Is it wrong to compare Homosexuality to Bestiality on a Political Forum?

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I recently saw a headline about how the first gay cave man was found. It made me think how people claim that homosexuality is genetic. I was about to post a thread saying that a gay cave man does not prove that homosexuality is genetic, because a male of any species will fuck anything, so when he does fuck anything that does not prove anything except that he will fuck anything.

Men fuck:

Their sisters
Their mothers
Animals
Their hands
Artificial objects

Animals will have sex with animals that are not even their species. Dogs will hump your leg, your shoe. The entire species of mules is the result of male donkeys having sex with female horses. Dolphins in captivity will try to have sex with people due to sheer sexual frustration. Male killer whales will will rub each other while fully erect.

Testosterone drives males to an insatiable need to fuck and that's all it really is. All males of all species have a chemical flowing through their veins 24 hours a day that says: fuck, fuck, fuck. It's a chemical and a reaction to the chemical. Testosterone is as neurological as adrenaline or steroids.

Now while all of that is fine on an intellectual level, you would never be able to get away with this kind of talk in a university or school environment, therefore is it appropriate to make these arguments on a political forum?


WEB

[RichardChing]

where you must draw the line is the ability to give informed consent. this goes for children, animals, etc. two consenting adults who agree to have sex are not causing you personal harm in any way, and therefore you cannot make a law to criminalize that activity.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

two consenting adults who agree to have sex are not causing you personal harm in any way, and therefore you cannot make a law to criminalize that activity.

This is irrelevant to my comment.

[RichardChing]

This is irrelevant to my comment.

I'm sorry for being unclear. The distinction between homosexuality and bestiality is 1) homosexuals are humans not beasts (this is a biological scientific fact), and 2) human adults can give informed consent. Since the two are quite different, the answer is "yes" it is wrong to compare homosexuality to bestiality on a political forum.

[Mike]

The distinction between homosexuality and bestiality is 1) homosexuals are humans not beasts (this is a biological scientific fact), and 2) human adults can give informed consent. Since the two are quite different, the answer is "yes" it is wrong to compare homosexuality to bestiality on a political forum.I agree. But I think we may certainly discuss the issue of whether homosexuality is genetic. I think I will start a separate thread and see if anybody wants to discuss THAT particular issue.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I'm sorry for being unclear. The distinction between homosexuality and bestiality is 1) homosexuals are humans not beasts (this is a biological scientific fact), and 2) human adults can give informed consent. Since the two are quite different, the answer is "yes" it is wrong to compare homosexuality to bestiality on a political forum.

Humans are beasts, which is why I compared humans to beasts. I did not single out just gays for comparison to beasts. Therefore, to say that only gays were compared to beasts does not accurately represent what I've said. Since I've compared all humans (including gay people) to beasts, I would say that the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality on a political forum is appropriate when done in that way.


WEB

[Mike]

Humans are beasts, which is why I compared humans to beasts. I did not single out just gays for comparison to beasts. Therefore, to say that only gays were compared to beasts does not accurately represent what I've said. Since I've compared all humans (including gay people) to beasts, I would say that the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality on a political forum is appropriate when done in that way.WEBNow I'm confused. If all humans are beasts, and if homosexuality is comparable to bestiality, then how is heterosexuality not also comparable to bestiality?

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Now I'm confused. If all humans are beasts, and if homosexuality is comparable to bestiality, then how is heterosexuality not also comparable to bestiality?

Your question assumes that I've said that heterosexuality is not also comparable to bestiality. I never said that. To quote myself: "a male of any species will fuck anything, so when he does fuck anything that does not prove anything except that he will fuck anything.

Men fuck:

Their sisters
Their mothers
Animals
Their hands
Artificial objects"

You're assuming that casting homosexual sex in an unfavorable light must mean the glorification of heterosexual sex. Actually I casted all sex in the unfavorable light of realism.

[Mike]

Your question assumes that I've said that heterosexuality is not also comparable to bestiality. I never said that. To quote myself: "a male of any species will fuck anything, so when he does fuck anything that does not prove anything except that he will fuck anything.

Men fuck:

Their sisters
Their mothers
Animals
Their hands
Artificial objects"

You're assuming that casting homosexual sex in an unfavorable light must mean the glorification of heterosexual sex. Actually I casted all sex in the unfavorable light of realism.Although you interpret my remark that way, I really didn't assume or intend THAT. On the other hand, re-reading my question I see why you wrote what you just did. In any event at the time it made sense to me and so I asked you about it, that's all. And right now, I'm even more puzzled to read that you cast all sex in what to me seems like such an unfavorable light. I'm not trying to refute you, I'm merely trying to understand.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Although you interpret my remark that way, I really didn't assume or intend THAT. On the other hand, re-reading my question I see why you wrote what you just did. In any event at the time it made sense to me and so I asked you about it, that's all. And right now, I'm even more puzzled to read that you cast all sex in what to me seems like such an unfavorable light. I'm not trying to refute you, I'm merely trying to understand.

"A male of any species will fuck anything." That's all I'm really saying. The numerous examples I provided of masturbation, inbreeding, and cross-species sex are proof. Those are all facts. It's often a good idea to cast all things in the unfavorable light of realism. One could say that is actually my modus operandi on this forum. I cast things in the unfavorable light of realism, stripped of their glorification and BS justifications.

In the process of doing so in the case of homosexuality, I trampled right over a sacred cow: thou shalt not compare homosexuality to bestiality. So that posed the question: Is it wrong to compare homosexuality to bestiality on a political forum? As I mentioned in the opening post, on an intellectual level, it has justification, but it still tramples a rule that many people take very seriously: you don't compare homosexuality to bestiality, even if you are comparing all male sex (homo and hetero) to bestiality. It has similarities to, but is not the same thing as the rule about how white people don't get to say the n-word.


WEB

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

P.S. I think my phrasing might cause some misunderstanding here. I am using the phrase compared to bestiality in the loosest possible meaning. I do not believe that heterosexual sex has the same moral repugnance as bestiality, but by laying out an overarching theory of male sex drive (which took all sexual behavior into account i.e. bestiality, masturbation, inbreeding, homosexuality, etc), I did TECHNICALLY compare heterosexuality and homosexuality to bestiality.

One could say that even mentioning the word bestiality in the same sentence as homosexuality is a comparison, and so I used the loosest possible meaning of the word "comparing" in order to give criticism of my own position the maximum strength it could have. It's generally a good idea to anticipate the weaknesses of one's own arguments and the strength of opposing arguments.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Additional edits made.