1. Leigh Sabio Leigh Sabio United States says:

    I'm sorry, Josiah, but that comment came off as a bit homophobic. Not all gays or lesbians use each other just as instruments of sexual pleasure. Many have sex for exactly the same reason that a straight couple with no intention of having kids would have sex: because they're attracted to each other, in love, and want a physical and emotional connection with the one they love.

    There is a world of difference between homosexuality and "weird sex crimes." Namely, that difference is consent. Homosexuality is nothing like bestiality or pedophilia, because an animal or a child cannot give consent, but a person of the same sex as you can.

    • Sarah Northwood Sarah Northwood United States says:

      maybe an example that is more similar would be between a father and a daughter or siblings.  What is it that tells us that something like this is? If there is not a standard of right and wrong, it is left up to each person's judgment. That leads to the breakdown of society.

      • Joyce Harris Joyce Harris United States says:

        This is probably the most appalling thing I've ever read. This is not a good example by human homosexual standards! The best example is by Leigh Sabio above where she emphasizes consent! Taking anyone sexually without consent is just wrong!

      • AF Brown AF Brown Canada says:

        Not. Even. Close.   Incest and child abuse are massive violations of trust.  I’ve yet to see an animal mate with a juvenile of their species!!!!  CONSENT and absence of abuse of power are critical determinants of ethical sexual relations for humans.  That’s why rape and sexual assault (no consent) and sexual harrassment or contact  between authority figures and those over whom they have power, are “not okay”.  Bosses and employees. Doctors and patients.  Counselors and clients. Teachers and students. Jail guards and inmates.  Adults Nd children, etc.  MASSIVE power imbalances.

    • J.R. Sorrow J.R. Sorrow Japan says:

      Homophobic, why when people disagree with homosexual behavior are they deemed homophobic? I am not fearful of homosexual people but if I disagree with that behavior I'm called homphobic. It does not take a rocket scientist to see how men and women are created and it doesn't take a rocket sceintist to see how this thing is supposed to work.

      • Brian Cartwright Brian Cartwright Canada says:

        If I disagree with Jews acting Jewish, am I anti-semitic? Yes. If I want black people to stop acting so black, am I racist? Yes. You don't know what the word phobia means. It's not just "fear". It's also "aversion". Look it up. Jesus.

        • Ed B Ed B Canada says:

          I disagree with homosexual behavior.  I also don't think people should get tattoos. I disagree that people should eat dogs or dolphins.

          Disagreeing with a persons or groups behavior does not constitute a phobia.

          • Sunny McCullough Sunny McCullough United States says:

            Notice, too, the only one resorting to hateful ad-hominem attack is Mr. Cartwright.  :?  Sadly, that is typical.

            • Carol Cumbie Carol Cumbie United States says:

              The same people that gave Obama a Nobel prize are you kidding me. I breed dogs and there are times dogs hump other dogs it is a pecking order. When one wants to declare dominance over the other.I have friends who are homo sexual it was their choice. There may be some that are born that way but not the amount that are out there. They want everyone to make it legal but they should have went for a contract because it will never be a marriage that is between and man and women and with that there would be no children. How homo sexuals were treated was wrong. Now it seem homosexuals are trying to get back at every with the lawsuits.it will only hurt things. If I had a son or daughter if someone made them happy I would be okay with that. I don't believe what they are saying about the animals.

              • Stephanie Kerry Stephanie Kerry United States says:

                So are you saying that I, a straight woman, should not be allowed to marry my straight male husband because we do not intend to procreate?

              • Ringspider Webb Ringspider Webb United States says:

                The article definitely uses weasel wording to make the research sound convincing, in order to push an agenda. In this case, I think it is more likely that this area of research is neither taboo or too embarrassing. It wouldn't make the researcher subject to ridicule either. The area of research just isn't that rich. 1500 animal species is about a thousandth of a percent of the total number of animal species not including insects. So the actual numbers suggests a transient trait selection rather than anything significant to speciation.

              • Bob Henderson Bob Henderson United States says:

                I believe, Carol, that is referred to as "willful ignorance." Denying a scientific study because it conflicts with your bias is such tiresome pattern. Your opinion has nothing to do with fact. If you think something that has been researched is incorrect, I encourage you to do some research of your own. Go do some field work and read some books. If you can disprove what this article says by using the scientific method, your idea will have an inkling of validity. Until then, leave your opinion out of research.

              • R Dawn Bieniek R Dawn Bieniek United States says:

                Of course you don't. I'm sure that you won't check the sources provided by the article or try to do a little independent research either, because the more factual evidence you find that contradicts what you've already set your mind to believe will only provide you with more facts you'll have to deny. Denying the truth on a full time basis is exhausting, I'm sure. Especially when you still need to find time to condemn people while simultaneously telling everyone how accepting you are.

    • Tama King Tama King New Zealand says:

      Moral of this report? If you want to engage in base animal behaviour such as homosexuality then go and join the pigs.  The whole point of Judeo Christian values of heterosexual love  especially within a marriage is to bring out the best in man and to fulfill our purpose.
      Descending to the basest od animal behaviours is nothing to be proud of. To God it is abominable behaviour. To normal folk it's disgusting and offensive.

      • Juha Räty Juha Räty Finland says:

        Scientific observations are not about moral. Our own morals should absolutely not interfere with scientific observations. What our own moral views do is exactly what this article suspects and what we know for a FACT: that Christian scientists have been time and again so stuck in theit own morality that scientific observations have been brushed aside when they didn't match their own Biblical views. The giraffe example in this article is a textbook case. That is an antithesis of science!

        Science has also been used to corroborate prejudice and racism – we only need to remind us about eugenics.

        In the days of Galileo Galilei, the Church was adamant that the Earth was the center body of the universe, around which all other bodies rotated. If it wasn't for scientific observations, we would still BELIEVE that was the case.

        Your reference to "our purpose" is only our purpose according to Christian scripture. Which should have absolutely no say in scientific context. Nor has any god any place in that context.

        We can discuss wether marriage and heterosexuality has brought out the best in man, in the light of domestic violence; wives set in fire; child negligence, abuse and rape; and the countless who were otherwise traumatised by their childhood.

        Your juxtaposition between homosexuality, pigs and decline into beasts is interesting since ancient Greek valued love between men much higher than love between men and women – for them, love between men was the highes form of love. So is it then, that their culture was a pigsty? Ancient Greece was so advanced in many respects that Christian societies reached about the same level only 2000 years later – in many fields even several hundred years later than that. Greeks founded science as we know it, as well as our aesthetics. Classical Greek art boasts the highest imaginable quality to this day.

        Some beasts, I must say!

        Christian believers, I have observed, seem to have cultivated arrogance to the "highest" form. I thought, though, that arrogance was a sin. Well, Christians never truly worried about sin as far as their interpretation of the Scripture – however twisted – stroked their own ego and bias.

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment