Same sex marriage

"This is not what happens in Bonobo communities. If you had read even one of the articles on Bonobos you would understand this. They exchange sex for food, and other menial services. It has nothing to do with longterm, or shortterm pairbonding."Actually, in the very article you cited to support this claim from a while back (I searched around and found this):http://www.geocities.com/willc7/bonobos.htmldoesn't say this, and has a completely different interpretation of the sex and food behavior of bonobos."That sex is connected to feeding, and even appears to make food sharing possible, has been observed not only in zoos but also in the wild....One explanation for the sexual activity at feeding time could be that excitement over food translates into sexual arousal. This idea may be partly true. Yet another motivation is probably the real cause: competition. There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.
... First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults."About the only thing that even remotely resembles "prostitution" is an anecdote that actually far more closely resembles "gold-digging" to me, and can easily be seen as another example of easing tension when there is competition for a resource.Drawing moral lessons from other species is always a little suspect, and even when discussing whether an activity is "natural" you have to be pretty darn careful.But to simply state that bonobos "practice prostitution" and point to this article as evidence is a huuuuuge stretch.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 08-10-2003]

Would you consider the possibility that it is one aspect in the development of intimacy but is, in itself, intially comprised of base instinct + inculturated mate-recognition responses?In my prepubertal years I found my imagination of the sex act to be disgusting. Even now I can appreciate that sentiment when it is expressed by my male patients who no longer feel driven. I am convinced that without the instinctual urge, I would have continued to find the matter disgusting.I see no need to seek social explanations or rational motivations for sexual behavior. Sex hormones activate preprogrammed behaviors destined to culminate in reproduction. Pair bonding is a factor which contributes to the success of that success. My observation has been that attitudes and appetites associated with sexual behaviors are not gender specific; although we may caricaturize males as driven to inseminate and corrale as many females as possible; and females to manipulate and collect semen from as many males as possible. I have witnessed the outworking of these drives in the lives of the men and women whom I have known, including myself and the female partners with whom I have cohabited or otherwise shared a sexual relation.Some have characterized marriage as "legalized prostitution," and while I find that rather cynical I must report having observed things which would lead me to aggree with it. I have been in relationships where the sex was great and there seemed to be intimacy but in the end, her greatest concern seemed to be what she could take of current and future goods and services. This is often characterized as "the screwing you get for the screwing you got." And to some people's way of thinking is not much different from prostitution, except perhaps a lot more expensive and socially destructive in the long haul.db[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 08-11-2003]

NOTE: DUE TO SHARED COMPUTER ACCESS AND AUTOMATIC FIELD FILL-INS, THIS POST, ATTRIBUTED TO ZHIMBO, IS IN FACT SCHRAFINATOR.

quote:

---

Would you consider the possibility that it is one aspect in the development of intimacy but is, in itself, intially comprised of base instinct + inculturated mate-recognition responses?

---

Oh, I certainly can accept that sex is far from the only path to intimacy. There are many, many other forms of intimacy that are not sexual at all.I believe there is good evidence that the intimacy-building aspects of sex are a built-in, biological aspect of it, and that you are working against biology if you want to cleanly separate sex from intimacy.However, I am in full realization that humans are not simply a product of their biology; they can and do choose to act differently than their biology would seem to suggest they might act.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 08-11-2003]

Thank you zhimbo, this is the type of debate I was expecting from schraf when I first posted my reference, but have yet to receive. You are correct, there is no "prostitution"--- exactly as humans practice it--- among the Bonobos. I have never said this. In fact, I have admitted this at least twice in exchanges with schraf.As you have stated, and I agree, drawing moral lessons and talking about what is natural in one species, by looking at another should be suspect, and one should be careful.However, what was being addressed is schraf's assertion that sex is only used for reproduction and pair-bonding in primates, and that there are no examples of sex for pleasure or for "exchanges" (whether for power or valuables)in the animal kingdom.Not only does this research (including the very passage you quoted) refute schraf's claims, exchanges for power or valuables (like food or grooming services) ARE the animal equivalent of prostitution.After all, the trade of goods and services via barter or monetary systems is the way humans "make food sharing (among other things) possible" and work out competition for positions of power and access to goods and services. Thus while humans have a more complicated system, trading sex for money is extremely similar to a Bonobo having sex with another monkey which has a fruit, in order to get a piece of that fruit. Or equal access to a cardboard box.Using sex to "divert attention" and especially to "diffuse tension" clearly show Bonobos use sex for manipulation and perhaps personal gain, and not for monogamous pair-bonding or procreation.So, as you have rightly pointed out, there are no Bonobos who "make a living" by having sex with other Bonobos. Their "culture" is not so complex that any Bonobo has to specialize in any behavior, much less do so to "make a living." That is a human construct.But there are close similarities in the exchanges of sex for gains in power, access to goods, and services.You should check out some of the filmed documentaries on Bonobo behavior. Their use of sex as a manipulative tool, both as protracted "gold-digging" or immediate gain is bizarre when one is used to watching chimps and apes fight it out.Either way, I assume you found nothing to suggest that pleasure has nothing to do with why they do what they do, and that sex is only used for procreation and pair-bonding.Hope this response makes sense.------------------
holmes

While I admit my posts have been emotional, it was not due to the topic. It was how I have been treated by you on this topic. That said, I'm willing to ignore the pain, to go for the gain.Here is the analysis of the argument so far, devoid of all emotion. Please respond.You have argued that:a) the main purpose, or function, of human sexuality is for procreation (PC) and pair-bonding (PB).b) Since the selling of sex abuses or eliminates the pair-bonding aspect of sex, it is not a healthy or "right" use of sex.c) Whether for this reason alone, or with the additional reason that the practice of prostitution has resulted in harm to prostitutes, you think it should be illegal.To these points I have countered:a) While reproduction is (without question) the reason sex exists in any sexually reproducing organism, and it is a key component of pair-bonding in many animals, I have given specific references to mammals, primates, and humans (ie different cultures) which clearly refute the idea that either are the ONLY or the ONLY VALID uses for sex.My rebuttal comes down very hard on your pair-bonding assertion. Yes I am well aware of pair-bonding research, including the chemical connections which are brokered along these lines through sexual activity. This is similar to other phenomena such as pheromones exuded from the skin (for bonding during close proximity), and chemicals released by one's own brain which regulate bonding behavior throughout the course of a relationship.Unfortunately the key importance of sexual activity to pair-bonding, does not translate to pair-bonding being important to sexual activity. Sexual attraction and performance may be purely physical and relate to short term pleasure, or the pursuit of other ends (such as competition for resources).This is clear in the references and examples I have provided. Zhimbo has already addressed my Bonobo reference in this thread, and in the very excerpt he included with his post was evidence that procreation and pair-bonding are not the sole uses of sex for Bonobos.The most compelling though, may be research on what social environments human sexual organs and hormonal systems are adapted for. Human testes, and rates of sperm production, (as just one example) suggest they were adapted for a species where the females have multiple male partners.b) First of all, without (a) being true, (b) does not follow. But in addition to providing references specific to (a), I also provided references and examples which argued against both points together. Contrary to your assertions, most men do not seek out prostitutes for the purpose of purchasing a "fake personal relationship". Neither do many prostitutes provide such services.Your statement that some men fall in love with prostitutes was easily refuted by pointing out that men fall in love with all sorts of service workers, including coworkers. You would need to provide some evidence that men who visit prostitutes either end up in more relationships or at least exhibit more tendencies to fall in love, than men seeing women in other service professions. Your derisive comments about the history of prostitution in general is wholly inconsistent with a claim that men tend to have more feelings for prostitutes due to their sexual interaction.But for the sake of argument, let's say (a) is true and that PC and PB are the most important reasons for, and normally occur with, sexual activity. This does not logically mean that using them in other ways is somehow negative or unhealthy. You have not provided anything more than "generalizations" about men to support this extension of your argument.Along these lines, you have not addressed--- if (b) is true--- why fundamentalists are incorrect for saying homosexual sex is unhealthy given the obvious fact that PC is not a possible outcome of such a union. According to your own definition of health and nature (which hinges on PC and PB) homosexuality would not be classified "natural" or "healthy" sexual behavior.It is inconsistent for you to criticize hedonists for using sex in a way that is not "natural" (PC and PB), and fundamentalists cannot criticize homosexuals for the same thing. And appeals to the fact that homosexuals have at least one "natural purpose" under their belt (PB), would be arbitrary at best. This is underscored by your use of cattle as the example that homosexuality occurs in nature. Clearly, while natural, the cattle's behavior was neither for PC or PB.Sometimes you seem willing to accept nonPC and nonPB sexual relationships, as long as money has not been exchanged. For example, you seem amenable to one night stands and gave a glib comment suggesting men should masturbate when confronted with PC and PB urges. Without further explanation, supported by evidence that money changes the nature of casual sex for the worse, you would hold what seems to be an arbitrary position.c) Your argument of the historical harm caused by the business of prostitution to its practitioners (especially the prostitutes themselves) is erroneous. I have presented clear, objective references which evaluate its history and practice across cultures. They show that, much like abortion, it has historically been the ILLEGALITY of the business which brought harm to prostitutes and their clients alike.You have not acknowledged any of these studies, and ignored the FACT that countries do exist where prostitution is LEGAL and relationships (pair-bonding) as a whole have not suffered.....In addition to the above, there is the reductio that if we say points (a) thru (c) are correct, then you have given much support to fundamentalist arguments against: fornication, homosexuality, miscegenation, masturbation, and abortion (not a sexual practice but a practice related to sexual freedom).All of these (with the arguable exception of miscegenation) are counter to PC and PB. All of them may be considered unhealthy and unnatural according to your currently arbitrary way of defining those terms (especially homosexuality, masturbation, and abortion).All of them have involved harm to its participants, specifically within cultures intolerant of such behavior. If harm was not inflicted by members of society as punishment, then by criminal elements that prey on disempowered minorities seeking out their particular sexual practice (or freedom).
....This is all very straightforward, please respond.------------------
holmes

In discussions about prostitution I have to wonder how much of the innate disgust that some people have for the practice (I'm making a general statement here, not directed at you schraf since I don't know if that's an appropriate word to describe your feelings) has to do with the image of drug-addicted hookers on street corners being beaten up by their pimps etc. etc. Doesn't this reality exist *because* prostitution is illegal?I tend to approach this topic without reference to what is "natural" (means nothing really) or what other primates do. I would take a more practical approach that doesn't rely on moral arguments either - in fact I can't find a moral argument against prostitution. Schraf, you've raised some social arguments, eg. that prostitution perpetuates the social maladjustment of certain men. It seems to me we'd have to outlaw cybersex if that was an accepted argument. I don't think it's society's business to make laws on the basis of forcing people to become better socially adjusted (I realise this was only part of your argument). Obviously it would be nice if society took measures to encourage social adjustment (eg. local communities creating social clubs for cybersex fans) but that's not the same thing as outlawing such behaviours.Laws should centre around creating a harmonious society. Since prostitution was legalised here (Australia) it seems to me that that aspect of society is far more harmonious (not to mention safe for the people involved). That's what I mean by a practical approach.

quote:

---

Since 99% of prostitution involves men buying sex...

---

Should it be illegal for the other 1% (or whatever), ie. women, to buy sex too?What do you think of swinging, in terms of its effects on society? I don't see how swinging relates to pair-bonding or procreation.------------------
o--greyline--o

messenjaH responds to me:

quote:

---

The bible says clearly that homosexuality is a sin, are you that blinded?

---

Nope. Just that educated.Leviticus says nothing about homosexuality. It's about temple prostitution.1 and 2 Kings are about inhospitality, not homosexuals. Surely you don't think that the sin of Sodom had anything to do with sex, do you?I'm having a hard time finding the Judges 14:14-29 passages you're referring to since Judges 14 only has 20 verses and is about Samson and his wife.Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy are all about temple prostitution.Question: What words are used in those passages? To take a single example, what do you think "arsenkoites" means? Paul makes up this word. It's a conglomeration of two other words which mean "male" and "prostitute."Now it is quite true that there was same-sex sexual activity going on insde the temples for the fertility rites. But there was also opposite-sex sex going on. The condemnation is not against the sex, per se. It's about the reason why it is taking place, the fact that it is outside of marriage, that it is being used to worship something other than god. These rites were the sign of pagan worship, antathema to the monotheistic Jews.

quote:

---

You see, I stand to my words as homosexuality has been mentioned in the bible

---

Since the word "homosexual" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible, I fail to see how you have proven anything.And I'm not playing a semantic game of requiring that specific word. I'm talking about the specific concept of what we understand "homosexual" to be. The ancients had no concept of what we would call "homosexual," so how on earth could they be saying anything about it?I've got an object on my bathroom counter. Tell me something about it like its color. How big is it? Is it a unique item or part of a set? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?Do you see my point? With no knowledge about it, you can't tell me anything about it. So since the concept of "homosexual" didn't exist then, how could there possibly be any passage about it?

quote:

---

For a gay person to become a figurehead of a church is to ignore almost every book in the bible.

---

Why not? David was. And he was king.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."Genesis 13:13: "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly."
(Their sins included homosexuality)Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."Romans 1:24-32:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.Here you go, just to name a few.Educated? Apparently not in the bible.Oh yeah, sorry for the typo.------------------
"I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewisholla at me for any reason at lol: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

Explain how you "interpret" David as a homosexual.------------------
"I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewisholla at me for any reason at lol: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

But clearly Rrhain's point is that English bibles are mistranslated; that they read "homosexual" where a more accurate translation would be "temple prostitute".I mean, Rrhain is quoting you from the source your bible is based on. Why do you think your quotes are better than his?

holmes writes:

quote:

---

Sorry, but the destruction of Sodom is about something much more than homosexuality. Yes it doesn't help matters that they are lusting after men, but the main point is the poor treatment of strangers.

---

Not only was the sin of Sodom inhospitality, there was no indication of homosexuality to be found in the story.The single phrase that makes some people think it has something to do with sex is this:Genesis 19:4: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:19:5: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.Now take a look at this: The entire population of men comes to the door to inquire about the strangers Lot is harboring.Can anybody be serious in saying that the entire male population of Sodom was gay? Every last one of them? How on earth did they manage to have any children?And the specific word in question is "know." Now it is true, in Hebrew the word "yada" can mean sexual relations. However, it has to be phrased in a very specific way. If I were to say to you in English, "Come over and you can 'get to know' my parents," you wouldn't think I was suggesting you have sex. No, to do that in English, I'd have to phrase it in a special way such as "know carnally."That phrasing is not used in Genesis 19. The exact same phrasing as used in Genesis 19 is used over 100 other times in the Bible and not once is it considered to mean sex. So what is so special about Genesis 19 that this single instance suddenly means what no other instance does?And let's not forget what the mob says to Lot when he offers his daughters:Genesis 19:9: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.In other words, they were shocked as hell that Lot thought they could be distracted with offers of sex. They rebuke him for this insult and a riot starts.No, in order to understand Genesis 19, we have to go back to Genesis 14:Genesis 14:1: And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;14:2: That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.Notice the second verse: Sodom was at war. And what happened during that war?14:12: And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.14:13: And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.14:14: And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.That's right...Lot was taken captive and his brother (or was it his uncle?...the Bible contradicts itself), Abram, raised an army.And kicks ass. He humiliates the king of Sodom publically:Genesis 14:22: And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,14:23: That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:14:24: Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.So think about it:1) You're a country who was recently at war.
2) You lost. Big time.
3) You took the brother/nephew of the guy who whupped your ass.
4) He humiliates your king.
5) That brother/nephew is now harboring strangers whom he refuses to identify.Now you tell me, what do you think the entire male population might be doing at his door? Let's put it in a light that we 'murrukins might understand:Suppose we were beaten back by the Iraqis but before we did, we had taken Uday and Qusay. While their in our country and while we are licking our wounds, we find out that they've brought in a couple of their friends and managed to get them inside our borders without passing customs or even having passports.How quickly do you think John Ashcroft and the rest of the FBI would be at their door demanding them to bring forth their friends so that he might "know" them?Do you really think sex would have anything to do with it?

quote:

---

But don't worry, some of your other citations support the anti-gay bigotry you say the Xtian church has, as I will elaborate in my own response to Rrhain.

---

Nope, not a single one of those passages has anything to do with homosexuality.Remember, there was no word for "homosexual" in Hebrew or Greek at the time. This isn't to say that you couldn't talk about people who only had sex with people of the same sex, but you have to come up with a roundabout way of saying it because the simple concept of "homosexual" did not exist.Take a look at some of the Latin American cultures. A "gay" man is specifically the receptive partner. He is the one who performs oral sex. He is the one who receives anal sex. The man who is on "top" is not gay. Even though it's another man with whom he is having sex, he is not gay precisely because he is on top.Do you really think that any particular statements made about "gays" in that culture would be in reference to the men on top? Nobody thinks they're gay, so how could you be saying anything about them?Instead, if you look at the specific words used, the phrasings in which they are used, and the context in which the statements are made, you find that they are dealing with temple prostitutes.Paul's words are particularly direct. "Arsenkoitai," a word he made, means, literally, "male temple prostitute."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

But let's get serious, in order to make Xtianity look gay-friendly

---

Wait just a parboiled second there. Who said anything about "gay-friendly"? The closest the Bible comes to anything even remotely resembling what we would understand as "homosexuality" are David and Johnathan.Jesus says absolutely nothing about it. None of the other passages can be seriously construed to mean homosexuality. The specific words used in the phrasings that they were used and the contexts in which they were said do not point to homosexuality.Since there was no word for that concept, how could they be condemning it?So the rest of your post can be dismissed. It isn't that the Bible is gay-friendly.It's pretty much silent on the subject.

quote:

---

This hardly cuts down the argument that homosexual sex acts are bad according to the Bible.

---

But the Bible says nothing about it. All the references that make any connection to same-sex sex are all about ritualistic sex and temple prostitutes. Yes, even Leviticus 20.

quote:

---

On the other hand, pro-gay Xtians are majorly missing the point in believing this forgiveness or love somehow legitimates the practice of homosexual sex.

---

Since the Bible is mute on the subject, what point is there to miss?That, I think, is the point you are missing. Nobody is saying that the Bible tells people to go out and find a good gay lover if that's where their inclinations lie. Instead, the Bible says nothing about it. It doesn't even consider the idea that there would be people who would only have sex with people of the same sex.There is no concept of homosexuality as we understand it at the time.Let's look at Sparta. This city-state had enforced homosexuality. Any boys who lived to the age of 7 (assuming they hadn't been thrown over a cliff for not being up to snuff) were sent to the agoge for training where they were taken in by an older soldier who would teach him about the ways of life in Sparta, including sex.By the time these men got married (and the average age of marriage for Spartan men was the late 20s), they had hardly ever seen women. They would have no concept of how to have sex with women. Thus, there was a common ritual to help them "make the switch" whereby the newly wedded groom would slip away from his mates, go to his wife in the dark, have sex with her, and then quietly rejoin his fellows in the common mess.Not all men needed this ritual, but for many, this sexual tip-toeing would continue for years.And yet, none of these people would have thought of themselves as "gay" though clearly some were.You cannot interpret the Bible using our standards. It simply does not mean what we think it means. You have to read it within the confines of the author's time and culture.And they had no idea what we would mean by "homosexual." So how could they possibly be making any condemnations against them? How do you condemn what you don't know exists?

quote:

---

But should the Xtian church allow ACTIVELY gay clergy? Ahem... should it allow active thieves into the clergy?

---

Since thievery is a sin and same-sex sex is not, one wonders why you are comparing the two.Let's not forget, the Catholic Church was performing same-sex marriage up until a couple centuries ago. If they didn't think it was wrong then, why would it have been wrong before them?

quote:

---

I'm simply saying once moral lines are adopted (and in the Bible it is clear that homosexual acts are at least the equivalent of acts of theft), certain decisions or judgements are clearcut. It is just a matter of following moral proscriptions to their logical conclusions.

---

And that's perfectly fine.The problem is that they are using a work that clearly does not say what they think it says.It is very much like people who misquote Darwin thinking that it somehow "proves" that even he thought it was a fraud.Do we allow misquotes and misconceptions to continue simply because we don't want to offend somebody? If somebody wants to think that being gay or engaging in same-sex sexual behaviour is some sort of affront to god, they can go right ahead.But it isn't the Bible they get it from.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

This is where I am going to ask you to review your own arguments. Your post--- linking the naturalness of homosexuality in humans to the sexuality of animals--- involved cattle mounting each other when they get "horny."

​

This hardly suggests that the level of "intimacy" you say sex is all about, finds its source in nature.

---

The example by schraf was just a throwaway example. If you want to get into the subject, then let's look at a comprehensive analysis of it:Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl.You seem to be hinting at the very bias Bagemihl mentions: [emphasis theirs]This is the problem many people have with comparing humans to other animals. We like to think we are somehow "above" animals. And yet, we want to have our cake and eat it, too. We want to declare certain things that humans do as "unnatural," claiming that animals don't do it, therefore it must be a product of the human nature to sin.And yet, when we find animals doing the exact same behaviour, we have to somehow sidestep it, claim that this particular example of animal behaviour doesn't apply to humans as a "natural" behaviour.The simple answer, of course, is that everything that humans do is natural. We are a part of nature, so how could anything we do be "unnatural"? What would be "unnatural" is if you could find, say, a baby that matured into a normal, healthy adult in the space of two hours after birth. That would violate so many laws of physics that I daresay it could be called "supernatural."In nature, we find the gamut of sexual relationships from dolphins who will screw anything to certain birds that mate for life.In humans, there is a strong urge to pair-bond. Even among males. It is not so strong as it appears in other animals, but it is there. There's a reason people get jealous when their sexual partners start looking elsewhere. That's biology.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator writes:

quote:

---

To argue that prostitution is natural in the animal kingdom, or even just in our closest relatives, you would first have to show that they have an economic system and business contracts.

---

Well, now that you mention it....If you look at bonobo chimpanzees, you will find that sex is used as a commodity. Oh, they don't have an economic system nearly as complicated as ours, but sex is used to help settle arguments. And it's not the same as "giving a box of chocolates."

quote:

---

It's not like a Bonobo drives into the city to give a piece of fruit to a Bonobo they have never seen before and is guaranteed sexual access to her in exchange for that fruit.

---

Um, now that you mention it...it is a little like that. One of the ways that unconnected bonobos will greet each other is with sex. And often, bonobos will give offerings to others they like having sex with simply to have sex with them.

quote:

---

Nope, didn't just slam all men. I made a generalization. Not the same. If you like, insert a "on the whole" or "on average" or something, to clarify.

---

And yet, it would appear that even "on the whole" or "on average" isn't true.Most people will get married.Most of those marriage proposals will be made by men.Most divorces will be initiated by women and men will be the ones more likely to contest it.So it would appear that men are the ones that want the commitment but women are the ones that don't.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

messenjaH responds to me:

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

---

Mistranslation. "Homosexual offenders" is incorrect.

quote:

---

Genesis 13:13: "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly."
(Their sins included homosexuality)

---

No, it didn't. Please show me where. I went into a long discussion about Genesis 19 and showed how there is nothing in the story that could even be remotely construed as homosexuality.

quote:

---

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

---

Again, temple prostitutes. You're ignoring context.

quote:

---

Romans 1:24-32

---

The word used by Paul is "arsenkoitai" which means, literally, "male temple prostitute."

quote:

---

Here you go, just to name a few.

---

None of them have to do with homosexuality. Please come up with an actual verse that talks about homosexuality.This will be hard since the concept of homosexuality didn't exist.

quote:

---

Educated?

---

In the Bible? Yes.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!