Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nomander, if a teacher reads a book to her children where a prince marries a princess, do you consider that sexual? If not, how would it be any different if the teacher read a book about a princess marrying a princess, or a prince with a prince?
Well, by the definitional status of marriage, it would assume a relation of such nature being that the entire purpose of marriage historically and definitional is to delineate bloodlines be it for record of medical, legal, or other similar purposes. Though bloodline was originally its main focus and adaptions have always centered around the legal claim of blood concerning that consummation.
I find it confusing to apply those concepts to youth as its logical organization is not apparent without establishing sexual connotation. A child may believe this coupling is normal and like normal relationships provide offspring. It only seems logical from a child's mind to begin asking standard questions a child often asks such as where babies come from and how they are produced. The confusing matter is that sexual action as a concept of pleasure outside of normal reproduction has to be introduced earlier in order to explain the concept logically to a child without essentially turning its ability to logically deduce upside down.
This is why some people may complain as in order to properly explain to a child the relationship, the parents must either lie through complete contradiction to concept or delve deep into concepts that may not be appropriate for a child of that age to consider in a mature fashion.
Now, you still haven't answered my question about childrens books.
Nor have you properly summarized anything I have said. If my discussion is too formal for you, then please do not respond. I do not wish to spend my time educating you on logic and critical reading.
I find it confusing to apply those concepts to youth as its logical organization is not apparent without establishing sexual connotation. A child may believe this coupling is normal and like normal relationships provide offspring. It only seems logical from a child's mind to begin asking standard questions a child often asks such as where babies come from and how they are produced. The confusing matter is that sexual action as a concept of pleasure outside of normal reproduction has to be introduced earlier in order to explain the concept logically to a child without essentially turning its ability to logically deduce upside down.
This is why some people may complain as in order to properly explain to a child the relationship, the parents must either lie through complete contradiction to concept or delve deep into concepts that may not be appropriate for a child of that age to consider in a mature fashion.
This would be the normal course of conversation with a 5 year old.
That they would ask where their babies come from. They know that babies come from "mommy's tummy," in this situation they don't......so the normal course of conversation would be where their babies come from. Thus, opening the door for having to explain more or lie.
The reason is simple. There is no evidence that proves animals are born attracted only to the opposite sex. See, humans seem to want to act as if animals think and feel the same ways we do. The actions of animals are not evidence of homosexuality in nature. Look at the word itself. Homo-sexuality. You can not associate the same word with animals because they do not act on sexual desire, they act on instinct. We see this time and time again, displayed by animals we are more closely associated with. There are many instances when you will see a dog,cat,rabbit,etc. performing sexual acts on a member of the same sex. But it is a hormone based reaction, not a sexual desire. They are doing what the signals of nature tell them, but they are confused as to the source and are simply doing what is in their nature to do. If there are only male animals close by, chances are one of them just might get attacked. But this was not the action of some animal who couldn't control it's sexual desire for a member of the same sex. It was an animal in the grips of the hormones that control its sexual activities. You are trying to pass human desire into the animal kingdom. Most animals do not function as we do mentally. They act on instinct and natural signals such as smells, body language, etc. That is why the argument holds no ground. You can point out examples of visual homo-sex activity all you want. Desire is something that has not been proven.
And humans want to think and act as though all members of the animal kingdom only act on instinct, just because you say there is no evidence doesn't mean it isn't a possibility and I believe your argument is susceptible. I'll try and find some research into animal behaviour and share and get your insight if I find something contrary to what you are saying. I think you are dismissing higher order animals with your post to be honest, but at current time I can't counter. If I am right, than my argument to use the animal kingdom and in particular those animals that are not only behaving on instinct, than I do believe my use of the animal kingdom in support of my argument connecting human homosexuality with it, is valid- my gut tells me that certain animals are behaving beyond just an instinct. I do appreciate your insight though, and I agree with you that animals as a whole are much more instinctual than humans I just don' buy that for all of them it is just instinctual, we humans are still animals and we are still instinctual animals -we can't just dismiss away our instincts because we have a more developed brains, our instinct are a strong part of us.
At the end of the day, It is not a person like you I have to convince. I know what your stance is on human homosexuality and I very much appreciate it. You might be right in that i'm beating a dead horse with this. Even if i'm completely right, it is probably not going to do much to open up the hearts of those that want to dismiss being gay to just some deviant sexual desire and nothing more. That is the sad part!
Last edited by mississauga75; 05-25-2009 at 12:03 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-we can't just dismiss away our instincts because we have a more developed brains, our instinct are a strong part of us.
