US set to abstain from UN vote
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:Maybe there needs to be a fourth definition then.
"Just plain wrong."
Actually, I can accept that as an opinion, which is precisely my point.
Over this past discussion, you appeard to label anyone who you think it "wrong" as being blanketed in ignorance / immaturity / or whatever. I am merely stressing that you can believe they are wrong, but that doesn't mean they should be automatically assumed to be and blanketed as ignorant.
Even the ones who make their opinions known via overt means that any of us would object to (violence, etc.). Overtness can just be a measure for how strongly they feel about their opinion...not how immature or ignorant it is.
Natoma said:
Natoma, never made it past that AP BIOS class, eh? Interspecies mating happens all the time, with no end result but that of the act itself. Where do you think the naturally occuring "Ligers/Tigons" come from? Do you think the Tiger and Lion consciously say, "Hey, there's a chance we'll produce a viable offspring dispite Haldane's Rule - lets get it on"?!? For every probable viable offspring, there is most likely hundreds of thousands of sexual incounterers that result in nothing. Hell, I've even seen this on the Discovery Channel.
Obviously due to Haldane's Rule and other Genetic barriers, there is either no genetic offspring or that offspring is infertile. Kind of reminds me of another act that you consider in some way "natural"... but, alas.... ignorance is bliss.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
Actually, you need to precisely define what the "same type of animal" means. Humans and horses are both mammals...aren't they the same "type?"
Being a different species is not enough to be said of a different "type"?
"Same Type" is a conveniently vague term. You need to be precise. Originally (back in the previous long-ago post on Beastiality,) I believe you said different "species" don't mate. Though IIRC in this thread (without going back to re-read), I believe you refrained this time from being that specific...and not by coincidence I imagine.
Natoma said:
I feel fucking dirty... but to prove you wrong Natoma
BTW: That was 10seconds into Google... I'm sure this isn't a rare occurance if you'd research it deeper when you consider the sheer dynamics of a habitat.
PPS. There's more: (eg. Raccon on domestic dog, Monkey on something) but my gag-reflex is giving way just thinking bout this...
The reason I refrained is because of the fact that my remembrance of what a "species" is defined as was not correct. I honestly don't remember the term. I don't remember if it is phylum or family or genus. But there is a specific point where types of animals diverge to where reproduction is impossible because of genetic differences.
Also, haven't you watched southpark? Apparently all it takes is a little Al Greene (or was it Barry White) to get pig and an elephant to make sweet sweet love.
Though honestly, elephant on rhino, or racoon on dog, etc doesn't get my gag reflex going (its actually kinda funny like), though put a person in there somewhere and I instantly get the skeevies.
Though honestly, elephant on rhino, or racoon on dog, etc doesn't get my gag reflex going (its actually kinda funny like), though put a person in there somewhere and I instantly get the skeevies.
Natoma said:
Nobody was talking about tangible reproduction feasability as a governing dynamic for it's superfluous in this debate because homosexuals can't reproduce and thus Joe's parallel is strenghtened. These animals don't care about reproduction, instead their sexual relationships are based on... other raison d'etres.
Hell, if anything, I would have expected you to be the first here to seperate the act of "sex" from "reproduction".
Russ said:
Whoa... How quickly one forgets! I haven't watched that in... too long
PS. The other pictures were just wrong Russ, thats why I posted the Elephant as it is pretty damn funny. If you want to see for yourself, there in the same place as that picture I posted is found.
Vince said:
Actually I stated that I didn't think beastiality was natural because you don't see animals mating in the wild who are genetically incompatible. I wonder what the rates of this type of mating are in the wild. I have seen very few, if any, instances, scientifically verifiable or otherwise, of these types of sexual encounters occurring in a repeating, reproducible manner.
A random occurrence of an elephant humping a rhino does not necessarily equate to something like this happening all the time, whereas you do see heterosexual and homosexual couplings in nature and in human beings all the time. For instance, male geese have been known to couple and mate for life.
I mean, how often do you see a dog humping someone's leg, or a tree, or a hydrant. Is that necessarily indicative of that dog when it's in heat? That's what I'm saying.
but male/male is incompatible and I had an old friend back in school who's grandmother would have to constantly watch their (male) dogs because one of them often managed to get the other in a corner and rape him.... then she'd go out and hit the offenders nuts with the hard edge of a tennis racket
edit:
oh yes, and I do not have a problem with interspecies sex including humans if both are aware of what is happening and consent to it. so far, the only other species that this could possibly pertain to would be marine life such as dolphins and whales but still we haven't developed a method of communication with them advanced enough to discern whether they are capable of understanding and consenting to such activities. The other possibility would by extraterrestrials.
oh, and to address one of the first posts where the fear of being looked at in the shower by a gay guy was expressed- are most guys attracted to lesbians? not hollywood lesbians, but REAL lesbians. No, most men are not even attracted to many femme lesbians (once they get to know them). So what makes you think that me, a femme lesbian, is going to want to stick my finger up a straight girl? Gays are generally NOT attracted to straight people so why the hell do you care? Straight girls are usually not afraid to be semi-nude in front of a guy man because they know that the man is not interested. Most gay guys that "play the guy" are not at all attracted to masculine gay guys so why is it that you think youre so irresistable that they would be drooling over you? and the ones that "play the girl" are not so much of a "threat" because its not like they're going to want to poke you in the bum. Homophobia is the result of idiocy, not reason.