Homosexuality in Animals is nearly Universal

Samix the "natural behaviours" you mentioned are NOT universal to all animals, and are only found in some, and are most certainly not natural to humans. So until I see a large percentage of humans asking to eat their offspring so that they can go into heat, well....

"We have a natural responsibility to procreate and ensure the continuation of the race and a moral responsibility which gives us responsibilities and goals beyond just self gratification"

If having children is what makes someone happy, isn't then having children a form of self gratification? The "natural" responsibility to procreate, isn't really so natural anymore. The basis for successful human continuation is based on the fact that the ones that are sick or not strong enough, die before they are old enough to procreate. Because of advances in our technology we are now able to keep people alive long after "nature" intended. Are we, in effect building generations of people that are not as physically healthy as they could be? Also, have you considered the moral responsibility is to not have children before we overpopulate the Earth and wipe out the finite resources that the rest of the world depend on for survival?

A lot of people have mentioned that because of our intelligence, we no longer have to give in to our base instincts. Does this not apply to procreation as well? Or are we going to just mimic animals and breed until we all die from starvation? Is it not possible that it is more morally responsible to not have children? Or to limit oneself to just one?

Anyway, all this aside, I think society puts a lot of emphasis that having children equals happiness. When really I think if society removed that emphasis, it would filter out the people who really want children, from the ones who do it as some sort of attempt at fulfilling their own lives. Perhaps then, we might see a change in our younger generations, as it might be only the ones that can be adequately provided for, are born.

Animal would mate with just anyone of its kind as long as there is a hole. Now how would they know if they have the brains to distinguish. I have seen one buffalo doing it with a rotten banana tree at the base. As long as the satisfaction is there, who cares about the rest.

homosexuality has nothing to do with procreation

no

Humans have pheromones too...

http://www.athenainstitute.com/discovery.html

and human males have the urge to ejaculate too...

(you can go to any porn site to establish that point)

How do you know animals make no decision to bear young?

and on a lighter not... while we are on the thread on homosexuality...

doesn't look like men really care what they hump either :-p

Besides, I don't think human life is about self fulfillment i.e. being happy alone...

We have a natural responsibility to procreate and ensure the continuation of the race

and a moral responsibility which gives us responsibilities and goals beyond just self gratification

Animals breed because of a combination of certain pheromones that attract one to the other, and the urge for the male to ejaculate. They make no decision to bear young, and as you can see from various animal species, don't really care what they hump.

My point was that society teaches us that having children makes us happy, when really we can be equally as happy if we do not have children, if there was less emphasis from society to do so.

Why do animals have children?

Unlike homosexuality which is not normal behavior for any animal... reproduction IS in fact totally universal...

Are animals too taught by society to have children?

Marital rape is legal in some countries, like Qatar.

'Homosexuality in Animals is nearly Universal' is a worthless argument and an eyewash.

* It is natural for animals to kill the young once of their own kind to get the other female in heat.

-> should then this also be legalized

* It is natural for animals to have sex with the female who gave birth to them

-> should then this also be legalized

* Eating their own dead offspring's is natural to many species of animals.

-> should then this also be legalized

* Rape is something that is rampant in the animal kingdom

-> should then this also be legalized

If something is natural among animals or it is rampant or a behavior among them does not make i an argument to legalize any such stuff

Of course society has taught you that. Where were you born, on the moon?

Maybe you misunderstand the concept of society teaching us things. For society to teach us something, it does not mean someone directly saying to you "the purpose of your life will be to marry and have children and that will make you happy". The way society teaches us, is through indirect means and by setting an example.

For instance, a child can see people all around him having children, and families with mothers and fathers etc. To that child it becomes the norm, and the child will attempt to copy his parents and peers behaviour, and it is these norms that he will continue to emulate throughout his life. Now a person becomes fiercely protective of what he considers the norm. Going back to our biological roots, things that are unusual and things that are not known can pose a potential threat to your life. Therefore our immediate reaction is to avoid anything different. However, as humans we have the depth of intelligence and the leisure of technology to no longer blindly follow others, and instead to have independent thought. Furthermore, we have advanced enough to no longer be afraid of things that don't actually pose a threat.

I cant beleive that this post is still ongoing !! common people !! isnt there any better subject than 2 gay cats banging each other on a wall somewhere ???? of this post was simply put there to try to justify why he is gay ???

i honnestly dont care about animals being gay ! or even people being gay, its peoples choice, no once can judge ! shoo can each gay/lesbian/straight guy enjoy his life !! and leave the animals out of it !!!!!

unless of course the person who posted this is not only gay, but gay zoophile* (*person who has S#S with animals) too !! wow that would be weird !!! whoever posted this stay AWAY FROM MY DOG !!!!!

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

but ... i don't need children to be happy. I can detect my exact feelings and their causes. To be happy,,, i need to have beautiful wife who should love and play with our children!

Society has not taught me this!

All Things Considered, June 28, 2009 · Forty years ago, gay street youth started a riot at a bar in New York City that would forever change the struggle for gay rights in America.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106027136&ft=1&f=1001

Freedom just another word, when you got nothing left to lose.

-Kris Kristofferson

Yes Versi you can be the judge of how happy you are in the present. But the fact remains you have no knowledge of what your happiness would be without children. You can only assume to know because in the past when you did not have children you were less happy. But my point is, the things that changed in your life since then, are not just the non-existence to the existence of children. Your whole life will have changed regardless if you had children or not. Therefore if you do indeed have increased happiness, you can't attribute it soley to having children. In fact, your happiness may be because you now think you have a purpose. However people are able to achieve purpose in many areas of their life.

And Khuram, although you think you were taught to stay away from girls. Go think about it realistically. Every single one of has parents, and it is those people we emulate. So our very first conception of life is to procreate, as we see from our very own existence. To have children as an emotional purpose to life has been adopted into every society, and is why some people think they need children to be happy.

As courtesy,,, we should say thanks.

After all I am using windows and internet explorer.

But surely I will not endorse their stupid movements of nudism/homosexuality and like!

Who said we should be thankful for the US?

No way.

Industrial revolution 1 & 2 have boosted development of technology.

The US consists out of IMPORTED PEOPLE ONLY (besides some tribes that are living under federal law on reserves), so knowledge comes from elsewhere.

The US has given us Dictators, War, Death & Destruction and Misery in the last 60 years.

by the way ... i m unmarried...

only thing is that unlike homosexuals,,, i m not afraid to get married.

In this way,,, homosexuality is the way of inferior enjoyment ... that will not take you to the superior happiness stage!

About happiness and enjoyment,,, I have short blog entry on this topic on my blog. Below I am copying it:

Happiness and Enjoyment:

There is difference between ‘happiness’ and just ‘enjoyment’. ‘Enjoyment’ is a temporary feeling whereas ‘happiness’ is characterized by durability, inner self satisfaction etc.etc. Enjoyment always come with momentery smiles and laughing whereas real happiness can bring tears of happiness. Enjoyment can be found in carelessness and irresponsible attitudes, whereas happiness comes mainly from caring behaviour and sense of responsibility.

But at the same time, ‘enjoyment’ and ‘happiness’ are not any opposite entities. Enjoyment also can lead to the ultimate destination of happiness.

Miss. X,,

I have very clear memories of my early childhood. When I was total ashamed ... that cud not even think to think about any girl.. or having any girl friend.

I saw some very pleasent dreams in my early childhood. I saw my wife and two cute daughters in my dreams. I have never experienced anything more pleasent than those dreams.

Society had taught me to get away from girls... ... this is the norm of our society. But my inner psychology taught me that I should have wife and children.

Your argument that only society teaches us to give birth to children,,, therefore is wrong.

There is another intersting fact of our society norms. We were never taught that we have to get marry in some age. We learn that we should marry ... out of our own body needs...!

Miss X what do you want to prove here? Over smartness?.(Or) supporting the Topic of this forum?.

****************************************************

It is not easy to wake up pretending person

****************************************************

'I' should be judge of whether or not I have reached an even greater level of happiness having had the child because it is MY life and its MY child...

And having been thru married life both with and without children, I can say that having my child has brought new dimensions of happiness and I can say positively that I am the better for it...

So I am speaking out of my experience...

Can we say the same about you...?

Or is it just a matter of... sour grapes?

I don't need to answer the question. It's irrelevant. And I am sure your child brings you joy. But that doesn't mean you may not have reached an even greater level of happiness if you had never had her.

My three year old brings me new joy in ways I cannot imagine every new day

I don't think the way I was raised has anything to do with feeling that way... its parental love...

But neways... you haven't answered my question...

From your question versi, I can see that you are one of those people who are raised to think that you are meant to have children, and that will make you happy once you have achieved it.

Do you have children?

khuram how do you measure happiness? You are using completely subjective views to say that some people are happier than others. And furthermore, you are being completely unscientific about it, by ignoring alternative influencing factors.

By saying it is the children that is the sole reason someone is happier, when really almost all of their circumstances have changed. That's just bad science.

And lastly, if someone wants something, and they receive it, does that make someone superior? Humans biologically may feel the need to have children, but far more realistic, is the fact that society tells us we should be having children. So if we believe we're meant to have children because society has conditioned us to believe we are meant to, and we get them and it makes us feel happy and normal, how does that translate into being a superior person? If a child is made to believe that chocolate is something to want, and therefore when the child is given chocolate and becomes happy. Does that make that child superior to others who don't want chocolate? Just because not everyone wants what you think they should want, does not make them inferior people.

of happiness and may not be, we are the ones who can be happy or no, it is up to how good is our mental health.

This is Jamal - DaRuDe's Camel again..

I am really getting the hump over this thread. We animals regard the whole planet as our domain and do not go by Nationalities..

Signed

Jamal

it was the interpretation of verisimiltude

Where did the U.S come into this ???

We are indepted to U.S for many positive and useful ideas/things that they have given us.

But it does not mean that we will follow their negative things also.

this thread was intended to focus on the U.S.?

AND you call them animals AND inhuman?

I know the brits hate the Yankees, but this is taking things a bit too far!!

So this studies proves why dogs hump every thing? Just curious?

Pet Lover..

-----------------

HE WHO DARES WINS

Dear QL

I must protest strongly at the change in direction of this post. It was intended to focus on US, the animals. Not humans.

Regards

Jamal

(DaRuDe's heterosexual Camel)

P.S

I am using Expat's account till I set up my own

You also can see data of population explusion.... You know ... world total polution has become almost doubled ... may be within your own life span...!!!

Well ... it is really not my own assumption. It is an OBJECTIVE issue. You can opt to conduct an unbiased scientific survey. You can choose large sample of married couple who are without children. You can see how many of them are as happy as those couples who have children. how many of them do want to have their own children?

You can choose sample population of those who go for "scientifically" produced babies options. You can see how many of them already had natural children. I have not said anything on the basis of assumptions. I know number of instances where couples are not happy because they have got no children. I personally know an MBBS Doctor. His first wife is nice beautiful woman. But since couple was without child after many years ... Doctor had been really a sad person. Then he went for second marriage and now he is father of 2 children. Now he is happy man. His first wife has supported him and allowed him second marriage happily.

Recently my female cousin has been married with already married man who got no child from first wife in last eleven years. So why he has gone for second marriage? When my that female cousin is so stupid a girl that she can make his life full of thorns. Just because ... might be she be able to give him children!

Actually now you are raising your own assumptions. If youi have doubt ... then you should first go for an unbiased scientific survey on the issue.

Yes some ppl do adopt children. But mostly they are social workers. They even might not have their own children. Might be they try to overcome their shortcomings of life.

You can see statistics of how many medicines that give hope of giving natural birth of children,,, are sold in market....

You also can compare these statistics with those cases where ppl intentionally use such medicine that will not let them become parents ever!

Normally ppl use birth control medicine when they already have given birth to 1-2 children. May be call girls type things be using birth control medicine even without having given birth to any child.

Again you are making your own assumptions "we become sad and are disappointed if we fail to naturally give birth to our own children"

That may be true for you, but not for everyone. And no not everyone adopts children as a second option. There are people who would rather adopt than have their own children. So you are basing your entire argument on the fact that people need to have children to be happy. Well therein is where your argument fails. You are failing to include the rest of the population that does not get happiness from the same things you do. But knowing you, I am sure you will say that those people are obviously inferior.

But ... i only avoid direct attacks on convictions. Rest of my views are sincerly rational and logical... or atleast ... intented to be...!!!

Dude ... actually I am not in any safe heaven. Hope you can understand!

You said an individual is part of incomplete couple. I would say that an individual is only part of an incomplete couple for procreative reasons. And in modern times, is no longer necessary whatsoever. So what is the reason that someone is incomplete if they do not have an opposite sex partner, if you remove the argument that you need a man and a woman to have children?

Yes we may not need a man and a woman to have children. But a man needs to have his own children. Not the children of some machine. Similarly,,, a woman also needs to have her own children ... and NOT needs the children of some machine.

People choose adopted children,,, or test tube babies,,, or even more "scientifically" produced babies as second option.

After all right self-conception is that we are biological creatures. (you can choose to say "entities" instead of word "creature"). We are not mechanical robots. We become sad and get disappointments if we naturally fail to give birth to our own children. We go for scientific treatments as second option. We need to have our own children ... Not the children of some machine.

To be "incomplete" is a broader term then Mr.Dude takes it to be. It is more in emotional and psychological sense ... then just in sexual sense...!!!

Actually ... for my detailed discussion on "Subjectivity and Objectivity",,, you should have read article No.2 and onwards ... and this first article should have been read last. This is the problem with blogging that it displays articles in chronological (Date wise) order.

"Thus, knowledge comes from the philosophy of the scientist that puts his assumption to test. (regardless whether correct or incorrect)"

I am in no disagreement. You yourself have pointed out that Knowledge originates with 'philosophy' of scientist.

Whenever someone originates new knowledge,,, even if he is a scientist,,, he then actually performs the role of philosopher. In order to start "scientific" activity ... first you need to have an assumption. And assuptions come from philosophical activities.

Full time philosophers also can generate assumptions and philosophers-cum-scientists also can generate assumptions.

A scientist may really not perform any philosophical thing as well. Might be he not be able enough to generate solid assumptions at his own. He can still be a scientist and can choose some already available assumptions to do scientific works with.

Likewise,,, a full time philosopher may not find time,,, or even may not possess necessary skills to put his ideas to scientific verifications at his own. He can still be a philosopher and can choose to let professional scientists to do necessary scientific verifications upon his ideas.

In addition, Khuram, the fact that you

- do not ask questions (unless they suit your reality)

- avoid answering relevant questions that scientifically may harm your views.

gives a feeling that you

- refuse alternate interpretations by design and default

- do not listen to others, either way

I am sure you will gain loads of popularity in your 'safe haven', enough closed minded, science ignoring and stubborn 'freethinkers' where you hail from.

But I guess it fairly scary to question the status quo of your safe haven, and thus you choose as many others do.... The easy road.

Be a true freethinker and challenge the status quo, have some balls and try to look beyond instead of using the same glasses day-in day-out. You may encounter 'reality'.

MissX...

Discussion is fairly useless as you are engaging in a discussion with somebody that has created his own reality in order to justify his religious convictions.

Thus far, we have seen a lot of pseudo-intellectual philosophies brought in a spiderweb of words that do not touch base with any scientific research.

For instance

[Quote}

"Right self conception is that an individual human is a complimentary part of opposite sex partner. Individual is incomplete

[Unquote]

Here he says that an individual is complete when a male sticks his penis into a female. Somebody that does not have a partner is incomplete, a gay is a 'weak' individual.

Words, lots of words based on what? 1 homosapien = 1 homosapien. "to be complete", is to be satisfied with 'life' and has nothing to do with biological science of completing a homosapien, something he fails to understand.

"He/she has to get him/herself complete by uniting with opposite sex soul mate"

Here is a nice display of "Holy Book Talk" (any holy book). Mommy, Daddy and his social/religious influences have established shortsightedness from the day of birth. This is what (generally) family, society, religious stream demands. Of course, when family, society and religion demand M/F marriage and is outraged by M/M companionship you can not expect he will understand the concept nor will he, regardless of educational level, apply this, if needed, in his professional field. Because HE IS NOT A FREETHINKER.

"This union gives superior form of happiness and pleasure"

Here he says "I like orgasms, I have to 'fornicate' to reproduce".

He never spoke of love of feelings, or the creation of adrenaline, testosterone, endorphins or any of the substances the body releases are scientifically proven to be boosters, or creators, of feelings of love.

Again you're making assumptions based on your own ideas of "right self conception".

You said an individual is part of incomplete couple. I would say that an individual is only part of an incomplete couple for procreative reasons. And in modern times, is no longer necessary whatsoever. So what is the reason that someone is incomplete if they do not have an opposite sex partner, if you remove the argument that you need a man and a woman to have children?

Khuram,

[Quote]

I am having the opinion that creation of Knowledge is not the role of Scientist. To create new knowledge is actually the role of Philosopher. The role of Scientist is just to extract the objective truths out of already existing ideas

[Unquote]

Even though you seem fairly intelligent, your philosophies are as waterproof as pasta strainer.

Darwin was a scientist or a philosopher that tested his philosophies through tests, thus science?

Measuring the universe, was that based on "assumptions" or where there great minds of Hubble, Le Maitre and such, did the suck a theory out of their thumbs or did they build telescopes to scientifically proof their assumptions?

Thus, knowledge comes from the philosophy of the scientist that puts his assumption to test. (regardless whether correct or incorrect)

Who decides...???

There can be two types of issues...

Objective issues and;

Subjective Issues.

For objective issues,,, it is the "objective evidence" ... that "decides" the things.

For subjective issues ... it is the "Conclusive evidence" which should be decisive.

When in the process of a critical and analytical debate,,, a stage comes where supporters of one side view point become answerless ... that is the stage of "conclusive evidence".

For details,,, one will have to go through my all articles in the category of "Subjectivity and Objectivity on following link:

http://khuram.wordpress.com/category/philosophy/theory-of-knowledge/subjectivity-objectivity-and-scientific-method/

For your second point ...

So what if technology can replace human natural reproduction process...??? Right self conception is that an individual human is a complimentary part of opposite sex partner. Individual is incomplete. He/she has to get him/herself complete by uniting with opposite sex soul mate. This union gives superior form of happiness and pleasure.

You don't understand my point. WHO decides what is "right self conception"? A true philosopher would know there is no one answer to that question. A religious person, however, would answer God.

And if overcoming your base (inferior) instincts is what you think makes humans superior, then why do you support male/female sex. As humans we have the technology to procreate without any sexual interaction whatsoever. So you are saying, by giving in to our base instincts to have sex at all, is a quality of inferior people.

Offcourse bilologically humans are not fundamentally different from animals. Difference comes at psychological and intellectual stage.

Human attitudes/behaviours should be based on right self conception. One can feel attraction for homosexual relations. But one should realize that the attraction is not consistant with right self conception. That attraction defeats right self conception... Human should not let his/her right self conception be defeated by inferior biological attractions. This is the "ego" stage in humans. Humans have not to live life at biological level.

They,,, at least,,, should live at "ego level" ... where they keep on trying to overcome inferior biological desires for the cause of better intellectual type self conception.

But who decides which behaviours are human, and which are uniquely animal? Surely the fact that humans do have both hetero and homosexual intercourse, prove that that particular behaviour are not one of the "animal only' behaviours.

Dude

Humans not only contribute chromosomes... they also give education to next generations...

If any education gives curropted form of self-conception then that education is not right. If you educate a boy that it is right for u to marry a man ... offcourse this education is giving corrupted self conception. this education is not right.

And ... i m not biased in the sense in which you are assuming me.

My first premise is that humans are fundamentally different from animals. Due to having better intellect and higher and advanced personality components, they are superior to animals.

I m biased just in logical sense. If humans are superior ... then those humans who think themselves animals are having incorrect ... rather inferior self conception.

Those who follow animals and reject human ethical systems,,, they do evil ... because they cause inferior things (animal attitudes) to flourish in human societies (superior things).

Khuram

A

B

C

Or do you always, as a freelance thinker, ignore simple questions?

Miss X..

No ... he has not to think himself superior...

Only thing is that he should NOT think himself inferior.

He should have right self conception... Just that he is a human... he is not animal... he has to do human things ... for better life.

He has not to think himself some superior human... though he can think it also ... as it is good for psychological reasons.

And Khuram,

You still did not reply to the question about X & Y chromosomes.

Why?

A - you do believe in science

B - you never heard of it

C - you know about it, but since that overthrows your lame and unfounded theories you choose to ignore it.

Now,

A B or C...

Made it very easy on you Mr. Bias Freelance Thinker

Hmmmmmm Khuram....

Misjudgment? No. I see, I absorb and I voice. or Veni Vidi Vici, in this case. You have not one argument that makes 0.01% sense.

Here,

If some person is a full of shit ... but thinks himself he is not full of shit ... then he is not full of shit - IN HIS OWN MIND/REALITY.

So, everybody tells you you are full of shit... but you hang on to whatever you think is right, as this has been spoon fed to you and there is NO WAY OUT for you.

My points are indeed based on a stereotype.

"A stereotype is a type of logical oversimplification in which all the members of a class or set are considered to be definable by an easily distinguishable set of characteristics"

So, you wish to tell me that my judgment, based on a stereotype, is not correct or near the truth?

But then, based on your theory, all one has to do is believe they are superior, for them to be superior. And of course not partake in acts that you deem are inferior actions.

Miss X,,,

Thanks for relevant question...

Well,,, inferior is one who him/herself considers him/herself to be inferior... Likewise ... slave is only that person who thinks he is a slave.

If a nation is slave but struggling for independence ... then that is not any slave nation at all... in real sense.

If a nation is independent but perceives herself to be slave,,, then she is a slave nation... in real sense,.

If some person is a slave ... but thinks himself independent ... then he is not slave in real sense.

If someone is human ... but thinks himself an inferior animal ... then he is inferior... because of having inferior self conception...

So type of self conception makes a person superior or inferior...

Even if someone is physically or financially inferior ... but still thinks himself superior,,, he is NOT inferior...

Only passive minded people ... who downgrade their ownselves ... are inferiors... they keep their mind limited... they choose inferior things for them... they surrender before others... by thinking that others are superior...

Dude ... your all points are based on your misjudgment abt me. You don't personally know me... Your points are just Stereotypical

But if he is a philosopher as he claims, then he must acknowledge that evil is a philosophical argument in itself, as is what defines a superior and inferior person if they even exist. Way too many definitive statements in his argument for anyone to take his arguments as a "philosopher" seriously.

MissX

he basis his inferior-theory based on lack of elements of Ich and uberIch.

With this he is saying that these people are choosing homosexuality, thus knowingly choosing for evil.

Very scientific approach from a cum laude graduate of the University of 'sand-for-brains'.

Khuram, apart from the homosexual behaviour, I would like to know what in your opinion makes the person inferior. Or is your diagnosis based purely on who they have sex with?

Out of the box ha.....

You are merely presenting your own reality that justifies your opinions that stem out of your religious background.

You stick homosexuality to the Ich and UberIch while the Ich = Moral and UberIch allows differentiation between good and evil. This has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.

It is your brain that has been told "haram' 'haram' 'haram' for years and years and now you are to weak to even try to approach the subject from a different angle, as this would make you a liberal and make you an outcast in your sub-culture. In other words, you are a coward.

Homosexuality is NOT a choice, I would like to call it a birth-defect at max. Surely, some people may not have been born as gays but have psychological trauma's that may lead to such behavior.

In your culture people have been marrying, until today, within their own bloodlines, while for ages we know that this leads to abnormalities like retards, slow learners, borderline, behavioral issues and allegedly also homosexuality. So tell me, a culture that ignores scientific facts.... how can I trust them to explain homosexuality scientifically? You just lean on Freud an give your own explanation.

I have to ask, as you conveniently ignored something critical. What do you have to say about the theory of X & Y chromosomes being the cause of homosexuality?

:P

I am so mystereous that you cud not realize that I am very much out of box. I am giving all rational reasons and i m not advocating any religion.

Yes inferiority is a reality. So i accept the presence of inferiority. So do i also accept the presence of such inferior attitudes like homosexuality.

And if you say that homosexuals also possess ego/super ego then you yourself falsify your main premise ... that "humans are just animals"...

Remember that you have not said that "animals also possess ego/super ego". And also you cannot say it...!!!

When someone possesses a superior faculty (like homosexual humans do possess ego/super ego) but instead of doing superior things,,, starts copying inferior things... then it becomes EVIL.

Animals doing homosexual things is not any evil... because they just don't possess superior faculties.

But humans doing homosexual things is a form of evil... because despite having superior faculties ... they do inferior things.

What is Evil...???

Evil is a phenomenon whereby some inferior entity flourishes at the cost of superior thing. Like garbage taking the place of clean. Lake cancer (inferior entity) flourishing by destroying human body organs (Superior entity).

Like well mannered gentleman (superior) becomes an idiot homosexual(inferior).

Ow hell...

We are still on this shitty subject?

And now, after all has been said and explained 5000 times we have Khuram that displays his views that are the result of a life-long brainwash.

Khuram you call yourself a 'freelance thinker', while you simply repeat what your life-long brainwash has taught you. Free-thinkers think OUTSIDE THE BOX and do not stick in their religious safe-haven.

The animal discussion, I will not even try to explain. It appears you have never seen a monkey, how about a look in the mirror?

As goes for homosexuals, they are here they are everywhere they are part of society they are HUMANS, they are not inferior nor do they lack any Ego or UberEgo components they are YOU. At max we could contribute X & Y Chromosome distribution as to why.

Generally homosexuals are excepted, except for a small group of uptight uber-religious ignorant idiots that have their own sick convictions, the funny thing: these people are loosing ground, all over the world.

As goes for you Khuram.

"love thou neighbor, also homo's'

Against homosexuals, you are against God's creation hence you are a SINNER.

Salaam Alikum.

I m not scholar at all. See my short article on difference between a scholar and an intellectual:

Difference between an Intellectual and a Scholar"

Being no "scholar",,, I am in no need to be dependent on any peer reviewd journal. Creative thought doesn't need to be recognized by official authorities. Time itself proves validity of true creative thought. Despite it,,, obove referred short article has been liked by editors of Journal issued by Royal Institute of Philosophy. Their only concern was that the article was too short to be published.

In addition,,, it is not logical to get creative thought be authenticated with the help of any peer reviewd journal. "Peers" review things on the basis of already establshed "theories"... What if someone rightfully criticizes established theories? Logically ... such criticism cannot find any place in peer reviewd journals. Only time shows the validity thereof.

Being indexed on google tells at least that how much work has been done on topic. To be "authority" is another thing and to be "influensive" is another thing. I am happy that i am not any authority!

I am independent. Total freelance thinker. I don't give references to established theories ... to support my ideas. I only give solid reasons. Readers understand at their own... Not because i m some authority... But because i make my points understandable to them. I don't lecture at any University. But I have offer of PHd Philosophy from at least two universities. But i m in no need to authenticate my views with the help of any degree. Some educational institutes give my articles as assignments to their students.

I am not trying to tell that i m any scholar or even intellectual.

Only point was just that at least i m not any ignorant or having any small mind...!!!

And what points do you ppl have after all...??? Just that since something is a natural phenomenon in animal kingdom... so it justifies certain ill human affairs...???

Are you ppl not having small minds...???

What makes you think that humans are just animals??? Because they have similar DNA?? Or evolution just...???

Don't you ppl know that humans are equipped with many advanced features??? Don't you know that ego and super ego are the features of only humans? Don't you know that animals just can't "Think"! They only perceive things. They can only be clever. They cannot be wise!

They cannot theorize things. They don't possess any system of ethics...!!!

Just try to get your reasons straight. Try to tell me or explain me why humans are just animals...???

Yes, the real test of true scholarship isn't having an article published in a peer reviewed journal.

Or lecturing at a university.

No... it's being indexed on google.

Seriously, you think that makes you some sort of authority on the subject?

Anyone can write crap and pop it on the net. It doesn't make any of it true or well written, or even interesting.

If you think that having a blog makes you a scholar, then... I'm outta here.

Miss X ... Oh good, a cure for homosexuality :D

Perhaps we should see if it works on ignorant, small minded people too.

Well ... you ppl can point me as "ignorant",, "small minded" bla bla:P

But actually i m not ignorant or small minded. I have done one of comprehensive researches on "mind".

Just type keywords on google "human mind vs. animal mind" ... you ppl will find top two links to my articles.

and yes ... being real ignorants ... you ppl can try to search any wayout of how to cast demons out of me:P

Ok ... do try to find any like wayout:) I will enjoy watching your "efforts":)

One of those 'only in America' moments.

I'd laugh, if the footage wasn't so troubling.

Can they cast out the demons of stupid?

Oh good, a cure for homosexuality :D

Perhaps we should see if it works on ignorant, small minded people too.

Stop this post forthwith, if not fifthwith....

It seems that there is actually a cure for this type of thing ..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1195410/Disturbing-YouTube-video-church-casting-homosexual-demon-teenage-boy.html

Clark...

I respect animals ... because they are just animals... animal things are natural for animals... if animals do animal things ... we respect them..

but what if humans start doing animal things...???

Sorry to say ...

I am not going to give any respect to those "Humans"...!

Fubar ...

You are only trying to find some rescue place.

Those who do find opposite sex but still prefer to go with same sex ... are also inferior ... for another reason... because their choice is inferior. because they got no sense of what is right for them. and what is not right for them.

Because they lack self-cognition. And ... because they lack ego/super ego...!!!

The best way to end this is that, first we should have to have RESPECT to ourselves, RESPECT to others and RESPECT to all sorrounding us... It does not matter whether it is an animal, a human being or things, a gay or straight, a man or woman, poor or rich..let's just have RESPECT to oneself then I think there will be no issue of homosexuality either on living things or non-living things...

When you have found food for your soul lead others to the Source.

"Inferior brand ppl get no lift from opposite sex and find it easy to go with same sex partners"

But

"I never said that all inferior humans are homosexual. But whoever is homosexual"

So to sum up, "inferior brand people get no lift from the opposite sex", except the inferior brand people who do get a life from the opposite sex.

Now I get you.

Thankfully rapists who are heterosexual people are not animals, and do not want to live at the level of animals, unlike homosexuals.

Fubar ...

I never said that all inferior humans are homosexual. But whoever is homosexual ... he/she really is inferior. Because his/her goals are inferior. he/she is just after getting some inferior form of biological pleasure.

I am not supporter of Frued. But his id, ego, super ego theory is right. People who are short of ego/super ego ... are inferior ppl. Because they lack important personality components that can be found only in humans!

They live at the level of animals...! At least ... they want to live at the level of animals.

I can't help but think I've read about all this superior v. inferior people thing before...where was it....where was it?....Oh Ya! Mein Kampf :P

Pretty shaky logic there:

First you say that there are only two types of humans:

"Superior humans. Who think themselves HUMANS."

and

"Inferior humans are those who think themselves ANIMALS."

You then say that all inferior humans are homosexual:

"Inferior brand ppl get no lift from opposite sex and find it easy to go with same sex partners"

So all the biologists who say that humans are animals, and who are married and sexually attracted to the opposite sex, are imaginary? Or deep down all biologists are homosexual?

Thanks MissX, couldn't have explained it better myself. :)

Is inability to empathise and understand other humans a superior or inferior quality to have? I think, considering it requires a depth of thought and intelligence that animals are incapable of, that it is a superior quality. Do we know anyone who does not meet this criteria?

"Well someonenew, sorry to say it but all the evidence points towards the fact that it's a naturally occuring thing, and that it might even be beneficial. And yes, humans are animals, like it or not."

Actually ... humans are in two brands. Superior humans. Who think themselves HUMANS. Inferior humans are those who think themselves ANIMALS.

Superior humans appreciate the fact of their being humans. Inferior humans wish to become like lower animals. Superior humans appreciate their natural sex. They don't like homosexual relations. They (even superior brand animals) compete with same sex for getting opposite sex.

Inferior brand ppl get no lift from opposite sex and find it easy to go with same sex partners ... for getting some inferior form of biological pleasure.

Animal is only one who thinks him/herself as animal.

Even if any animal could become able to "think" itself as human ... then it no more remains animal. Then he/she becomes a human.

Let an inferior boy choose between a girl and a boy to develop relations with. If he chooses boy ... then he is an inferior boy. In the capacity of being an inferior ... he does right if he develops relations with boy. It is natural for inferior people. Because they do not know that actually they are humans.

Let them take guidance from animals. Perhaps they are inferior to even animals...!

The SUM of both genes and social influence could be scaled from 1 to 10, but for the genes only, is it also the case, or just 1 and 0?

I think it needs a scientific proof

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Gypsy was simplifying it for the people who can't even grasp homosexuality, let alone bisexuality.

I'll try and clarify sexuality from my point of view, and if Gypsy disagrees, she can correct me later.

Imagine a scale of 1 to 10.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Heterosexuality is 1, Homosexuality is 10, and Truly Bisexual is 5.

We are all born with varying ingrained levels of sexuality. The people who are born with levels on the extreme ends, 1 & 10, and perhaps 2 & 9 also, are unable to make a choice about which gender they pursue, so strongly their biological needs for their particular partner are. So people do not choose to be gay, just as truly heterosexual people do not choose to be heterosexual.

The rest of the population has the potential to form loving, sexual relationships with either sex, but because of societal norms, tend to gravitate towards opposite sex partners. They are also influenced by the biological desire to produce offspring. Most people will never realise they had a choice because the social conditioning that heterosexuality as normal, is extremely powerful. It is the path of least resistance and they are able to live their lives happily repressing any urges to form relationships with people of the same sex, however the potential for them to do so, remains.

you said:

"You're either born gay or your not, baring traumatic life experience or a complete lack of the opposite sex"

what about bisexual? were they born like this, or is it media and peer pressure? they don't seem to fit anywhere in your argument

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Khalid should visit Shafallah if he wants to see children who weren't quite born as "beautiful angels".

When quoting from the New England Journal of Medicine produces the reponse:

"give example from real life" (because the doctors were studying what? avatars??) I think it's time for me to quit wasting my time on such an ignorant fool.

I hate to clarify Khalids argument, but I think he meant not all children of alcoholic parents grow up to be alcoholics. Anyway continue with your discussions, I'm waiting for it to lead somewhere so I can get some motivation to contribute.

you need to do some volunteer work with my mother who helps out on a maternity ward at a poor hospital

Babies born with all sorts of addictions and in a bad state.

Lead by example is something which I like.

Dude... I made it through the first ridiculous statement, only to gag on the second:

"Also as you know there are some cases where the mother or father are alcoholic for example but the son no?"

Ever heard of "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome"????

http://www.lpch.org/DiseaseHealthInfo/HealthLibrary/genetics/fas.html

Mothers with addictions to substances like methadone, cocaine, heroin etc have been known to pass their addictions on to their offspring:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/11/666

'As that is where we can stop reading. '

LOL i spat the grape out of my mouth - i could have choked! so funny

every new born baby is a beautiful angel, mothers or fathers hormone will not affect him.

Also as you know there are some cases where the mother or father are alcoholic for example but the son no?

A father or mother are bad but the son or daughter are good.

And vice versa so this will eliminate the effect of hormones and chromosones right?

Khalid,

Good you mention

"In my personal opinion"

As that is where we can stop reading.

Science has been invented to deal with opinions.

every new born baby is an angel, mothers or fathers hormone will not affect him.

Also as you know there are some cases where the mother or father are alcoholic for example but the son no?

A father or mother are bad but the son or daughter are good.

And vice versa so this will eliminate the effect of hormones and chromosones right?

Khalid, the fly in your ointment, so to speak, is contained in your quote:

"Environmental and other external influences keep on modifying his blueprint."

Some scientists believe that these 'other external influences' include the child's genes, the mother's hormones, chromosones etc.

Many will argue that the child is gay long before being born.

If you want to engage in a reasoned, scientific debate about behavioural science, stop quoting *religious* websites and start quoting *scientific* ones.

Your arguments carry little weight when they come from such biased sources. Your arguments may be right, but most people won't bother reading them when, like me, they scroll to the end of your post, see that you've quoted (yet again) from an Islamic website, and then tune out.

It's like reading evidence from McDonald's the burgers are healthy. Possibly the evidence is right, but most people will dismiss it out of hand because they feel that the source is biased, so the evidence will be tainted.

here is some information on the human nature

Physical and biological nature of man is, although, not the main concern of the Holy Qur’an, it does provide significant insight about man and his nature. A brief description of Islamic thought on the subject is mentioned below:

Islam does not presuppose any inherent wickedness of human nature. Any negative representation of man’s basic nature as a source of evil and wickedness is clearly rejected. According to Islam, the human being is born in the state of fitrah, the original inherent nature of the human being. At birth, the baby is totally innocent and is not responsible for the sin of his parents or any of his ancestors. Environmental and other external influences keep on modifying his blueprint. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) said:

“Every child is created in the state of fitrah, it is the parents, culture, and society that make him a Christian, a Jew, or a fire-worshipper.”

Islam is the first religion to declare man as the most superior of the creatures and the masterpiece of the Creator. According to Islam, man is potentially capable of rising higher than the angels, that is why Allah has commanded angels to bow down before Adam. But, at the same time, he is equally capable of sinking lower than the animals. The Holy Qur’an says:

"We have indeed created man in the best shap, then We reduced him (to be) the lowest of the low, except those who believe and do righteous deeds: for they shall have a reward unfailing." (95:4­6)

These verses indicate that Allah has given man the purest and best nature while man’s duty is to preserve the pattern on which God has made him. However, when he neglects his duty and goes in the wrong way, he will be reduced to the lowest possible position.

The Holy Qur’an asserts that inclination and attraction towards faith and virtue and repulsion from disobedience and corruption exists in man’s nature.

“But God has endeared to you faith and has beautified it in your hearts and has made disbelief and lewdness and rebellion hateful to you.” (49:7)

To sum up the point, man comes into the world with a pure and wholesome nature. Whereas sin and corruption in human being are merely accidental and violation of his original nature. The role of prophets and the scriptures is just to help human nature to flow in its true channel and to guide human nature to its ultimate goal of eternal felicity. This Qur’anic theory of human nature also implies the fact that if man consciously decides to submit himself to the will of Allah, he experiences no conflict in his personality. (10:62) while, on the other hand, if he misuses his freedom of choice by denying God and not submitting to His will, would be in a state of inner conflict and his personality gets disintegrated.

for more information

http://science-islam.net/article.php3?id_article=458&lang=en

Gypsy,

Indeed, common acceptance will lead to simplified 'coming out of the closet' for a fast amount of 'hiders'.

Yes, there is a definite push towards acceptance of homosexuality and the a push towards ridding sterotypes. Which I support 100%.

But to imply that by showing homosexuality as normal more people will become gay is a fallacy. If it appears like there are more gay people it's only because they loose their fear of being open about it. You're either born gay or your not, baring traumatic life experience or a complete lack of the opposite sex, you're unlikely to become gay.

I beg to differ here:

Just look at the ever increasing percentage of homo characters in movies, mostly good, kind, cool and even tough!

Even most Oscar awards goes to films that focus on that subject

The media is guiding societies in that direction, by showing it as being "cool".

Remember how lots of kids started smoking because their favorite start did? same applies here.

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Khalid.

Wrong again.

Nobody becomes gay suddenly, it is sad how poorly you understand your own species.

What is more likely?

1) Somebody becomes gay because he has been suppressing these 'urges' out of shame and fear.

2) Somebody wakes up in the morning next to his Girlfriend/wife and thinks to himself:

" "Hmmmm... from today onwards I should start to stir the male poo poo hole".

Choose.

they should not spoil others, thats what we are against, also if a normal person suddenly started to become gay we should aware him in the correct way because there must be reasons for this change.

Prince,

Homosexual presence grows at a certain rate.

The more males the more homo's (females are less likely to become homosexual)

I don't think society is "moving towards" homosexuality. It's just accepting that it's there, that people are homosexual, and that they have a right to live their lives.

Also homosexuality in prisons is more about power & control than sex. It's a different dynamic, and you can't compare it to homosexuality in the "outside world"

IMHO, the more the society moves towards homosexuality, the more it moves towards becoming a jungle.

Take a look at the high percentage of homosexuality practice in prisons. A prison is closer to a jungle than the rest of society.

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Versim, examples of animal homosexual sex are in the articles I posted. It's not just joint childrearing, they also have sex. I could go into further detail about lesbian chimpanzee group masturbation, but this is a family site.

Also, a comment on your biodiversity:

1,250,000 animals, including:

1,190,200 invertebrates:

950,000 insects,

70,000 mollusks,

40,000 crustaceans,

130,200 others;

58,808 vertebrates:

29,300 fish,

5,743 amphibians,

8,240 reptiles,

10,234 birds, (9799 extant as of 2006)

5,416 mammals.

So almost 1.2 out of 1.25 are invertebrates (ie: jellyfish, amoebae, etc), which, if you know your biology reproduced almost souly asexually.

Not sure how you can have homosexual clams or oysters, since they don't move anyway... so that leaves out 70,000 mollusks. Crustaceans produce mostly asexually as well, so there go 40,000 crabs.

So that VAST majority of "animals" don't reproduce in a manner that would even exhibit heterosexuality, much less homosexuality.

Also it's not 400 speices that homosexuality has been observed in, it's 1500 spieces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

And by universal, it means across a spectrum. So insects have exhibited homosexuality, so have fish, birds and mammels. Basically I think when they say univesal they are referring to vertebrates.

Versim, examples of animal homosexual sex are in the articles I posted. It's not just joint childrearing, they also have sex. I could go into further detail about lesbian chimpanzee group masturbation, but this is a family site.

Also, a comment on your biodiversity:

1,250,000 animals, including:

1,190,200 invertebrates:

950,000 insects,

70,000 mollusks,

40,000 crustaceans,

130,200 others;

58,808 vertebrates:

29,300 fish,

5,743 amphibians,

8,240 reptiles,

10,234 birds, (9799 extant as of 2006)

5,416 mammals.

So almost 1.2 out of 1.25 are invertebrates (ie: jellyfish, amoebae, etc), which, if you know your biology reproduced almost souly asexually.

Not sure how you can have homosexual clams or oysters, since they don't move anyway... so that leaves out 70,000 mollusks. Crustaceans produce mostly asexually as well, so there go 40,000 crabs.

So that VAST majority of "animals" don't reproduce in a manner that would even exhibit heterosexuality, much less homosexuality.

Also it's not 400 speices that homosexuality has been observed in, it's 1500 spieces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

And by universal, it means across a spectrum. So insects have exhibited homosexuality, so have fish, birds and mammels. Basically I think when they say univesal they are referring to vertebrates.

"You can't judge the superiority based on a judgement of 1 circumstance, that's just being narrow minded."

Yes you are right. Actually I also am not talking about single circumstance. Nature of person can be judged only after having observed his/her long term attitudes.

haha khuram your logic is ridiculous.

"Just let him/her choose between a superior and an inferior thing. If he/she goes for inferior option ... then he/she is an inferior person"

People choose what they want, based on many reasons other then just for points towards superiority. You are ruling out all these other aspects we include when we make decisions, such as emotion, sentimentality, practicality, efficiency etc.

By your logic, if there were 2 chops of meat in front of a human and an animal, and the animal picked the better quality meat based on it's own senses, and the human picked the other, then that animal is superior to the human? No it's not, it merely has a better sense of smell. You can't judge the superiority based on a judgement of 1 circumstance, that's just being narrow minded.

that animals other than humans does not meet that of human beings... would you like to contradict that?

Gypsy --

"So you're saying some who can only afford jeans and a t-shirt is inferior to someone who can buy designer brand suits?

Wow, win a lot of friends with that attitude?"

Offcourse I am not saying this. One is inferior only if he/she doesn't want to be well dressed. Or doesn't want to adopt good manners. Or doesn't have proper sense of dressing. Or who wants to remain ignorant. Who likes inferior things and prefers inferior choices to superior choices. Who wants to remain nude in public when he could afford good dressing.

Someone can be justified in jeans if he/she has to adopt to surrounding environment for some good cause.

How to recognize an inferior person...???

Just let him/her choose between a superior and an inferior thing. If he/she goes for inferior option ... then he/she is an inferior person.

Many animals possess the ability to communicate through verbal and non-verbal media. Whales, dogs, birds, the list is nearly endless. Rudimentary communication, but communication nonetheless.

Animals in a laboratory setting have demonstrated levels of reasoning when solving problems. How to tell if they are responding to stimuli or engaging in complex reasoning is difficult to tell, but it's reasoning all the same.

Most domestic pets long for their owners all day long, howling, pawing on the door etc. It's an everyday occurence.

Inquiry - the saying 'curiosity killed the cat' didn't spring forth because cats don't possess curiousity, did it?

I could go on, but I'll miss my movie, and I'm sure you don't care.

Listen Dude... I seriously don't know what your problem is...

But if you think that I have to prove scientifically that of 1.25 million species, none possess Reason, language, inquiry, longing, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration, humour etc... then all I can say is that you don't have common sense

you are just looking to pick up an argument... that is common sense...

We don't have any primates logging in to QL... I haven't seen any primates in the coffee shops sitting around sipping tea and reading the morning paper...

Animals do have 'some' intelligence... but it is not comparable to that of human beings...

Well Veris,

Unlike some I do not wish to display disputable 'facts', only if certain I will present a fact.

You talk about misleading, I see it as mentioning a statistic as a 'hypothetical', hoping somebody will confirm or come with more accurate data.

And if you feel a discussion is a waste of time, be the wiser... refrain from participating.

I said animals do not have 'HIGHER' intellect... by that I am referring to human-like intellect and faculties... Reason, language, inquiry, longing, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration, humour etc.

And quiet frankly, that's just common sense... I don't need to prove it scientifically...

it is for you to prove scientifically that animals possess these qualities...

Pls don't argue for the sake of arguing... we all have better things to do

The existence of God was a way of explaining the universe to people who didn't have telescopes or microscpes. It could still be the right explanation, no-one can be sure either way, because as much as science answers questions, it creates even more questions. Quantum mechanics...Higgs-Boson, etc?

But this idea was then developed into organised religion - a nice way to organise control people in the newly "civilised" world following the emergence of agriculture. Is it any coincidence that the roots of the Abrahamic religions emerged around 6 to 8 thousand years ago, just after agriculture emerged in the Fertile Crescent?

Further, interesting, essential reading: Straw Dogs by John Gray and Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

Getting back to those who believe in Creationism. surely , we are entitled to our beliefs ?

I don't want to comment on what % constitutes 'universal' but I do know 0.1% is NOT universal

Thinking that you read somewhere that 3 out of 10 humans is 'supposedly' gay does not make the cut... accurate facts and reliable sources pls...

Don't mislead people and waste other people's time by speculating

I think I've been consistent regarding the topic of higher intellect in animals.

I was responding to whoever wrote that animals universally do no possess higher intellect.

You can't make such a claim without some backing for your reasoning. Saying it doesn't make it true.

Without scientific certainty, such a claim is hogwash, so stick to other lines of reasoning.

running out of popcorn :(

Veris...

A National Geographic film stated that there are 400 species known that engage in homosexual behaviorism, so 400 species times the number of the amount of animals available within these groups= XXXXXXXXXX.

The interpretation of the word 'universal' may also play a part. I thought I read somewhere that 3 out of 10 humans is supposedly 'gay'. hence, 30% of the world population. Is that universal? Or does universal mean "across the board', 'in all cultures'?

"The biodiversity of planet Earth is the total variability of life forms forms. Currently about 1.6 million species are known, but this is thought to be a serious underestimate of the total number of species.

(Number of animals is 1.25 million)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_biodiversity

The article mentions... "The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species including penguins, dolphins and primates."

1000 out of 1.25million... that's less than 0.1%... that is hardly universal

Also, this article does not refer to homosexuality in the conventional sense, it refers to same sex couples... doesn't imply that they have any sexual interaction...

Homosexuality... definition

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Same sex penguins hatching an egg hardly involves tendency to direct sexual desire or sexual intercourse...

In my opinion, the homosexuality aspect was an extra dash of spice by some lobby to push their agenda down people's throats...

Gypsy pushes it even further by categorizing a behaviour observed in

There's a difference.

While animals ( including humans ) will indulge in same-sex, sex, they will also procreate with the opposite sex producing young & continuing their species..

Homosexuals & lesbians, tend not to. They do however adopt & raise unwanted children.

Why do some animals ( & some people ) get involved in same sex sex?

I'm told they ejoy it.

And they should be perfectly free to do so, in my humble opinion.

The higher intellect Fubar refers to, i guess, can be explained as 'evolution'. Animal adapt to their environment, so do humans. Hence, a parallel.

Animals feel pain, so do humans.

Animal seem to have emotions of some sort, for instance when an ape mourns the death of its young one, so do humans.

Animals have particular instincts, and seem to be able to communicate. Just like humans, but the levels are different.

To say that animals wear clothing is ridiculous of course, and this is where we get confused. Do animals have a "conscious" (or are they?)or do animal simply live in a alternate 'state of consciousness'....

Have fun reading this source:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/

When it comes to Aliens or extraterrestrial life, always an interesting topic.... let me open a topic, see if QL'ers have something to say about it.

what is it that you are saying?

First you say... "I'm not saying animals definetly DO have higher intellect"

Then you are saying... "I'm just not sure how you would prove that higher primates, for instance, don't possess such intellectual faculties."

First make up your mind...

No, I never studied biology, clearly.

So if not clothing, then what would you call it?

I'm not saying animals definetly DO have higher intellect, I'm just not sure how you would prove that higher primates, for instance, don't possess such intellectual faculties.

I'm undecided on aliens, given the scarcity of scientific evidence. Probability alone would suggest that they do exist, but how could you ever prove or disprove their existence?

the hermit crab uses shells...

you call shell clothing?

more like a trailer home...

And caddis fly.... wearing garment made of silk? :-/

Are you referring to the case of the larvae?

Biology was not your favorite subject

and I've also noted you are not a fan of quoting accurate sources...

As for animals with higher intellect...

Are you suggesting that animal's play stupid to fool us?

I guess you watched Babe too often

Do you also believe in aliens?

Hermit crabs wear 'clothing'.

So too does the caddis fly - it wears a garment made of silk and decorated with twigs, pebbles etc.

Not really sure how you can say with utmost certainty that there are no animals that possess higher intellect. How would you prove such a claim?

But we did have fur. Now we don't. We've evolved.

Khalid,

Thank you but no thanks.

I am hailing from a heavily religious background and have disconnected myself from any form of religion as I have seen very little good come out of it.

I do however respect most religions and the essence of what 'holy books' demand, in essence when reading the Bible, Quran or similar books you will find the same message which in short is preached in the 10 commandments.

Thus, to me, there is no one true religion/faith.

why is it that we don't have fur?

And need additional clothing to protect ourselves?

Because... we are different..

i know you've got the point...

Dolphins are highly intelligent, as are many forms of primates.

Maybe it could also be that we don't have fur?

Lack of higher intellect among animals is also ABSOLUTELY universal

Yet men wear clothes...

and most people are intelligent

Hmmm...

Maybe we ARE different

people agree and dis agree with each other

Hey the Dude I invite you to read the Holy Quran meanings

here

www.islamhouse.com

Not sure what I'm not supporting? Some of the questions you asked aren't answered in the article (as it's an article and not a doctoral thesis) if you want to learn more, google it, here are some results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior (I'll have to edit my post Dingo's aren't mentioned, although Dogs & Foxes are).

And since I know Wiki is not exactly always factual, here's more:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Quote: When you see a colony of black-headed gulls, you can be sure that almost every tenth pair is lesbian. The females have no problems with being impregnated, although, according to Petter Boeckman they cannot be defined as bisexual.

"If a female has sex with a male one time, but thousands of times with another female, is she bisexual or homosexual? This is the same way to have children is not unknown among homosexual people."

Indeed, there is a number of animals in which homosexual behaviour has never been observed, such as many insects, passerine birds and small mammals.

"To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."

Oepssssss... double.

Khalid,

Thus you think of what is inside the Quran, and what is outside is completely irrelevant?

If the Quran tells you to jump of the roof, you'd do it?

You say you want to look through a big hole, while you contradict this statement with solely talking about the Quran, this my friend is your peephole.

Einstein, Keppler, Freud, Iben Batutta, Darwin, Nietsche and all great minds known have all made mistakes and misinterpretations, HOWEVER... were it not for these great minds nobody would ever proof them wrong.

So I strongly suggest you start to look at things from different perspectives and have the balls to disconnect yourself from your little safety-net. It is difficult to do so, first you would need to understand the reasoning behind the way you think "indoctrination from birth", who has taught you? Who has educated you? What do these people have in common, and why do all these people agree with each other? How has this affected you?

Don't be a sheep, be a leader.

I am not saying to ditch your religion/faith.

Apply "ambivalence".

Last time I checked the Telegraph was printed on broadsheet not tabloid paper.

But it's been a while.

But the Holy Quran is my reference

Not an interest of mine.

I'm just discussing the article and the issues it raised. If you can't support it, it's alright with me. It is still a tabloid.

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

What's the point of looking through a big window instead of a small hole, when all you are willing to look at is the Quran?

There are other books out there. You don't have to agree with them, but it will provide you with background knowledge to make informed conclusions.

I can't think of the right explanation....just simply look at my picture....when the penguin disagrees (to get along with him - bacuase of the "so-called" group bonding) he will found himself in trouble...i think from that reasons homosexuality began....lol.....

How can you understand what's inside it if you don't read anything else but it.

The holy Quran ask us to think about the Holy Quran and understand what is inside it.

By the way you have to know that we should not look through a small hole but we should look through a bigger window.

Reading is onething and understanding is another thing.

What's that got to do with homosexual animals?

Cosmic background radiation doesn't seem altogether relevant to me.

I'm intrigued by your question:

"If your belief is true, then how come humans didn't develop into something more intelligent and physically different than us today?"

Do you actually understand the notion of evolution?

What you are asking is 'why are modern humans not more modern?' - modern humans are the current END-POINT of our evolutionary journey.

Before asking that question it would help if you familiarized yourself with the fossil record:

Homo habilis

Homo rudolfensis

Homo ergaster

Homo georgicus

Homo erectus

Homo cepranensis

Homo antecessor

Homo heidelbergensis

Homo rhodesiensis

Homo neanderthalensis

Homo sapiens

Oreopithecus

Paranthropus

Australopithecus

Orrorin

Kenyanthropus

You'll find a neat little wikipedia page for each of our ancestors.

After reading that you will then see that humans HAVE evolved into more modern animals than their ancestors.

Khalid...

Your post starts with "It is described in the Holy Quran"

And that is where I stop reading as you clearly refuse to 'think out of the box' and stick to what your parents, your teachers and religious leaders have stamped into your brain.

Discussion impossible.

What are you afraid of? Developing a different opinion than what you THINK you know?

It is described in the holy Quran and today they are making researches on it

and here is some information

from www.55a.net

With this scientific review of the theories and models of the universe's origin, and evolution, let us take a look at one of the ayat (verses) of the Glorious Qur'an (as meaningfully translated):

" Do not the disbelievers see that the heaven and the earth were joined together , before We clove them asunder? (30)" {Surah Al-Anbiya (The Prophets) XXI}.

The ayah (verse) refutes the arguments of the disbelievers who search for theories and creeds to replace the notion of believing in one Omnipotent God (Allah) Who created everything and the universe itself.

On the other hand, the Qur'anic ayah states that the heavens and earth were joined together (the Qur'anic term is "Ratq", in the sense of union). Taking into account the evolution of the universe since its birth, we will find the first event was the separation of matter and radiation when the universe was about 100 thousand years old. At that time, matter was formed of nuclei of hydrogen, helium, and some other elements as well as cluster floating in the 'radiation soup'. In this form of matter during the universe's infancy was the origin of all kinds of materials that exist now in the universe whether on earth, or overhead in the sky.

Radiation, or photons, began to lose temperature gradually as the universe continues to expand. The decline of the temperature reached a point when radiation filled all the universe. Thus the implication of heavens and earth being in union is that matter and radiation were merged together ("Ratq" in Arabic), as the origin of everything in heavens and earth. The "Fatq" (as mentioned in the Arabic text of the Qur'an) cleavage, it is their separation which came later, matter becoming the earth, the planets, the stars, the galaxies and other astronomical material, and radiation becoming the regions of the sky and the horizon of the whole universe, just as modern science informs us.

I think this was one of several articles dealing on the same topic that I took, and if you google homosexuality in animals you'll find lots more information. Have at it.

where does it say that in the article?

IMHO, it's a typical tabloid, a big title with and irrelevant or a not-that-big content.

what do you think?

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Maybe easier is the question

Why are Europeans white and Africans Black....?

Answer: Evolution.

We have adapted to our surroundings.

The_prince I didn't look into the detail of the Laysan albatrosses sexual habits, but I'm sure it's more then just two females rearing children together that makes them lesbian.

Khalid,

here we go:

________________________________________________________

"One comment I have to Darwin's Scientific Theories and Facts, and that is: Allah Almighty created humans and animals from Earth's dust"

Present the physical evidence of the existence of GOD. Religion/Believe has never been proven, nor can it be. Faith is a psychological tool that keeps society/humanity in line and it used as a scepter of fear in order to regulate.

________________________________________________________

"My question to all of the Darwinists out there is: If your belief is true, then how come humans didn't develop into something more intelligent and physically different than us today"

Maybe, Khalid, we are still developing? Maybe evolution is an ongoing process.

Evolution in technology is visible, evolution in humans less. We are becoming taller, fatter... other than that, the camera obscura was only invented a short while ago so do not be fooled by images that Homo Sapiens have created.

________________________________________________________

"This still doesn't prove that humans came from animals or vise versa"

Mirror.

________________________________________________________

We are far more intelligent than animals. We co-existed with animals for thousands of years, and they have not changed a bit.

Oh no? WRONG. In biblical times people were getting much older (so they claim). We have become taller and fatter. You can not base your opinions on drawings you have seen in a religious book for children.

_________________________________________________________

"Also spiritually, only humans on earth have Allah Almighty's Spirit in them. No where in the Noble Quran do we see Allah Almighty giving spirits to Animals"

God gave 'free will' to humans, therein lies our power to distinguish between good and evil, therein lies our consciousness.

_________________________________________________________

"God/Allah...etc etc"

Quoting a religious book left right and center is nice, but slows the progress of the discussion as there is NO SCIENTIFIC proof for any religious statements with regards to creation or a creator, whereas science and evolution comes a long long way but also gets stuck at a certain point.

Well if they're only labels, what's the point in debating it?

It's like trying to debate the difference between 'pornography' and 'art', or 'music' and 'noise' for instance.

Indeed taxonomists themselves are constantly arguing about how best to classify organisms, as many things don't fit comfortably in either the 'plant' or 'animal' box.

If you object to being classified as a primate on religious grounds, then there is nothing more to be said.

It's like certain religious people saying that women are intellectually inferior than men - there is nothing that can be said to change their opinion either.

They've changed in technology and knowledge as well, there are birds in the Galapagos and apes that have learned to use tools. Some Gorillas have been taught to speak using sign language.

there is always a thin line between a friendship and a sex/intimate relationship.

What's wrong with normal friendship or family bonds? A normal woman might help her friend in raising her kids, that what family and neighbours used to do in the old days,

now would that be called incest or homosexual behaviour?

I'm really trying to understand what you're saying

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

In different way, their shapes have been changed, the writer means in term of technology and knowledge Gypsy.

Do not be upset.

Are you seriously nitpicking the witty introduction to my post the_prince?

As for the Laysan albatross, that goes with my thinking that bisexuality is more common then black and white homosexual/heterosexuality. I personally think it's just cultural mores that keep most of us from experimenting more openly with our sexuality.

"almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males"

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

God you really don't know anything about anything do you Khalid???? Seriously get your nose out of the Quran and start taking classes or reading books on Biology, Physics, History, etc.

"My question to all of the Darwinists out there is: If your belief is true, then how come humans didn't develop into something more intelligent and physically different than us today? "

Ummm, well Golly Gee Gosh I don't know...Evolution???? Why didn't we evolve into 3 headed goats??? Cuase he didn't, we evolved into what we are, and in another million years we'll have evolved into something different.

"We co-existed with animals for thousands of years, and they have not changed a bit."

They have. Please, just read a biology book. Look up sloths, or deer, or apes, or amoebae.

in EVERY animal species that doesn't reproduce asexually?

the word "every" is nowhere in the link, "widespread" is

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Ok. Ok.. Perhaps I've been labeled "An Animal" by some people around the Ramada, but these are categorizations given by scientists.

As one who believes in creationism, I can't go by these labels..

One comment I have to Darwin's Scientific Theories and Facts, and that is: Allah Almighty created humans and animals from Earth's dust: "From the (earth) did We Create you, and into it Shall We return you, And from it shall We Bring you out once again. (The Noble Quran, 20:55)" It is normal to find similarities in our Physiological Systems.

My question to all of the Darwinists out there is: If your belief is true, then how come humans didn't develop into something more intelligent and physically different than us today?

I know that we are much more technologically advanced and more knowledgeable than the humans that existed 3,000 years ago for instance. But if we originated from Apes and Monkeys, then what will be the advanced stage for us? Perhaps being born without fathers as it is done in cloning?

This still doesn't prove that humans came from animals or vise versa. We are far more intelligent than animals. We co-existed with animals for thousands of years, and they have not changed a bit. In fact, many of them have already been extinct.

Also spiritually, only humans on earth have Allah Almighty's Spirit in them. No where in the Noble Quran do we see Allah Almighty giving spirits to Animals:

"Behold! thy Lord said To the angels: 'I am about To create man, from sounding clay From mud moulded into shape; 'When I have fashioned him (In due proportion) and breathed Into him of My spirit, Fall ye down in obeisance Unto him.' (The Noble Quran, 15:28-29)"

"Among other passages where the creation of Adam is referred to cf. the following: 2:30-39; 7:11-25. Note that here the emphasis is on three points: (1) the breathing of Allah's Spirit into man, i.e., the faculty of God-like knowledge and will, which, if rightly used, would give man superiority over other creatures; (2) the origin of evil in arrogance and jealousy on the part of Satan, who saw only the lower side of man (his clay) and failed to see the higher side, the faculty brought in by the Spirit of Allah; (3) that this evil only touches those who yield to it, and has no power over Allah's sincere servants, purified by His grace (15:40, 42). Adam is not here mentioned by name, but only Man, whose symbol is Adam (see also 87:1-6)" [2]

"God gives man the faculty of consciousness. Scientists still do not understand how consciousness comes about in human beings. For example, humans are conscious of their mental processes. Humans know that they exist, they have a 'spirit' " [A quote brother Frank once sent to me; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him]

source:

http://answering-christianity.com/evolution.htm

Party?

What happened to the mafia???

Of course humans are animals.

If not animals, then what?

Trees??

Slime mould????

Geological formations?????

Yup, I and my fellow Canadians are Mammels (to my knowledge, we may have a few Extraterristrials and Reptiles). Homo Sapiens to be exact, and evolutionary group related to primates.

the_prince, yes those two things are found in some speicies, but not others. However Homosexuality has been found in every animals species that doesn't reproduce asexually.

pls be more accurate while quoting:

"From the Birds & the Bees to the Dingos and the Dolphins"

Bees and Dingos were not mentioned in the link provided

not expected from you

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Khalid,

Judging your pathetic and narrow-minded statement, you are the one that needs some 'growing up'.

Monkeys, have a look in the mirror, look an awful lot like humans? Therefore are, may be, related to us? Even in case of a 'creator', we are still animals - living creatures. Luckily for us, on top of the food-chain.

I guess you belong to 'the party' that deems homosexuals 'animals'.

But, dear Khalid, I understand where you get these ideas from and therefore should have sympathy, instead of arguing with you.

I assume you also represent Canada

Not Me !

We are animals Brit.

IMHO

Same argument of "accepted because natural", can be applied to:

1- polygamy

2- Man domination/female subordination

They are very common in animals also you know.

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Going back to the topic at hand..

The article talks specifically about the Animal kingdom. Can we then relate it to Humans ??

Where's this party and how can I join?

This helps the party which wants to say that humans are very advanced animals.

This helps the party which wants to spread chaos and say that homsexuality is normal.

Grow up guys.

To be honest,

I understand fuck-all from what Khuram tried to say.

So the only addition I can give in what I assume is the context:

"Clothing do not make the man"

By extension, people in bars who wear designer clothes are 'superior'?

I have some sympathy for such a simplistic notion, but you need to take a look at the economic theory of 'signalling'.

For instance, Steve Jobs, a very rich and powerful man, will always be seen in public wearing jeans and a t-shirt, as a way of signalling to others that he is 'superior' to people wearing Armani suits.

So you're saying some who can only afford jeans and a t-shirt is inferior to someone who can buy designer brand suits?

Wow, win a lot of friends with that attitude?

but ... if paints are useful antisects also ... then logically they are MULTIPURPOSE things...!

You cannot conclude they are only for killing insects. Because here they are meeting two ends.

And you didn't reply to the point of decorated/undecorated body. I hope you might have understood that undecorated (nude) body is inferior to decorated (dressed) body.

You are so beautiful girl. Your just dressed up state will still be inferior to the state of being well dressesd up with suitable ornaments/jewellary.

A well mannered person is superior to Hippy like person. And a well mannered person (lets say Prince Charles) cannot be expected to live nude in public!

Inferior brand people can be expected to publically live nude.

So you can well preach your ideas before inferior brand people. They will become happy because you give them "theoretical" support for their inferior brand doings...!

I have NOT called it "wrong doing". I have called it "inferior brand doing". Inferior brand people do "right" when they publically show that they are inferiors ... like other animals...!!!

No visible patterns of paint do have to do with getting rid of insects. Look up the Beothuks, and some South American tribes. They decorated their bodies with "paint" that was actually an excellent mosquito repellent. And as I was trying to point out about the camera, those are modern day aboriginals, and they are covering themselves because of modern day issues with nudity, not because in the past they had issues with it.

Qatari Princess..

For some reason you can not see it.

I will explain.

For some reason = your upbringing. It is very likely that at home, on the street, in school or even by friends you have been told 'Ghawwels' are 'Haram" and they are sick people.

Well, if you are in a group and everybody is looking at a green piece of paper but they tell you it is blue... eventually you will start believing it is blue. They also call this 'indoctrination'

guyz...

animals..

science is science sure! but this?

aua! nope!

i did see the link but 4 some reason I just cannot believe it!

Gypsy ---- "Wow I didn't know the aboriginals has cameras before white men came and made them wear clothes. :P"

Well ... "White men" always try to see nature in natural black and white. If they see nature in nude ... they will capture it nude using their camera. They will not first give them underwears! And early men always used some sort of underwears even before the advant of any clothes!

And "visible" patterns of paints have nothing to do with insects. And so what if they are for decoration...??? It means that need to decorate body is an advancement only in humans. Animals are not so advanced ... it means!

It also mean that undacorated (nude) body is inferior to

decorated (dressed) body ...!!!

ha ha ha

be humble

Majnoon...

So you would stir the poo poo-exit as purely a sexual act, and thereafter claim you are straight?

IMHO sexual acts between homosapiens always include feelings of some sort. Whether it is physical attraction, intellectual attraction or whatever the reason is... it can (almost) never just be an act. That looks like prostitution or rape to me.

I agree that same gender sexual intercourse is exactly that.. a sexual act and should not be confused with same gender love which is not normal IMO. If I read the original post correctly it appears that if something is a natural instinct then it is acceptable, so if we start acting like animals and disregard social rules we can copulate anywhere anytime if we get the natural urge. Hang on to your panties ladies, and guys if you hear "Dueling Banjos" start running.

Princess

science is science, and if they state that over 400 species shown signs of homosexual behavior, there is very little to deny I would think. Have you seen the link?

So, indeed. Get real.

Thanx Dude:

But i am not buyi it...

I just cannot, i mean animals!

come on!

get real...

yuck!

Princess,

ENJOY!!!!

r u sure?!!

This is impossible...!!

animals ...!!!

I cannot belive it nor ever will!

animals have got infected from HUMANS!

God will this ever end?

disgusting is what this homosexual is!!

Abdullah...

Your absolutely right, God created Adam and Eve... however God gave 'FREE WILL' to humans...... the possibility to choose between good and evil. Now, it is depending on your convictions whether you CHOOSE to see good or evil in certain issues. And yes, maybe the gay gene/desire is the work 'Sheitan', after all he corrupted Gods creation. So the question becomes: 'can you blame someone for being born gay?"

Where you are 101% wrong is the religion part. Religion is the main cause of intolerance, spiritual leaders of many religions have demonized gays for decades and decades. Meaning that also Muslims, just like protestants and catholics, are indoctrinated by spiritual leaders/the church about what their opinion of 'gays' should be. As we are living under Sharia it is fairly ignorant to state that religion has nothing to do with anything, it is a present element in many lives that forms and shapes the hearts and minds of the peoples.

Living in a multi-cultural society, you will face many different views on this subject.

Peace be upon you brother!!

pls guys, if u wanna be a pervert then be one, but for God sake don't blame the Almighty for this!!

remember God created Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve & also not Madam & Eve!!!

however, as i've also mentioned before its just my opinion and i have the full right to have one... n just making a point, i don't mean to be offensive to anyone..

The Dude - i've no friggin idea wat exaggerated crap have u added in ur post.. but specifically talking about the issue wer u said tht being a Muslim i've to respect my neighbour, i wud like to ask doesn't all religion say the same thing!!! the topic here is not referring to any religion its general so pls stop draggin the religion issue here!

Peace be upon you.

Supreme leader of Iran. . .

Check out this post

http://www.qatarliving.com/node/560907

When I am abroad, I always make it a rule never to criticize or attack the government of my own country. I make up for lost time when I come home.

-Winston Churhill

Yes I had heard that red cotton products were common amongst the Austrailain aborginals. Just like being feathered caps made in China were common among the North American ones. :P

Gypsy, didn't you know that there was a cotton industry in Australia prior to the arrival of white settlers in the 18th century :p

That photo looks like the sort of 'traditional' aboriginal that gets trotted out in Sydney Harbor for unsuspecting and ignorant tourists.

Try visiting the north of the country and you'll find actual aboriginals dressed more traditionally:

(clip contains nudity)

to see lesbians playing each other.....

;-)

do you believe in peace?

Painting bodies is not, as some people put it "an attempt to distract from their nudity". It is, just as clothes are for us today, a symbolic representation of themselves, or the acts they are performing. I'm sure if you do some simple research you will find the spiritual significance that body painting has for them.

And yes people did walk around nude and have public nude bathing and naked sporting events etc for a long long time before the introduction of christianity wiped out all traces, and the idea of 'sin' took root in the 4th century.

Wow I didn't know the aboriginals has cameras before white men came and made them wear clothes. :P

The paint is for insect repellent and decoration. Another reason for clothes is people have always been attracted to brightly coloured and sparkly objects.

Don't forget covering your groin area is good for more then just modesty. Most men wouldn't want to get their jingly bits caught on a cactus, or bit by a snake.

great !

Gypsy

See following pic of Aboriginals

They got cloths enough for underwears. But they paint also their rest of body to somehow reduce impact of nudity in them.

They are not in cold atmosphere. They don't need fur or animal skin.

Only try to understand that ... we are humans ... NOT animals...!!!

your logics are self-contradictory...

read your posts again !

Khuram, the "paint" as you call it is not to lessen the impact of nudity, as they can use animal skins for that. Normally these paints have a noxious quality that fends of mosquitos and other insects.

"Well ... if you are really epmiricist,,, you can find many things in my article that you would like to verify through empirical tests."

I can find many things I would like to see verified empircally, notably your hypothesis.

Summerwine....

Yes ... it is summerwine:)

Fubar ... "The notion of animal cognition is a behavioral science, so it can only be studied and commented upon with reference to empircal results."

Well ... if you are really epmiricist,,, you can find many things in my article that you would like to verify through empirical tests.

Yes I do still recocnize the validity of style of Hume, Lock reasoning etc.

For me,,, science is not independent of Rationality. Science is not only "Empirical". My following article explains it:

Nature of Science --- Rational or Empirical...???

Rational arguments can lead to truth...!!!

khuram...

do you know anything better than wine?

And my final reply was follwing:

If you are so passionate advocate of nudists then you can tell me those "conclusive" evidences in their support which I have not been told so far.

There is one way to know what early humans actually did. It is to see today's or about a century back's aboriginals. What they did? Did they or do they not use at least some form of dressing? You can see ancient tribes of Australia, Africa and Latin America for PROOF. All of them live in warm environment but still use some or the other form of dressing. If they get inadequate dressing then they do paint their bodies so as to reduce the impact of nudity in them...!

And I don't follow Whatever I am told!

And ... Shame is not any repressive feeling. To be "shameless" is NOT to be "confident". To be "shameless" means to be SHAMELESS...! Honestly however, shameless doesn't mean to be like animals as animals are not so advanced to have such advanced feeling like shame. To be shameless is a form of evil however. Because shameless people intentionally try to copy what inferior animals do!

Then Willy replied following:

khuram... some pretty interesting facts you presented there...

"... In fact their own "nudity" was an important factor behind their consciousness development..."

"... cold environment was not the only factor behind original need of being dressed up..."

"... People who lived in warm places also kept themselves dressed up somehow. At least they used underwears..."

"Nature of human body's nudity was a major reason behind human consciousness development."

i have never seen any conclusive evidence that early man wore anything except in the cold. what facts do you have to substantiate any of these claims?

"Those who don't wear clothes (Unless they are so poor to afford any dresses) are Not advanced. Their stage of advancement is like those of other animals."

this is just insulting. i can see that you are merely repeating what you have been taught and have done no research of this on your own. have you ever actually met a nudist?

"... Those who advocate Nudism are idiots because their reasons are faulty and insufficient. Their reasons are that since natural state of other animals is nude, so humans also should remain nude."

again, someone told you this and you blindly believe it. at least have the sense to research what you believe before you say it in a public forum. do a goggle search on nudists and read what they actually think instead of what you've been told they think. granted, this is one of the reasons many give but it's far from the only reason.

"This sense of nudity also developed sense of "shame" in humans ..."

this is so true.

"which is also an advanced form of feeling."

not in my thinking it isn't. repressive feelings are negative. how that is "advanced" is not among my definition of the word.

Gypsy

Below I am just copying my debate with another person named "Willy" ... on about same issue:

Willy

... so is it stupid to run around naked when it is 100 degrees? some might think that it's stupid to have anything on in that kind of heat. using clothing for protection is smart but i think most people use cloths because society frowns on nudity. most of those nudists you call stupid, are actually very intelligent people who have simply thrown of the burden of clothes placed on them by society. i dare say, when the temperatures get cold, they put on warm clothing just like you do. [oh... and i am not a nudist ]

Khuram:

And ... as per your own reasoning ... it should be stupid to run around when temperature is less than 100 degress.

Anyways ... the question is why humans felt the need of dressing up in first place? Humans took this step in their early stages of consciousness development. In fact their own "nudity" was an important factor behind their consciousness development. The element of "nudity" in human body is far more than that of other animals. It is right that people who lived in cold places might have started wearing up animal skins. But only cold environment was not the only factor behind original need of being dressed up. People who lived in warm places also kept themselves dressed up somehow. At least they used underwears and in addition, they did "paint" their body so as to somehow reduce the element of nakedness in them.

Nature of human body's nudity was a major reason behind human consciousness development. It was the nature of their own so strange (or even strong) type of nudity that at first made humans conscious of their own body and eventually to their self!

This sense of nudity also developed sense of "shame" in humans ... which is also an advanced form of feeling.

To wear clothes is an ADVANCEMENT in humans. Humans are UNIQUE because they wear clothes. Those who don't wear clothes (Unless they are so poor to afford any dresses) are Not advanced. Their stage of advancement is like those of other animals.

Those who advocate Nudism are idiots because their reasons are faulty and insufficient. Their reasons are that since natural state of other animals is nude, so humans also should remain nude.

And I do accept that those who have aesthetic body buildups, they do want to show their body. This is not nudism. I am not against it. Even in these cases ... I must say more advanced people only show their good looking bodies after reducing the element of nudity in them. For example many WWE wrestlers do show their good looking bodies ...

but they also usually employ certain body paints and designs ... which are not only good looking but also somehow reduce the element of nudity in them! And I am not against it.

Wise people always felt the need of reducing element of nudity in them in public!

Stupids and idiots publically show their nudity!

I read your other post, which thankfully had some reasoning in it, unlike the earlier one.

I'm the first to concede that humans operate on a higher intellectual level than the animal world, mostly as a result of our possession of complex and abstract linguistic skills.

However you seem to just start the argument by saying:

"As it can be safely assumed that animals make no theoretical constructions."

Rather than simply assuming, is there no empirical evidence you can draw on?

A simple observation that springs to mind is the use of tools by animals. Birds and primates use tools to achieve tasks, and probably so do other animals.

A tool is used to achieve a manual task. By definition then, the tool is an extension of the animal's body. So the use of a tool immediately shows that the animal is aware of its body. So when a primate sees a nut that needs cracking, it is mentally constructing in it's mind a picture of what is inside the nut. It is also aware that its own body is incapable of cracking the nut. So the animals surveys its surroundings to locate a tool to achieve the task. In doing so it is viewing each prospective tool and thinking about whether or not the tool will be suitable. A fistful of mud won't be suitable, and nor will a soft limb of a tree. Some rocks are too big, others are too small. By choosing the right sized rock, the primate is demonstrating the ability to think theoretically about the rock's potential to crack open the nut to release the kernel inside. That seems like theoretical awareness to me.

My comments on your thinking though are:

Why define knowledge with such strict criteria?

Why argue almost entirely rhetorically? It's more the style of the thinking of Hume, Aquinas, or Locke. The notion of animal cognition is a behavioral science, so it can only be studied and commented upon with reference to empircal results.

at home, when weather is controlled, and place is secured, you keep yourself full nude, right?

please invite us dinner...

lol

do you know anything better than wine?

Why not? The only reason we don't remain nude is because we don't have fur to keep us warm and protect us from the elements.

Fubar wrote:

What a daft statement:

"And if only humans possess knowledge and animals possess no knowledge at all, then surely there must be a fundamental difference between human and animal mind, which is responsible for the fact that only humans possess knowledge whereas other animals do not."

How is it that you know that NO animals possess knowledge?

Words fail me... How can humans know what animals think, know or feel?

What did this guy do, ask his cat whether she was aware of her surroundings, and when the cat didn't say 'yes I am aware' he just assumed the animal doesn't possess the knowledge??

And does this mean that humans with severe developmental impairment, and do not possess "knowledge" (according to the definition above) should be called "animals"?

Should Shafallah be renamed an "The Shafallah Center for Animals with Special Needs"????

Well ...

It was out of my article. You rightfully realized that it was "daft" statement. Actually these statements needed more elaboration which I have provided in another of my article:

Human Knowledge and it's Expression:,

Gypsy ... without any scientific research you can find that animals live nude. Now you cannot conclude that it is natural for humans to also always remain nude...!!!

Regards!

I think MissX has given an excellent conclusion.

who like wine....

lol

do you know anything better than wine?

You're right on one level when you say:

"Need, sorroundings, society, culture, religion all play a part in driving this."

But the things above drive *behavior* and *actions*. They don't drive the actual *desire*.

If homosexuality was a product of the above - need, surroundings etc, then homosexual children would all have homosexual siblings, as they have grown up in the same family in the same surrounds.

Your argument doesn't really hold water when you consider that homosexual children are usually just one sibling amongst heterosexual brothers and sisters.

Which is what I mean by sexuality being more fluid. It's the same as a gay man supressing his natural inclinations and marrying a woman and having a family with her. A straight man sleeping with another man or a gay man sleeping with a woman doesn't make them any less straight or gay. And I would argue that neither would be able to keep up the lifestyle for long periods of time, especially if the alternatives were available.

Take the example of Labourers in the Middle East..

They are away from loved ones and they have to suppress their sexual needs.. Many , however turn to homosexuality to fulfil these needs, but revert to their former selves when back home...

Not really Brit. Because regardless of the environment or culture these needs & desires still exist. The only thing dependent on culture is how open you are about expressing your needs and desires.

I was trying to make the same point.. Need, sorroundings, society, culture, religion all play a part in driving this..

For all those who say God made men and women to have sex with each other, I say, God made homosexuals too, so why make them if he didn't intend them to act on it?

For whatever reason, be it evolutionary or a gene mutation, or whatever, homosexuality has always been around and always will be.

Brit, I think the issue is that sexuality is a lot more fluid then just gay and straight, especially for women. I could get into the HUGE spectrum of human sexuality and even animal sexuality, but people on this site seem to be having issues with just the black and white aspects, so I don't think we need to get into the red's and grey's.

You missed my post about the gay pride parade in China last week.

When I am abroad, I always make it a rule never to criticize or attack the government of my own country. I make up for lost time when I come home.

-Winston Churhill

To the person who asked whether it is a disproportionate level of X or Y chromosome that makes people homosexual. No that is not the case. There is no conclusive biological nor psychological factor that is known.

I personally truly believe sexuality is on a spectrum. With the two extreme ends being completely homosexual and completely heterosexual. We all have various levels within that spectrum, but because of societies norms, are able to live our lives repressing the less accepted side. Some people don't have the choice to repress one side, as their sexuality lies at one of the more extreme ends. Just as some people could not "choose" to be gay, the other end of that spectrum can not "choose" to be straight. Obviously it is not really evolutionarily beneficial to be homosexual, as you can't procreate, which is how heterosexuality became the norm. However, although it is the norm, it does not disallow homosexuality to exist, nor suggest it is unnatural, it just implies that it is not as common.

Brit,

Linsey Lohan? Anne Heche... What do I know?

They may be... they may be not.

Anyway, I assume you have a point. Kindly spill it.

Thank you for making a point Abdullah.

You have been raised with the sole conviction that 'Ghawwels' are 'Haram', that gays are not human, that they are possessed by 'sheitan'. But then again, you also were (most likely) raised with the idea that humans with 'down syndrome' (or retards) are "not normal". Either way, you have displayed a nice example of the narrow-mindedness many suffer from.

I think, assuming you are a Muslim, that you are not allowed to challenge God and you have to 'respect your neighbor.... so to me you are disgusted by a creature of God, thus question God, thus.... you are a Sinner.

Explain that.

QatarKid,

And humans are normal beings?

No? No.... but what?

didn't u guys find a better topic to discuss about!!!

being a human, u better first solve ur own complications rather than pulling the speechless animals into this crap!

anyhow, i don't mean to offend any1.. but this topic disgusts me! sorry mates m off.

Peace be upon you.

So Anne Heche or Lindsy Lohan are gay. Yes or No ?

Alexa has a good point, btw.

Brit,

A soldier seeking sexual comfort with another soldier, is still psychological.

There is no gene.

It's X & Y and the disproportionate presence at birth that makes somebody gay, yes or no.

It is seldom a conscious choice. Somebody seeks because he feels he needs to search.

dogs and pigs eat their own crap..so its natural and there is nothing wrong with it... so lets all do it.......... Right?

No.... but.... no but what???????????

Brit, I agree that within this region there is no shortage of guys willing to have sexual liaisons with other guys as a way of relieving sexual tension.

But - they aren't gay.

They would never define themselves as gay.

They would never define their sexual exploits as gay.

They would never define their sexual partners as gay.

They are heterosexual guys who engage in homosexual behavior out of desperation.

They are, for the purposes of this argument, irrelevant.

It's like choosing to be blind, or choosing to be autistic.

It doesn't make rational sense to any thinking person.

Why choose to be something that is illegal, typically not socially accepted, and will cause you a lifetime of heartache?

You wouldn't. No one would. Gay people are gay because that's the way they are, not because they choose to be.

More pertinently, none of my gay or lesbian friends say that their sexual orientation is a matter of choice. They knew they were same sex attracted when they were only small children aged 5 or so.

All of them have heterosexual siblings with whom they shared the same parents, schooling, social background, cultural background, etc. None of them were abused in any way when they were young, and they don't recall a 'trigger' that 'made' them gay. In their opinion, they were gay since the day they were born, whether they like it or not.

I'm more inclined to believe the testimony of my gay friends than I am likely to listen to the rantings of ignorant heterosexual people who are just trying to guess in their own minds whether or not it's a choice.

If you're not gay, you wouldn't know.

Simple.

I beg to differ..

I believe that in these countries, because of the restrictions, they DO opt to be gay, just for the sexual aspect. Most of these gay guys get married and usually turn to a fully heterosexual relationship after that..

brit

I am sorry if I take this with a pinch of salt. I disagree with the use of the word "Universal"..

I also have read research on homesexuality and same sex coupling. Whilst i agree that the "gene" may be present in all, I also believe that society , its norms and other factors including religion play a major part in whether that "gene" is activated or not.

I recall reading that the Spartans used to encourage homosexuality amongst soldiers because they felt that it created a stronger bond amongst them and thus caused them to lay down their lives for each other.. Now is that natural selection or enforced selection ?

Majid,

your missing the point by 500 miles.

Society - has NO influence on whether somebody is gay or not

Values - has fukc all to do with being gay.

It is either, in the vast majority of gays

1) Natural, by birth. (you may call it a birth defect if you please)

2) Psychological

I'm a guy, and I find the discrimination against homosexual men (AND WOMEN) sickening.

As Alexa says, if your religion says 'don't be gay' then don't be gay. But that doesn't give you the right to tell others who don't follow your religion not to be gay.

Muslims don't tell Christian women to cover their hair, and Christians don't tell Muslims not to drink, so why should religious types feel they have the right to tell gays and lesbians not to be gays and lesbians?

Mind your own business.

you dont know how come society, values etc come in this issue?

do you wear clothes, dude?

Why am I not surprised that this so called study hails from California!!? What a load of Tosh! Juvenile Male Lions separate from the pride when coming of age, I wonder what them dirty b*ggers get up to in the bush on their own? And why is it always the Women who come out with the sympathy for Queers? some sort of "Sisters in Arms"? I am sorry Girls but until you know what it feels like to be a MAN,you really arent in a position to comment. Also you very rarely see a couple of Dykes invited to a girls night out!!

Your post is obviously contradictory:

You write:

"It may be nearly Universal in animals, but should the same be applicapable, acceptable for Humans ?

Sorry, but IMHO , it isn't just about "nature". There are other issues like society, norms, values, religion etc which come into play.."

So on the one hand you say that in animals homosexuality is natural and commonplace, but that humans aren't animals so it shouldn't be natural within the human species.

Then you say that when it does occur in humans, it is for purely 'humanistic' reasons - ie as a result of social pressure or religion or whatever.

So it occurs in nature due to natural conditioning, but when it occurs in human beings it is as a result of totally non-natural causes???

In this world that we live in, in this century that we live in, we're supposed to be free. Free to choose what to do with our lives, what to wear, what to say. We're also free to choose who we marry, who we have sex with, and who we don't. I have a lot of gay friends, my best friend is a gay guy who I love so much, he's so kind and such a good person, very down to earth, and with so many values. I don't really label him "GAY", he's so much more than just that. So that's why it upsets me when people call them "sick", "weirdos", etc.. as if a person's value is only about its sexuality!

A person's value to this world has nothing to do with who that person has sex with. Sexuality is just a part of our lives, even if you say that being gay is a lifestyle, it really is just about the sex.

Respect has to be the key to all of this. Not trying to explain if it's natural or if it isn't, if it's a mental disease (like some sick moralists try to think) or they born like that. For it is not us who shall judge anyone. "God" gave us free will, right? At the end of the day, I think you will be judged by your actions towards your brother, not who you slept with. And if you can't understand and respect your brother... SHAME ON YOU!

Lol...

I expected more from your reply, oh well...

Never mind.

Yours behind is well explored with white sticks

Hapy, No thank you.... I am straight, and have swallowed a fork previously.

I understand you desire to explore, but I suggest you first investigate if somebody is 'up for that' and only after request him to do the 'anal' part.

Good luck in your quest: discovering your sexuality, it is quite an interesting journey which is a normal part of life.

Good luck son.

**** you *** The Dude

Like you said Vegas, You can't teach experience.

Hence, I guess hapy should take it up the bum at least once.

He does appear a bit 'anal'.

You can't teach experience...

HOW FRICKING BIGOTRY is this of homos to label same sex parenting as homosexuality.

So do these birds and bees also have anal sex?? or just two female birds raising young ones means homosexuality!!

eh? my previous post got trimmed? or something wrong with my computer?

*********************

“You become responsible forever for what you have tamed”. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

brit... i agree, up to some point society might have an influence on some individuals.. but only if these individuals already HAVE it in their blood(or body, or wherever).. ok. it's like a singer. One has a talent to become a best singer ever... he might be a taxi driver all his life, and never discover his talent....or opposit, no matter how much you push one to learn something, it just doesn't work, because the "seed" is not there... or like some people start painting in the later age, under certain circumstances... so of course to develop certain qualities you have to be placed into the certain ground to enable to grow... some do develop it, some don't.. But the bottomline is it is already IN YOU, in your blood... otherwise it will never give fruits..

*********************

“You become responsible forever for what you have tamed”. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Some religions are slowly adapting to society, some are reluctant to recognize the necessity of liberalization.

The way of the world.

kumran, Why are you talking on behalf of ‘common public’?... In my country homosexuality is legitimized. We don’t find it weird or abnormal. We don’t consider same-sex couples are sick or bad or wrong.. as a matter of fact, i have many friends-gays, and let me tell you, they all are really nice and very interesting people...

and why 2 gays cannot have a "sex in family way"? I know one couple of gays who are happily officially married, so they obviously have a "sex in family way"...

... it is just the way other people are built and are living their lives..

at the end of the day it doesn't hurt anyone around. And this is the key thing.

*********************

“You become responsible forever for what you have tamed”. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Brit,

what has society, norms, values or religion to do with wanting to stir the poo poo exit?

For me it is either

1) Biological

2) Psychological (behaviorism stemming out of abuse and such)

here I have seen 20 year old boys with wigs and titties, the same I have seen where I hail from. These worlds have absolutely nothing in common.

camels are the gayest of all animals.

It may be nearly Universal in animals, but should the same be applicapable, acceptable for Humans ?

Sorry, but IMHO , it isn't just about "nature". There are other issues like society, norms, values, religion etc which come into play..

Kumaran...

I guess talking to you equals carrying water to the sea...

since I am a nice guy I will give it one last shot.

There are people like yourself that refuse to understand the origin of homosexuality. People like you that refuse to understand the basic biological flaws, while it is scientifically proven. When in developing stage in the womb you also get a portion of X and Y chromosomes, if you get too much of any you might turn out gay. This is a BIRTH DEFECT. How the hell can you blame somebody for that?

Now, what is CRIMINAL when producing children if is blood-relatives marry, have sex and produce slow-learners, retards, border-liners and very likely also gays. All scientifically proven.

Because god created man and women to have sex in family way, then why to need some unusual ,ugly habbits????/WHY?

really sorry spelling mistake. again ana again sorry QL's

Hai Gypsy,

Yes sex is also like sneezing,coughing,urining,hungry,sad, laugh ,and emotion feelings.It is a quiet natural feeling i accept.But from this thread what you want to say " Are you supporting homosex/lesbisam?"

From reading all your comments , it is indicative that you are supporting this homosex habits?

I hope you are have full rights to support any thing as you like.

But common public dont like this.

Because god created man and man to have sex in family way, then why to need some unusual ,ugly habbits????/WHY?

But from your comments i understand you are cute and clever and have lot of presence of mind.

ok reply me.

You can't teach experience...

Humans are animals, humans however are a bit more complex. That is why we are on top of the food-chain.

Let me refer to a bugger called Freud, he had something to say about 'Id' "Ego' and "super-ego'.

However, who is to say that animals do not have their own perception of life, maybe they are living in their own 'awareness' but on a entirely different level.

What a daft statement:

"And if only humans possess knowledge and animals possess no knowledge at all, then surely there must be a fundamental difference between human and animal mind, which is responsible for the fact that only humans possess knowledge whereas other animals do not."

How is it that you know that NO animals possess knowledge?

Words fail me... How can humans know what animals think, know or feel?

What did this guy do, ask his cat whether she was aware of her surroundings, and when the cat didn't say 'yes I am aware' he just assumed the animal doesn't possess the knowledge??

And does this mean that humans with severe developmental impairment, and do not possess "knowledge" (according to the definition above) should be called "animals"?

Should Shafallah be renamed an "The Shafallah Center for Animals with Special Needs"????

He's a Pakistani blogger on WordPress Khalid? Why should I listen to anything he says?

SWALLOW A FORK.....

Thanks

As it says Khalid: "Here term ‘desire’ doesn’t include instinct based bodily needs"

Sex, like food, sleep, warmth, etc. are instinct based bodily needs. We intinctively need and want sex, and it's not desire that determines which sex we are attracted to, but instinct.

religious peoples that have problems with homosexuality blame GOD (or how you address your creator) and basically state that Gods' creation is an imperfect design.

Now that collides with most religions as

1 - Love thou neighbor, God demands respect for his Children.

2 - God is not to be challenged nor questioned

So, in my view, any person that treats homo's different or tries to ban them from society is messing with Gods' creation, therefore a sinner.

The excuse that it is the work of Sheitan is irrelevant as this does not fall "under free" will but under the biological evolution of the human species.

There is fundamental difference between human and animal mind, due to which humans possess ‘knowledge’ whereas animals do not. Actually ‘knowledge’ is the ‘theoretical awareness’ of any thing or phenomenon. Only humans are theoretically aware about their surrounding environment as well as about their ownselves, so only humans possess ‘knowledge’. I have discussed this issue in brief, and in quite general way, in my essay on topic: The Knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times.

Instead of considering ‘human knowledge’ just as some kind of advancement in so called ‘animal intelligence’, which some modern philosophers do, if knowledge were defined as “theoretical awareness of any thing or phenomenon” then other animals, at once, would be ousted from the domain of knowledge. And if only humans possess knowledge and animals possess no knowledge at all, then surely there must be a fundamental difference between human and animal mind, which is responsible for the fact that only humans possess knowledge whereas other animals do not.

for more details please see the link

http://khuram.wordpress.com/2006/12/29/some-differences-of-human-animal-mind/

“Desires” – As one of Most Basic Differences of Human and Animal Mind:

Generally we consider animistic, or magical or other superstitious ideologies as baseless or irrational, but these are after all an important source of understanding the functionality and capabilities of human mind. Even these ‘irrational’ ideologies are the unique characteristics of human beings. Any other known life form doesn’t possess any form of superstition. Study of superstitions can give wonderful insight into our true nature or essence. Humans want to control the external world events but at the same time long for that they may not have to do any effort for the purpose. They tend to find easy solutions for every task. Mostly they perform those tasks in just daydreams. More ‘practical’ people take help of a magician. Wise people ask help from supernatural beings. Scientists insist that only materialistic causation principle is the solution for performing any task. But tasks before humans may not always be accomplished by the material causation principle. Humans want to defeat death, which causation principle may not allow. But religion offers its solution in the form of belief in after-life.

But all this apparent and observable human behavior is actually a clue, which can lead us towards finding the true human nature or essence. Some times we consider human desires as something negative. But this “desire” is one of the most basic differences between humans and other animals. Here term ‘desire’ doesn’t include instinct based bodily needs

for more information:

http://khuram.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/desires-as-one-of-most-basic-differences-of-human-and-animal-mind/

Khalid, are you also saying that homosexuality is contagious?

Perhaps that might be the reason that there is such a high prevalence of it here in Doha. All the boys, driving around all night long with their friends in Landcrusiers, drinking tea together, smoking sheesha together, watching movies together...

Are you saying that's why so many of them are gay here?

How do you know they don't know their a dog? You know you're human. And the research shows that some animals engage in Homosexuality but not all. And some ONLY engage in homosexuality. Perhaps they just haven't been trained to think of it as bad and realize that it isn't harmful.

Khalid, that is called cross-contamination.

I guess in the ME, were the number of gay people (if offended please read gay as HAPPY) is higher than anywhere else in the world, they create gays just by having sexes separated in schools.

Animals may have brains but not intelligences. They can be forgiven in this respect. Like human, they can be desperate when on heat, and shall go for any illegal holes available. I don't think its fair to call them gay since dogs dosen't even knows that he is a dog.

By saying that Khalid you're implying homosexuality is "bad" which it isn't.

A bad apple in a box will exploid the other good apples in the same box.

Yes, SOME are, but not the majority...unless you're talking about gay guys here. :P

Ambat,

No I did not mean that......

But hey, now that you mention it...

Why not!!!

Gypsy, your partially right, some children are formed into 'gayness' and 'extreme sexual behaviorism' due to psychological damages stemming from early childhood.

We didn't "learn" it from animals. It's natural. You're either born straight or gay. There's nothing you can do about it.

Hai Gypsy,

6th sense to be used here.Animals are having 5 senses only.We can learn lot of better from animal but not this.

I like female company only and i feel safe in her hands.

Ha ha ha .Alexa mad dogs barking to Moon/sun.If dogs bite human, but in turn can we bite dog back.Ha ha ha But we can throw stone to it .chu chu chu chu.

ha ha ha Gypsy you have taken intersting subject but how many will say truth.

fornicating in public ???

good thing I don't have all these problems and confusions..

----

L♥VE LIFE!

Male homosexuality as hyper-masculine

There is evidence of a correlation between sexual orientation and traits that are determined in utero[1]. Williams et al. (2000) found that finger length ratio, a characteristic controlled by prenatal hormones, is different in people of distinct sexual orientations.[1] Another study by McFadden in 1998 found that auditory systems in the brain, another physical trait influenced by prenatal hormones is different in those of differing orientations, likewise the suprachiasmatic nucleus of homosexual men was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, [2], the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women [3]. Gay men have also been shown to have higher levels of circulating androgens [2] and larger penises [3], on average, than straight men.

Gay men have more older brothers on average, a phenomenon known as the fraternal birth order effect. It has been suggested that the greater the number of older male siblings the higher the level of androgen fetuses are exposed to.

[edit] Male homosexuality as feminine or hypo-masculine

In a 1991 study, Simon LeVay demonstrated that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus—which is believed to control sexual behavior and linked to prenatal hormones—was on average more than twice the size in heterosexual men when contrasted to homosexual men. Initially he could not rule out that this may be due to AIDS since all of his homosexual male subjects had died from it before the autopsies were performed. However in 2003 scientists at Oregon State University announced that they had replicated his findings in sheep.

[edit] Female homosexuality

Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (an autosomal recessive condition which results in high androgen levels during fetal development) have more masculinized sex role identities and are more likely to have a homosexual sexual orientation as adults than controls [4][5][6][7][8]. An alternative explanation for this effect is that the fact that girls with this condition are born with masculinized external genitalia leads their parents to raise them in a more masculine manner which then influences their sexual orientation as adults. However, the degree to which the girls' genitals are masculinized does not correlate with their sexual orientation, suggesting that prenatal hormones are the causal factor, not parental influence.

Indeed Gypsy,

More women should act like animals. :-p

That would please men in Qatar for sure :-P

Frankly I think animals act better then people. I wish all people would act like animals.

you are absolutely right..

it's a natural thing indeed..

humans are animals but we're not supposed to act like animals.Respect is the key to a peaceful world. =)

----

L♥VE LIFE!

Well someonenew, sorry to say it but all the evidence points towards the fact that it's a naturally occuring thing, and that it might even be beneficial. And yes, humans are animals, like it or not.

indeed is a natural occurence since day one.there is not much fuzz about this i guess-animals just got later publication.

ways?So you are never short of partners?Is that common in the animal world too??

Just curious,don't we have better topics to discuss on this forum??

According to Linnaen Taxonomy, the animal family is divided as follows:

Classis 1. MAMMALIA

Classis 2. AVES

Classis 3. AMPHIBIA

Classis 4. PISCES

Classis 5. INSECTA

Classis 6. VERMES

Humans fall into the mammalian class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy

.

Also tell me what things in your opinion, what makes the difference between a human and an animal?

Because it seems that there are some people already wants to say that human are animals.

Let us be clear and answer in which way humans differ from animals?

I personally dont think Homosexuality is natural.

"Ali Baba and 40 thieves" are now "Ali Baba and 30 thieves" ; 10 were laid off.

just wanted to ask what could be her or his own point of view regarding her own thread.

Well I'm a she for one, and I'm very happy in my relationship, no complaints at all. As for what I'm implying, I don't think I'm IMPLYING anything, I'm posting an article that says Loud and Clear Homosexuality is natural occuring and perfectly normal.

she posted a topic to get your views on it not to ask her how she was or what she thinks about it.

cant you guys just concentrate on the topic rather than picking up on the author.

muhammadonly is implying that he knows about Gypsy's current relationship status, but he doesn't seem to know her sex. Very confusing.

what could you be trying to insinuate about this? or genereally what do you personally think about this?

it's not HE who posted.. it is SHE..

"you have been darting since last 7 months"?

gypsy, are you DARTING?

*********************

“You become responsible forever for what you have tamed”. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

wow...........i could imagine the extinct of the animal.

off to get popcorn :)

this muhammadonly is drunk.. me think..

or else he should be banned for hijacking :)

*********************

“You become responsible forever for what you have tamed”. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

"muhammadonly said what's your point gypsy? ..."

Ummm, let me take a stab in the dark:

"Homosexuality in Animals is nearly Universal"

By the way, humans are animals too.

What the hell are you talking about muhammadonly?

It's not just those animals. Dogs in particular try and mate with other male dogs. Actually, dogs will mate with anything if it feels the need.

I know. :D It's a perfectly natural thing.

7 months where?

now it justifies same-sex marriage in humans society.. uf.. feels better..

*********************

“You become responsible forever for what you have tamed”. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

More proof -

*** WARNING - very funny, but very rude ***