![LionsGayb26ae88c0aa[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eCpx84y.jpg "LionsGayb26ae88c0aa[1].jpg")
Sorry liberals, but there is no evidence to support the existence of gay animals. Your degeneracy is your own - not apart of the animal kingdom.
When considering the possibility that individual animals could have some sort of predisposition to attempting homosexual acts, there is absolutely no reason to consider this behavior as anything other than a product of genetic defect or mental illness, just as human homosexuality was also a mental illness until 1973 when homosexual protesters in San Francisco forced the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness due to no scientific reasons whatsoever.
Additionally, there is a difference between performing homosexual acts and "being homosexual." There really is no way to measure supposed perversion and degeneracy of animals because the fact is, animals are stupid. Anyone who has ever owned a dog knows it will try to have sex with anything. That does not make all dogs "legosexuals."
What say you, libtards?
Do some research, there is in swans. Being gay is not a choice
>>56567887
>Do some research
There is no such thing as gay swans, faggot. That's my point.
>Being gay is not a choice
This is a red herring.
>>56568053
Go take your Christian sharia elsewhere fag
>>56566282
Here is something from Yale
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
>>56568243
>flag
DUDE
>>56568270
>http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
Whether or not animals have been observed to exihibit homosexual behavior on rare occasions is irrelevannt to whether or not animals can be gay.
>>56568270
And National Geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
>>56568364
There have been Dogs that have been found to be purely gay.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_grassland_whiptail_lizard
Nature is strange. An all-female species that reproduces through basically cloning stimulated by lesbian sex.
>>56568498
>There have been Dogs that have been found to be purely gay.
I'm going to assume you mean there have been studies that have shown particular dogs to only prefer other dogs of the same sex? Source? Even if that is true, as stated above, there is no reason that sort of behavior should be considered anything other than a product of genetic defect or mental illness, just as homosexuality is a mental illness for humans.
>>56568733
What constitutes homosexual behavior?
>>56568791
Well first off, you need something with a dick.
or a male as part of at least two sexes.
>>56566282
>>>56568270
>Purpose of existence is to breed and produce offspring
>Rape, although not conducive to long term social cohesion, produces this
>Murder, not conducive to society in the long term, reduces potential mates and improves the chances of breeding
>homosexual acts followed by heterosexual breeding, produces the needed effect, see animal kingdom
>homosexual acts and full sexuality, completely invalidates the purpose of an animal's existence and prevents it furthering it's genetic code
>Charles Darwin's theory of evolution dictated animals with good mutations will continue to breed, while those with defects will not and die out
>complete homosexuality thus can be prescribed as a genetic defect/mutation in which effectively decimates any chances of wilful procreation.
>therefore, homosexuality BOTH in animals and humans are symptoms of mental or genetic defect, and is wrong
checkmate genetic abnormalities, you are both worse then rape and murder
My dog will hump anything that isn't a jew.
>>56568850
There is no female homosexual behavior?
I would rape a nice white man ass if I had the chance to do so.
Maybe next springbreak since there's always tons of frat boyos laying around half-naked.
>>56568994
I mean there needs to exist a male in the species. If a species doesn't reproduce via sex, then its method of reproduction, such as "cloning itself" as you stated above, can't be considered homosexual. There is no such thing as a female in a species with no males. Hence, there is no lesbian sex in a species with no males.
>>56569131
>There is no such thing as a female in a species with no males
No, they are female. They have two X chromosomes, ovum, and lay eggs. Sometimes they interbreed with males of other whiptail species.
>>56569380
There is no such thing as interspecies breeding. Whether or not two species can or cannot breed is what defines a "species." You need to go higher on the taxonomic scale before you see interbreeding. It wouldn't be called a "species." Technically, if they can breed, they are the same species. An animal cannot be female if there are no fucking males in that species. Female humans are defined as being female if they have two x chromosomes only relative to the structure of male chromosomes. If there are no males in a spcies - if that species reproduces by itself - then that species is asexual, not homosexual. Please spare me your "hurrrrrrrrr but two x chromosomes." Assuming I even believe that, the structure of the chromosomes says nothing about the sex of a species with no fucking sexes. Now surely a sweet 16-year-old girl such as yourself has something better to do with her time...
>>56569654
>what are mules
Certain different species can absolutely breed together. Sometimes even when they have different numbers of chromosomes. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?
There's your proof of an exclusively "homosexual" species. Exactly as you wanted it. But you're just going to continue to move the goal posts and change definitions to suit your ideology.
>>56569945
Mules are the product of horses and donkeys. They are able to breed because they are close enough on the taxonomic tree.
Mules are sterile. I forgot to mention this fact so you're right about that. Speciation is when two animals can no longer produce FERTILE offspring. So that was my mistake.
There is no proof of an exclusively homosexual species. You can't just call an asexual species "homosexual" because that fits you stupid little gay agenda.
>>56569945
I don't think that's the kinda proof he was looking for, seeing as in that species reproduction is apparently asexual.
>>56570127
Within your parameters, there isn't even room for a POSSIBLE "homosexual species". Of course an actual species that is exclusively homosexual is going to reproduce "asexually". That's the only way when there is only one sex.
Make up a fictional species that would fit your "proof" of an exclusively homosexual species then.
Shouldn't gays eventually go extinct now that they are allowed to marry other gays and no longer need to play house to hide their shame?
>>56570316
Sadly no, because now they have kids via artificial insemination and surrogates.
>>56566282
white people really are dumb yo
>>56570431
I cant hear you over the wall.
> Liberals: cmon anon, even some animals have acted gay, why cant you accept it in humans?
> anon: so is rape and murder
>Hardmorde: ya and that faggot dog isnt gonna make any more kids, so its less likely for there to be more faggot dogs
>>56570302
>Make up a fictional species that would fit your "proof" of an exclusively homosexual species then.
Why would I try to prove your point?
You're just defining every individual in the species you cited as being female all willy nilly - because it has two x chromosomes, ovum and they lay eggs
How can these things possibly be relevant if you are not comparing the characteristics of the "females" to that of males of the same species? The characteristics you described, describe females in species that contain males. They do not describe females in asexual species, unless one were to change the definition of "female" to mean "has two x chromosomes, ovum, and lays eggs, in any species, regardless of whether or not that species contains males." There is no such thing as homosexual behavior if there are no other fucking choices. Your argument is contingent on the idea that these individuals in this species are intrinsically, inherently female, because to completely arbitrary reasons and an insistance on tweaking an already well-understood definition. It is a circular define-myself-into-being-correct argument.
>>56566282
>genetic defect or mental illness
mutations are natural and a part of evolution, mental illness is not some state of mind that is objectively "wrong". It's a social construct describing behavior that doesn't fit the contemporary norm.
>Anyone who has ever owned a dog knows it will try to have sex with anything
Just like humans :^)
>>56566282
Comparing sentient humans to lesser creatures.
>>56566282
my only problem with gays is that so many of them act like limp wristed bitches.
Of course there are some macho gay men but thats a incredibly small minority. Instead the majority act like a bunch of women, and no one like a bitch they cant fuck.
>>56570668
>>56570302
Other than the fact that the prefix "homo" means same, of course. But calling an asexual species "homosexual" is just contrived and anochronistic. It implies that "homosexuality is natural" therefore let human males buttfuck each other, without specifying that when you're using "homosexuality" to describe an asexual species, you are referring to something much, much different than flamboyant buttsex and fashion parades.
>>56570642
this: just because happens in nature (rape, pedophilia, necrophilia, sexual murder, sexual cannibalism, etc...) doesn't mean it's good or we should practice it too. Or accept it as "good" in any form or shape.
>>56566282
Sorry faggot, but there it really doesn't matter what you think. Your opinions are pretty much meaningless.
Gays are going to put their dicks inside each other and there's nothing your NEET ass can do about it. They don't care if you think it's "wrong" and there's no reason anyone else should give a shit either.
Are you a scientist? Are you a scholar? Or are you some fucking retard shitposter on 4chan sitting in his cumstained desk chair that's trying to tell other people what "degenerates" are?
>>56566282
So what exactly do you want to do with homosexuals. You say its mental illness, ok then it's mental illness. Now what? Do you want them in mental hospitals draining resources instead of working?
Just what harm do fags do? And don't say they "recruit muh children" because you've just said its mental illness or a genetic defect, in which case they can't recruit your children. I don't like effeminate fags at gay parades either, but that's not most fags, never mind all of them.
Bonobos fuck everything.
Constantly.
It's like a Roman Orgy.
I reject my human card.
I not identify as Bonobo American.
>>56569053
Save that energy for building a wall
>>56570787
You can only deny that homosexuality is wrong if you deny that we can know objective morality.
>>56570963
Yes, the appeal to nature logical fallacy.
doesn't mean much whether it's a "genetic defect" or a "mental illness" until a cure or working therapy is discovered. until then it's a moot point. I didn't have a choice regardless, so it's pointless for me to obsess over
I'm still a conservative minded free speech loving gun toting american. can this meme stop? liberals loving to use gay issues as ammunition =/= gays are liberals. have to hear that bullshit all the time at my college
>>56570968
>Are you a scientist? Are you a scholar?
ad hominem
I suppose I shouldn't shitpost here until I have my doctorate, then, right faggot?
>>56570787
And here's a study of homosexual rams
>most domestic rams develop a sexual preference for females over males, even if they are raised in all male groups from weaning. Most rams also engage in male-male mounting behavior when females are not present, but will exhibit a distinct preference for females when given a choice. In contrast, a small percentage of rams develop a same-sex preference for other rams even when raised with females. Male-oriented rams will often mount male pen mates and are sexually inactive when individually exposed to estrous females. When presented with rams and estrous ewes in a sexual partner preference test, male-oriented rams mount and occasionally rectally intromit and ejaculate with rams while ignoring equally available estrous females.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2150593/
OP respond?
>>56571122
I'd like gays not to use appeals to nature, exclaiming shit like "hurr look swans are gay! That means it's perfectly okay to be gay because being gay is perfectly natural and normal." My main contention here is with that specific sort of argument.
>>56566282
Homosexuality is a defect, it should no be glorified
>>56571932
This
I'm tired of the gays are literally rapist and murders meme
Liberals use gays, only tricking the young/dumb ones
>>56571981
How high does the percentage/prevalence of faggot rams have to be before it's considered natural and normal - before this behavior is no longer simply an extraneous anomaly? Considering the fact that homosexality goes against both common sense morals and against nature (in that it works directly against teh survival) of a species, I think that's enough to assume homosexual behavior in any species is due to genetic defect or mental illness, until proven otherwise.
>>56566282
I've watched several male animals fucking each other on /gif/
I didn't jack to it, but I saw it
Gary animals exist
>>56571977
>THE MERITS OF MY ARGUMENTS
You have no argument, dipshit. Publish your thoughts in a scientific journal about how you think homosexuals are "degenerates" and should be reinstated in the DSM as a mental disorder because "animals are stupid and shouldn't be an excuse".
I doubt you even have a college degree. If you do, I'd really like to know where you got it. University of Phoenix?
>>56571820
>objective morality
You're confusing objective morality with what religious nut-jobs say. There's nothing inherent in morals that are thought of as objective that makes homosexuality wrong.
>>56566282
>When considering the possibility that individual animals could have some sort of predisposition to attempting homosexual acts, there is absolutely no reason to consider this behavior as anything other than a product of genetic defect or mental illness
This. Animals can have depression and OCD too- doesn't mean these aren't mental illnesses that should be treated.
>>56572520
>muh presumptuous 'cause I don't actually have any arguments.
Calm down with the butthurt. Here's an argument:
1. Scientific journals such as the DSM should be reliable sources of knowledge
2. Any information listed in the DSM should have scientific merit
3. Any information removed from the DSM should be due to new scientific information
4. If any information is removed from the DSM due to no new scientific information, that information was falsey removed
5. Faggot forced the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexality from DSM-II as a mental disorder, not due to any new scientific knowledge
6. Homosexuality was falsely removed from the DSM-II
7. Therefore, homosexuality is a mental illness.
>>56572706
OK. What I meant by that is only that I think there are good arguments for homosexuality being objectively wrong. Obviously this depends on the definition of "wrong," however I don't think anyone can just decide what's wrong or right all willy nilly. Homosexuality isn't right to Bob down the street just because he thinks so.
>>56572844
>Calm down with the butthurt.
You're the one making a thread about something that clearly has nothing to do with scientific endeavor and is really just a thinly veiled attempt to validate your insecurity towards gays.
a.) the DSM is not a scientific journal. it is an unscientific piece of shit that is getting phased out of clinical psychology by instruction by the head of NIMH.
b.) "mental illnesses" like Asperger's were uncovered as complete bullshit disorders created by unscientific retards like yourself, and it's no longer diagnosed by anyone credible
c.) You are a fucking dumb faggot confidently spouting ignorance. Listen, nothing you are doing is scientific. Why don't you go look up the scientific method and fuck off? Your confidence levels should be one hundredth of what they are.
>>56567887
neither is being schizophrenic. But I don't have to talk to his voices like they are real for tolerance sake
>>56572471
>>56572983
>>56572471
>How high does the percentage/prevalence of faggot rams have to be before it's considered natural and normal - before this behavior is no longer simply an extraneous anomaly?
Anomalies are natural and normal by definition. That's how evolution works. Seems like this is what you have a hard time understanding. Evolution is based on errors in transcription and environmental effects mutating DNA.
>homosexality goes against both common sense morals
this is your opinion
>against nature
it doesn't, it's intrinsic to how nature works, see above
>I think that's enough to assume homosexual behavior in any species is due to genetic defect or mental illness
First of all you're using loaded terms here, genetic defects are just mutations, see my other post. Mental illness is non-accepted behavior, if a society wants to treat homosexuality as mental illness it can do so, there are countries that still do this. And yes homosexual behavior is due to genetic mutations among other things
>however I don't think anyone can just decide what's wrong or right all willy nilly.
This depends on if you believe morals are objective facts or not, there are moral relativists and moral realists in society, both have arguments supporting their views and in the end it most often comes down to personal preference. But to say it's only right if it makes babies and continue the species is usually considered a teleological fallacy
>>56566282
Animals also eat their own shit and offspring.
>>56569844
>Technically, if they can breed, they are the same species.
Like lions and tigers? Horses and donkeys?
>>56566282
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV6NYh83k5g
>>56573704
>>56573704
>Anomalies are natural and normal by definition. That's how evolution works. Seems like this is what you have a hard time understanding. Evolution is based on errors in transcription and environmental effects mutating DNA.
Natural evolution works via the prevalence of *positive* mutations. Homosexuality, by definition, cannot be due to any positive mutations, as homosexuality, by definition, causes the animal to be unfit ie it will not reproduce. If an animal doesn't reproduce, its genes are not passed on. Homosexuality apart of the natural occurrence of the evolution of species for this reason alone.
>it's intrinsic to how nature works, see above
see above
>But to say it's only right if it makes babies and continue the species is usually considered a teleological fallacy
I would mostly agree with this. I'm not even of the opinion that survival is intrinsically "right." I see it this way: if objective morality exists and can be known, then homosexuality can be shown to be objectively wrong. If all morality is subjective/relative, then it can be shown that if homosexuality is right, it follows that murder and rape is right - that homosexuality is no more right than what most people would agree is abominable behavior.
>>56573445
>>56573445
>Why don't you go look up the scientific method and fuck off?
Are you trolling?
I wouldn't say the DSM has no credibility. Additionally, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any psychiatric journal that didn't consider homosexuality a mental disorder more than 50 years ago. I think you'd be even further hard pressed to find any legitimate reasons that publicly-known psychiatric journals no longer consider homosexuality a mental illness.
Aside from whether or not homosexuality is *defined* as a mental illness, I can think of two reasons to consider it objectively wrong:
1) It directly impedes the reproduction a species. It goes directly against evolution in that it defies natural selection. The "fitness" of an individual in a species is determined by that individual's ability to reproduce before it dies. Gay people are, by definition, "unfit." Therefore, they shouldn't exist. Therefore, the fact that they do exist now, can be considered nothing more than anamolous. Furthermore, assuming you believe in evolution, you can be certain that they will cease to exist, because in the sense of survival of our - or any - species, homosexuality cannot exist.
2) Homosexuality directly contributes to the spread of disease. 75% of homosexual men carry one or more sexually transmitted diseases. AIDS alone affects 30% of homosexual males. The life expectancy for the average homosxual man is 45 years of age. If you include those who have AIDS, that drops to 39%. This is another reason homosexuality is wrong.
The only counter-argument you could possibly have is that what is wrong isn't necessarily decided by what fucking kills people, or directly impedes our species' ability to survive. That, or to completely deny everything I've said here outright, which is what you will probably do.
>>56574393
Great! So this IS just a thread for you to say "HURR DA GAYS ARE BAD".
Fuck off already. I can think of a bunch of reasons why it's "objectively" wrong to be a parasitic little virgin NEET retard like yourself.
>1) It directly impedes the reproduction a species. It goes directly against evolution in that it defies natural selection.
And yet homosexuality has been in recorded history for THOUSANDS of years. If it's not evolutionary, then why has it shown itself in separate societies all over the world? There is a concept called group selection that has been proposed as an explanation for homosexuals.
>2) Homosexuality directly contributes to the spread of disease.
Haha. I'm shocked that you care so much about the wellbeing of faggots and are concerned for their health. Buttsex transmits disease more readily than vaginal sex. There's a reason why disease rates are higher: gays don't have vaginal sex. Straight people can have butt sex too by the way. Also, things like CRISPR will create gene therapy cures for things like HIV/AIDS in a few years.
>The only counter-argument you could possibly have is that what is wrong isn't necessarily decided by what fucking kills people, or directly impedes our species' ability to survive. That, or to completely deny everything I've said here outright, which is what you will probably do.
I don't even know what I'm arguing for. What are you trying to prove and why? Should we gas the gays because they're "objectively wrong"?
You disgust me.
>>56566282
This mental illness seems to affect many species.
>>56575215
I've really gotta stop deleting posts just 'cause of typos. I reposted it here: >>56575024
>And yet homosexuality has been in recorded history for THOUSANDS of years.
Homosexuality does not contribute to natural evolution. It is anamolous behavior by definition. Whether or not that's wrong, I will admit, is up for debate. But it is not normal and natural, just because it occurrs in nature anymore than serial killers, pedophiles, murderers, and rapists are normal and natural.
>here is a concept called group selection that has been proposed as an explanation for homosexuals.
Oh yeah, on with it then... please justify the existence of homosexuals as a positive thing for evolution.
>Haha. I'm shocked that you care so much about the wellbeing of faggots
Whether or not I care is irrelevant. You are just full of red herrings and ad hominems, and you're calling ME uneducated. Go ahead and look up ad hominem and red herring, then come back and tell me what those are. Maybe then you'll understand how infantile it is to contantly use them in your contentions.
>Buttsex transmits disease more readily than vaginal sex. There's a reason why disease rates are higher: gays don't have vaginal sex. Straight people can have butt sex too by the way. Also, things like CRISPR will create gene therapy cures for things like HIV/AIDS in a few years.
The reason WHY homosexuals spread disease 10x more than heterosexuals is irrelevant.
>you disgust me
You disgust me, friendo. If anything, I just think homosexuals should stop using stupid arguments trying to justify their behavior. Their behavior cannot be justified without arguing that right and wrong don't even exist. That is all.
>>56566282
lol them lions gay as hell
>degenerate liberal white sjw "women" actually believe this
>>56566282
Okay, so being gay isn't natural.
What's it to you, though?
We shouldn't be performing Cesarean sections on women giving birth because "muh appeal to nature"... Like, seriously.
Regarding mental illness, here's something to think about: what if it turned out enjoying the taste of a food you like was a mental illness in the same regard? Preferences are preferences and does a difference in preference mean a mental problem?
>>56574287
The offspring have to be fertile.
>>56566282
if an animal exhibits only homosexual behavior, i'd say its gay. you, however, call this a mental illness, so there is no way to prove to you that it isn't.
>>56575866
>What's it to you, though?
What it is to me is that fucking libtards consistently use the appeal to nature to justify homosexuality.
>Regarding mental illness, here's something to think about: what if it turned out enjoying the taste of a food you like was a mental illness in the same regard? Preferences are preferences and does a difference in preference mean a mental problem?
I guess that's up for the psychiatrists to decide. Or I mean, it was... until the gays apparently told psychiatrists to fuck off and to remove their being listed as mentally ill from the DSM 'cause of their literally butthurt feelings.
>>56576087
which makes me realize that you are just switching words around. gayness exists in animals, you just call it something else.
>>56576055
Yeah unfortunately I forgo to add that little important tidbit.
>>56575550
>>56575550
>Oh yeah, on with it then... please justify the existence of homosexuals as a positive thing for evolution.
Well, it clearly is genetic. I don't have to argue how it turned out to be an emergent trait from evolution. Maybe you can go write your doctoral thesis on what that reason is.
>Whether or not I care is irrelevant. You are just full of red herrings and ad hominems, and you're calling ME uneducated.
I've seen you and a couple other people on this site think that because they can identify common logical fallacies means they're some kind of enlightened savant. You're not. You're a pseudo-intellectual fuckboy.
>I just think homosexuals should stop using stupid arguments trying to justify their behavior
And we're back to my original statement. Their behavior is justified in their minds because they have instinctive sexual drives. It really doesn't matter what you think. There are a trillion problems in the world that are worse than two guys loving each other.
>>56576131
Ignore the "fucking libtards" then. That's what I do.
The only difference that listing homosexuality as a mental illness makes is that it makes gay individuals feel as if they are somehow 'broken' or 'wrong' and gives homophobic assholes every excuse to outcast/insult them.
Additionally there was no scientific evidence for it being a mental illness when it WAS in the DSM.
Why do you care about this issue so much?
>>56576237
In my post, I was trying to distinguish between "being gay" and "gay behavior." Homosexuals rejoice because they point and say "See, animals are gay too!" But "homosexuality" as it pertains to human beings has the mindset connotation. But homosexual behavior among animals does not justify the homosexual mindset in animals, nor can it even necessarily be proved that there is any such thing as "gayness" in the animal kingdom. If we are defining "homosexuality" only by whether or not an animal consistently fucks its own sex, then sure, homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. But that's not what homosexuals mean when they say "Look, homosexuality is justified by nature!" Quite simply, it's an appeal to nature, and therefore a fallacious, stupid argument.
>>56576261
>>56576055
>>56574287
Ligers (lion+tiger) are fertile, but mules (horse+donkey) isn't
Where two different species can interbreed and always produce fertile offspring, it is an indication that they are very closely related. For example, members of the genus Canis can all interbreed and produce fertile young - this includes wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingos and domestic dogs. According to the old system, which classifies any two animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring as the same species, this would make a wolf and a jackal the same animal, which is clearly not the case - this classification is too simplistic. Physically, behaviourally and genetically, these are different animals, but they are related closely enough to be able to produce fertile young.
>>56576431
>Maybe you can go write your doctoral thesis on what that reason is.
That's not a bad idea. Natural selection surely should have wiped out this genetic anomaly eons ago.
>I've seen you and a couple other people on this site think that because they can identify common logical fallacies means they're some kind of enlightened savant. You're not. You're a pseudo-intellectual fuckboy.
No, man. Using logical fallacies as part of your argument invalidates your argument. At that point, you just become a whiny kid. At least save yours insults for after your argument like I generally do.
>There are a trillion problems in the world that are worse than two guys loving each other.
Well I don't like it because I'm a Christfag and I happen to believe that homosexuality is an abomination. Ha, good luck arguing with that one, faggot!
>>56576551
homosexual
adjective ho·mo·sex·u·al \ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\
: sexually attracted to people of the same sex
: based on or showing a sexual attraction to people of the same sex
Full Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
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
— ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly adverb
>we do define it that way more or less
>>56576537
Because homosexuals are broken and wrong. Therefore they shouldn't be allowed to feel that they are justified and right. Fuck man, what happened to /pol/? I'm honestly a little surprised that so many fuckbois are arguing with me in this thread.
>>56568364
Whether or not animals are gay doesn't matter, cats lick their own assholes, chimps sometimes cannibalize.
I have no doubt that homosexuality is a mental illness and that it may exist in the animal kingdom. So what?
>>56577054
>they shouldn't be allowed to feel that they are justified and right
ok fascist
>>56577074
you can keep on believing that homosexuality is a mental illness but there is no evidence to show that this is true.
>>56576903
Nice you just proved his point for him.
>>56574874
>Natural evolution works via the prevalence of *positive* mutations
there are no *positive* mutations, you're using loaded terms again. And you are wrong. Evolution has no preference for any type of mutation, mutations are intrinsically random and those that benefit the species remain.
If you want to discuss what function homosexuality has in preserving a species there are several theorized. Such as supporting siblings without being as resource demanding as a sibling that produces offspring. But this has no effect on the moral nature of homosexuality.
>I'm not even of the opinion that survival is intrinsically "right."
But this is the argument you're constantly using.
>>56575024
>It goes directly against evolution in that it defies natural selection
Here again
>if objective morality exists and can be known, then homosexuality can be shown to be objectively wrong.
This doesn't make sense to me, please explain how you're reasoning here
>If all morality is subjective/relative, then it can be shown that if homosexuality is right, it follows that murder and rape is right
This is a strawman. Murder and rape are choices you make, homosexuality is not (as you yourself claim it's genetic). And murder and rape conflicts with the rights of other individuals while homosexuality does not. Do you agree that these are actually not comparable?
>>56576803
Well, at least you're a predictable smug Christian. Everything I've said has gone in one ear, straight through the jesus listening device and out the other.
Enjoy a lifetime of ignorance!
>>56576584
Ligers aren't a viable species. F2 offspring are infertile.
>Where two different species can interbreed and always produce fertile offspring
I believe this is what constitutes the definition of a species, at least last I checked.
>According to the old system, which classifies any two animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring as the same species, this would make a wolf and a jackal the same animal, which is clearly not the case
What? You admittedly have me stumped here. Are you saying that the offspring of wolves and jackals can continue on, always producing fertile offspring? If not, then of course they are not the same species. What I forgot to mention earlier, and what you may already know, is that two animals who can produce fertile offspring, who can also produce fertile offspring, are the same species. I legit just forgot to include that.
>>56577054
Oh, boohoo. Cry about it some more.
>they shouldn't be allowed to feel that they are justified and right
Why not? Does it make you feel better about yourself or something? Pathetic.
>what happened to /pol/?
It's no longer the radical circlejerk for idiots you remember. People might actually challenge your retarded and bigoted viewpoints sometimes.
>>56576903
My contention is with the "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex" part. That seems to be the definition homosexuals are using when they point at animals.
>>56577370
the definition clearly shows that if you exhibit gay behavior, you are gay. (op states the opposite) Some animals exhibit gay behavior, therefore homosexuality exists in animals and nature. (OP states the opposite)
tell me how the definition proves any point the op has made
>>56568325
WEED
>>56577425
>there are no *positive* mutations, you're using loaded terms again. And you are wrong.
A positive mutation is defined as a mutation that carries on into later species by contributing to the fitness of the species. Whether or not you think it's a loaded term is irrelevant.
> those that benefit the species remain.
Indeed. Such a mutation would be considered a positive mutation.
>Such as supporting siblings without being as resource demanding as a sibling that produces offspring.
Whether or not an individual can produce offspring is EVERYTHING. This quality literally defines the individuals fitness, which means it defines the individuals ability to pass on its genes. This is what evolution is all about.
>>I'm not even of the opinion that survival is intrinsically "right."
But this is the argument you're constantly using.
Yes, I have argued that homosexuality is wrong due to is impedement on survival. Of course this depends on what definitions of "rightness" one is willing to accept.
>This doesn't make sense to me, please explain how you're reasoning here
If objective morality can be known - that is to say if things can be shown to be objectively wrong or right - then homosexuality can be shown to be wrong or right.
>Murder and rape are choices you make, homosexuality is not (as you yourself claim it's genetic).
This is a false dichotomy. Homosexuality can be both genetic and a choice.
>And murder and rape conflicts with the rights of other individuals while homosexuality does not.
It seems you've made a supposition about the nature of right and wrong. By this supposition, homosexuality is indeed wrong, in that is does, in fact, infringe on and conflict with the "rights of individuals." Homosexualty spreads disease significantly more than heterosexual acts. There are a plethora of documented reasons that homosexuality with be detrimental to health and well-being.
>>56568053
If you made the choice to be hetro, you are literally just gay and in the closet.
>>56577426
Yes, so you assume I haven't actually listened to you because I'm a christian. How quaint. Work on your arguing skills. This shit just isn't becoming of you.
>>56577439
>It's no longer the radical circlejerk for idiots you remember. People might actually challenge your retarded and bigoted viewpoints sometimes.
This is a sad day. Listen liberal, to be intolerant toward me simply for holding a different opinion is, by definition, bigotted. Fucking liberals took over /pol/ then, is that it? Go the fuck back to tumblr.
>>56577282
Fascist is not an insult on /pol/...
>>56578296
>Whether or not you think it's a loaded term is irrelevant.
No, you constantly use loaded terms, it's not irrelevant it indicates that you're biased
>positive mutation
No. See above.
>Whether or not an individual can produce offspring is EVERYTHING
No, similar genetic disposition can be preserved through the offspring of siblings. One generation of genetic variation is usually not very significant, there can be both mutations that benefit reproduction of the species and those that not. Processes over several generations have a larger effect.
>If objective morality can be known - that is to say if things can be shown to be objectively wrong or right - then homosexuality can be shown to be wrong or right.
Homosexuality can be both genetic and a choice.
To be honest, you perceiving it as such might mean you're bisexual because then you can choose. But for a hetero- or homosexual there is no choice.
>Homosexualty spreads disease significantly more than heterosexual acts
No. This is a strawman again. Homosexuality spreads nothing. The act of anal sex increases the chance of transmitting certain diseases, both homosexual and heterosexual partners can have and have anal sex and there is no intent of spreading diseases
