<p>Considering how many times I've repeated it, I think it should be clear by now that I was in no way comparing bestiality to homosexuality. I was pointing out the similarities in the type of arguments--"it's immoral and disgusting"--and noting that they are subjective claims not suited for an academic debate. Have I made this clear enough?</p>
<p>philntx - The super mod edited my post and if my entire post was "way out of line", he would have just as easily yanked the whole thing off thread. This thread is being watched very carefully by the supermods because it involves rather unusual and sensitive issues. Furthermore, even though I didn't prove anything, I logically supported what I stated in my last post using science of biology. </p>
<p>"And you'll want to do your research about 'no species in the world has sexual intercourse with its own gender.' You'd be surprised to find that most do."</p>
<p>Sure, you can have extremely primitive prokaryotic organisms inter-gender-mating but as humans, its more legit that you compare yourself with fairly advanced eukaryotic organisms. So don't try and use bacteria as a counter-example. Furthermore, these prokaryotes do it for the purpose of reproduction. Advanced eukaryotic organisms 1) don't do this and 2) even if they do it, it serves no biological purpose unlike the prokaryotes. (this is why I specifically used the phrase "biological contradiction" for homosexuality)</p>
<p>thisyearsgirl - I think that if we argue intelligently about these issues without verbally describing the physical behavior involved in these sensitive issues (such as bestiality); and without insulting others in the process, it can be suitable for academic debate.</p>
<p>Like Kevtrice said, I think this topic should be open for debate.</p>
<p>I do think there should be debate, but "It's disgusting" isn't argument enough to condemn anything. Boiled eggs sicken me, but that's not reason enough for me to say that they're immoral objects (bad example, but you know what I mean).</p>
<p>Boiled eggs sicken you? Why?</p>
<p><em>shrug</em> Personal preference. I just think they're gross. Again, it's not a perfect analogy, but put into that context it's obvious that the argument doesn't hold...</p>
<p>salon magazine recently interviewed peter singer about his new book, "the way we eat: why our food choices matter." </p>
<p>interesting, as always.</p>
<p>Take a chicken to the prom and then cook it and eat it? Where's P.E.T.A. when you really need it?</p>
<p>I'm disappointed in the quality of some of the statements being made here.
I hope that the level of intellectual discussion is far higher than this at Princeton.</p>
<p>Epoch_dreams should know that homosexuality is observed in not only very simple organisms, but in complex organisms as well, for example, sheep.
This is a fact, and isn't really up for much question; it has been well documented.
Hence, homosexuality is not entirely unnatural, as it obviously occurs in nature.</p>
<p>Even if it didn't, however, humans are a part of the nature, and hence since homosexuality obviously occurs in humans, one could argue that it happens naturally, unless epoch_dreams is going to classify homosexuality as a 'mental illness', which surely he's not going to claim, and even if he does, a mental illness is not ethically wrong.
Indeed, as many homosexuals state, it's not any kind of conscious choice they make.
Just in the way that heterosexuals are not really making a conscious decision as such to like the opposite sex, homosexuals feel naturally attracted to the same sex.
Then could one really argue that this is so unnatural, seeing that it obviously occurs 'naturally'?</p>
<p>Even if he still argues that homosexuality is unnatural, unnaturalness does not imply immorality.
One could argue that our extensive advances in scientific medicine has enabled us to prolong our lives.
Now, one could argue that this is 'against nature', since medicine is trying to interfere something that will otherwise happen, for example, a horrible infection of a scar.
Now, surely the field of medicine is not unethical, and hence homosexuality being unnatural doesn't imply it's unethicalness.</p>
<p>I do believe that it is not accurate to parallel bestiality and homosexuality, but then the poster did not intend to parallel these two anyways.
All I am trying to point out is that the arguments employed by epoch_dreams are clearly not logically sound.</p>
<p>epoch_dreams is so in the closet.</p>
<p>Um epoch_dreams, different species can't breed with eachother...</p>
<p>...so birth control wouldn't be necessary...</p>
<p>To correct roflcoptor a little, different species can't breed with each other and create viable offspring. I imagine epoch<em>dreams is thinking of mules and the like, which do occur from breeding between species, but mules can't further reproduce (except in a few very rare cases that certainly can't increase genetic diversity in horses or do donkeys). Epoch</em>dreams' argument that bestiality is more natural than homosexuality is not really valid. I'm going to stay out of the debate over whether either action is moral.</p>