us, ostracize us, maybe damn us to hell, and say they are disgusted by us. I'll pick gay!" That doesn't make ANY logical sense. Intolerance of any sense never really has and pretty much never really will. For the most part I think a lot of people who are against it have chosen to be because it's just easy for them. It's easier to be fearful and fight against change and pretend it will lead to horrible things. It's easier to say society should stay the same. Yet if we had said it should be the same as 1776 would this really be a better place? Think of ALL the people who did not have rights then simply because of how they were born. It wasn't fair. This is the EXACT same thing. People being denied rights simply because some people (currently a MINORITY according to public opinion polls) are opposed to it.

That's all I got.

geo, you have made valid posts and because of your respectfulness to differing views i have softened my views towards gays. my GOD is my GOD and i follow in my heart what i think he would want, and i see that there are many way more evil things in life to be concerned about than what 2 men do in bed.

thank you for participating, you are a standup guy!!! good luck to your brother, i wish him well, and may GOD bless him!!!
 
describing other peoples kids in unflattering terms is ok, but describing gays in unflattering terms isn't? i think children are at least as worthy of defending as gays.

You lose your sarcasm detector? Let me explain how humor works...nah, nothing's unfunnier than explaining why things are funny
 
You lose your sarcasm detector? Let me explain how humor works...nah, nothing's unfunnier than explaining why things are funny

let me explain something to you...i find nothing funny about an adult using unflattering language toward children. nothing is more unfunnier than someone who would think it is funny. having a laugh at the expensive of children is just plain wrong, no matter how you cut it.

sh!tty and ugly are insults, i can't believe you would find this funny directed at children. what would their parents think if you were to call your students sh!tty and ugly? my bet is they wouldn't think it was funny!!!!!

but you could always tell them you were just being sarcastic.....
 
let me explain something to you...i find nothing funny about an adult using unflattering language toward children. nothing is more unfunnier than someone who would think it is funny. having a laugh at the expensive of children is just plain wrong, no matter how you cut it. sh!tty and ugly are insults, i can't believe you would find this funny directed at children. what would their parents think if you were to call your students sh!tty and ugly? my bet is they wouldn't think it was funny!!!!! but you could always tell them you were just being sarcastic.....

You haven't been in a teacher's lounge I'd take it
 
let me explain something to you...i find nothing funny about an adult using unflattering language toward children. nothing is more unfunnier than someone who would think it is funny. having a laugh at the expensive of children is just plain wrong, no matter how you cut it. sh!tty and ugly are insults, i can't believe you would find this funny directed at children. what would their parents think if you were to call your students sh!tty and ugly? my bet is they wouldn't think it was funny!!!!! but you could always tell them you were just being sarcastic.....

FFS, you're hopeless.
 
sorry...i guess i was just born that way.

but look how far you have come my friend

“God will not look you over for medals, degrees or diplomas but for scars.”
― Elbert Hubbard
 
Invalid Link Removed

From the article:
"Schaerr’s statement is especially interesting because opponents of marriage equality often insist that their views have nothing to do with religion. Yet when they are asked to articulate a secular reason against same-sex marriage, they struggle to come up with one that makes even a lick of sense."
 
Screw the religious side. It is unnatural because they can't reproduce. All living things purpose of life is reproduction. ****ing salmon die to reproduce.

So in a biological living sense. Homosexuality is unnatural. Its a perversion of the human mind and isnt normal.
 
Incapable of understanding logic and reason? Yeah, I deduced that a long time ago.

what is up with the personal attacks? are you that hateful naturally or do you have to work at it?

as for me being worthless/stupid/a hypocrite, you don't even know me...

i have been married to the same woman for 26 years who loves and respects me. i have 3 children who love and respect me, and 2 grandkids with another on the way. worked at same job for 22 years until laid off, now i have started a family business with my son and have 5 employees, who respect me. my wife has a bachelors degree in nursing and made more money than me, but wanted to stay home and care for our kids so she resigned. i worked long hours with a ton of overtime to provide for my family. i have never once ever cheated on my wife, and i trust that she has never cheated on me. i served 8 years in the military, went to school in philipines under the old g.i bill and obtained an associates degree in business. i have a group of friends and acquaintances who respect me, and who have my back if needed. also i am a recovering alcoholic with 17 years of sobriety, and i am very proud of this.....

now the question is....what are your qualifications to call me worthless?
 
Screw the religious side. It is unnatural because they can't reproduce. All living things purpose of life is reproduction. ****ing salmon die to reproduce.

So in a biological living sense. Homosexuality is unnatural. Its a perversion of the human mind and isnt normal.

There are a lot of guys on this forum who use steroids. That's not natural.

They probably can't reproduce because of steroidal effects. They're not natural.

"Perversion" you say...interesting. Please continue to reveal these nuggets of wisdom.

"Screw the religious side" you say. That's kind of the point of the thread. Mr. Duck made statements against homosexuals BECAUSE of religion. Don't avoid the heart of the issue. Or do you avoid it because you can't wrap your mind around it?

Here's something that may appeal to your manliness:
Invalid Link Removed
 
So in a biological living sense. Homosexuality is unnatural. Its a perversion of the human mind and isnt normal.

Except for the fact that homosexuality behavior is not limited to just homo sapiens, it is prevalent throughout the entire animal kingdom. This would directly contradict your 2 points.
 
what is up with the personal attacks? are you that hateful naturally or do you have to work at it? as for me being worthless/stupid/a hypocrite, you don't even know me... i have been married to the same woman for 26 years who loves and respects me. i have 3 children who love and respect me, and 2 grandkids with another on the way. worked at same job for 22 years until laid off, now i have started a family business with my son and have 5 employees, who respect me. my wife has a bachelors degree in nursing and made more money than me, but wanted to stay home and care for our kids so she resigned. i worked long hours with a ton of overtime to provide for my family. i have never once ever cheated on my wife, and i trust that she has never cheated on me. i served 8 years in the military, went to school in philipines under the old g.i bill and obtained an associates degree in business. i have a group of friends and acquaintances who respect me, and who have my back if needed. also i am a recovering alcoholic with 17 years of sobriety, and i am very proud of this..... now the question is....what are your qualifications to call me worthless?

Where did I call you worthless? Your hypocrisy is evident to everyone in this thread and it's VERY ironic to call me hateful in a thread about disparaging remarks that you, for whatever "reason," support.
 
Except for the fact that homosexuality behavior is not limited to just homo sapiens, it is prevalent throughout the entire animal kingdom. This would directly contradict your 2 points.

Did you just use a scientific fact? AARGLE BARGLE BIBLE BLAH BLAH NOT IN MY BACKYARD AARGLE BARGLE
 
There are a lot of guys on this forum who use steroids. That's not natural.

They probably can't reproduce because of steroidal effects. They're not natural.

"Perversion" you say...interesting. Please continue to reveal these nuggets of wisdom.

"Screw the religious side" you say. That's kind of the point of the thread. Mr. Duck made statements against homosexuals BECAUSE of religion. Don't avoid the heart of the issue. Or do you avoid it because you can't wrap your mind around it?

Here's something that may appeal to your manliness:
Invalid Link Removed

Steroids? Really you brought up steroids? How ****ing lame is your argument that you bring up some subject that in no way relates to what is being discussed.

I'm glad my kids don't have you as a teacher.. You come off as the exact type of liberal teacher that has ruined Americas public education system.

Homosexuality is a perversion of the mind, IMO just as much a perversion as someone who is into child porn. Or someone who needs to be abused to get off.. Or someone who enjoys killing things.

Now does that mean label them sex offenders? No. They haven't harmed anyone because they are gay.
 
Except for the fact that homosexuality behavior is not limited to just homo sapiens, it is prevalent throughout the entire animal kingdom. This would directly contradict your 2 points.

Tell me what species of animals have sex with the same sex and build a relationship. It sounds to me like youre blowing smoke because you don't want anyone's opinion but your own to be valued.
 
Piston Honda and Judojosh are the exact type of sheeple the NWO needs to change the world...

Bahhhhh bahhhh baaaaaa.. Thats all the noise you two make.. ****ing sheep.
 
Tell me what species of animals have sex with the same sex and build a relationship. It sounds to me like youre blowing smoke because you don't want anyone's opinion but your own to be valued.

Invalid Link Removed

Biological Exuberance is a book of great queer science. Two ganders who work together as a mated pair? Two female bears raising their four cubs together? A kangaroo with both a female pouch and male sex organs? Who's been keeping all this a secret? Homosexual mating and pairing occur in all species, so contends author Bruce Bagemihl in this well-researched book on animal homosexualities. Bagemihl is a biologist and researcher who went from teaching to working at Microsoft, and now he's produced one phenomenal book on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and tr ansgendered animal life. Bagemihl first shows how past biologists and anthropologists have made their errors in reportage regarding observations in the field of homosexual behavior among the beasts (interestingly enough, all homosexual behavior tended to be called either aggressive or passive, and not about mating or affection between animals, even though it was often the identical mating behavior as the heterosexually-oriented animals). In this often lively, but sometimes overwhelmingly encyclopedic study and listing of homosexual diversity in the animal kingdom, the author has done a phenomenal job of bringing science into a popular idiom so that the animal behavior he details i s understandable to the layperson.Biological Exuberance is divided into two main sections, "A Polysexual, Polygendered World" and "A Wondrous Bestiary: Portraits of Homosexual, Bisexual, and Transgendered Wildlife." The first section primarily deals with how we as a civilization have viewed animal sexuality in the past, and themyths we'vebuilt up around it, and the author's term, "biological exuberance." Here's how Bagemihl himself describes it. The essence ofBiological Exuberanceis that natural systems are driven as much by abundance and excess as they are by limitation and practicality. Seen in this light, homosexuality and nonreproductive heterosexuality are "expected" o ccurrences — they are one manifestation of an overall "extravagance" of biological systems that has many other expressions. In the second major section of the book, the author breaks his studies down into individual animal species and subgroupings of species. Fascinating, page-turning in its own way, and full of pictures of homosexual matings and sexual congress among our furry and feathered friends,Biolobical Exuberance is one of the most readable scientifically-based books of the year. Get this one. It is amazing

Im sure you can get a copy at your library. Or if you dont want a textbook a simple google search should answer your question
 
Tell me what species of animals have sex with the same sex and build a relationship. It sounds to me like youre blowing smoke because you don't want anyone's opinion but your own to be valued.

There have been over 500 species documented to engage in homosexual activity.
 
Piston Honda and Judojosh are the exact type of sheeple the NWO needs to change the world...

Bahhhhh bahhhh baaaaaa.. Thats all the noise you two make.. ****ing sheep.

Sheeple?

lol..

I am guided by observable and repeatable data. What is your guiding light? How do you explore and understand the world around you? If you have a tool that is better than the empirical evidence that science provides then please by all means share it.

My guess, and I am just guessing, that you are an emotional driven person who views the world purely through a subjective lens which works as a filter to make the world fit into a preconceived reality you have already been told to believe.

If someone is "sheeple" here, who do you think it is?
 
Back
Top