Buddha1 is Wrong about Sexuality.

Lil Light Foot said:
You can carry on waiting.
The fact that a small group of females engage in homsexual acts does not under any circumstances prove the fact that males are, especially in such huge numbers.




Yes, very scientific, that sounds like something a small child would say.
Again, you are calling me a fool, when all you have shown is that you can curse, you can recite a single person's study, you can twist words, and go around in circles. I haven't said he's the only one at all, I have merely said that he's the only one you have provided.
Click to expand...

So you're avoiding the issue. Bruce Bagemihl has clearly said that 90% to 100% mammalian males have sex with each other.

Now I will only let you go forward when you get me a peer-reviewed proof that it is not so.

And that one can ignore the findings of one accredit scientist because he is only one.
 
And you have not been able to give one of your evidences from your own observation of horses in the wild that counters what I found from the net about bisexuality in horses.
 
Right, here we are again, one person has said it, therefore it must be true.
What am I supposed to be proving that 90% of all species are not gay? Anything I provide you will say "well they're in the 5%". I am not avoiding the issue here, you are.

I am tireing of you, you may well be relentless in your obsession, which is very clearly all this is, but you still only have one damn book.
Maybe I should start saying all the world leaders etc are actually lizard men from Mars, because I have one book which stated that.
Come back to me when you can properly argue your point, until then, I have wasted much too much time on your pathetic cause.
 
Oh! so you're quitting. Shame on you! And all that talk about peer-reviewed papers! ARe the peer-reviewed papers required only when you can't oppose another's contentions. When you're asked to bring it, you just ignore the calls.

At least I have provided a scientific reference. You have no source whatsoever that says that horses are not bisexual......or that they are heterosexual by nature.

SHAME ON YOU AND YOUR DEBATING TECHNIQUE
 
Are you a complete retard?
Or do you just ignore that which goes against your theory?
I provided you with a peer reviewed paper, with at least 10 references within the introduction.
 
Bruce Bagemihl has painstakingly put together the work of other scientists to show that 90% to 100% of mammalian males have sex with each other.
Click to expand...

Okay, that reads "90 to 100% of species engage in homosexual acts" not "90 to 100% of members of any one species engage in homosexual acts." Could that

my keyboardjust died andb he ionscreen shit sucks
 
Lil Light Foot said:
Are you a complete retard?
Or do you just ignore that which goes against your theory?
I provided you with a peer reviewed paper, with at least 10 references within the introduction.
Click to expand...
I can't see acrobat files. So you'll either have to give it to me in html version or give me a jest of what it is saying about horse sexual behaviour.
 
Fafnir665 said:
Buddha1, why didnt this Bruce guy publish in a peer reviewed journal first?
Click to expand...
I remember reading somewhere that the researcher who found out about the possibility of Jesus having had relationships with men, decided to publish his findings himself. I think it was probably because he realised that the scientific institution will not do justice to his findings unless they are out in the open. He wanted to have the discussion out in the open and let scientists comment publicly upon it.

I don't know if Bruce's work have been published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal or not (I know that the journal nature has praised the book), but if he did start with the book first, I am sure his reasons were that he know how resistive the scientific world could be. That it is dead set to discredit unfairly anything that doesn't go against Darwin or heterosexuality.

Therefore, he may have wanted the debate to be out in the open, where his hard work cannot be held back by the vested interest group who control the scientific world.

I find that perfectly a reasonable thing to do in a world unreasonably controlled by Darwinism and heterosexual ideology. Don't forget that it is a world that easily dismisses two females having orgasmic sex as "preparing for a heterosexual mating" --- and it is called 'scientific' to say that.

Let's face it --- the peers comprise of the vested interest group, who will never let Darwinism be challenged --- by hook or crook. And Bagemihl decided to take the 'match' in the public arena, which is outside the 'home turf' of the peers (read vested interest group). So peers will find it more difficult to get away with their lies. In a peer-reviewed journal it was almost impossible to challenge Darwin.

That is no reason to discredit his work without any evidences.

The thing to understand is that he is only telling us what he found out from the documented works of other scientists. Most of his book is not about his first hand experience. But what other scientists have documented. It is difficult to discredit that or to assign motives to that.

Besides, his work has come out unsheathed even after so many years and has had the respect of many accredited scientist.

IF BAGEMIHL IS FAKE HOW COME HE COMMANDS SO MUCH RESPECT AND STILL A RESPECTED PROFESSOR AT A REPUTED UNIVERSITY.
 
Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl

Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance, first published in 1999, explored the wild diversity of sexual behaviour in nature. Joan Roughgarden's Evolution's Rainbow (University of California Press, £11.95) extends that picture of diversity by examining its evolutionary aspects and its social and cultural implications, from cell to society. Its subtitle gives an idea of her range: "Diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people".


From issue 2533 of New Scientist magazine, 07 January 2006, page 42
 
Fafnir665 said:
Buddha1, why didnt this Bruce guy publish in a peer reviewed journal first?
Click to expand...
I think it says a lot when a gays protest an assertion that 95% of men have a sexual need for other men.

It is not that they are being 'objective' about it. A discussion with hardcore supporters of homosexual identity will prove that they are anything but objective.

It is just that gays care too much for their identity and the political and social power that it brings to them. And if 95% of men have a sexual need for other men, there is no basis for their sexual identity. Thus their very basic social identity is at stake. They form one of the strongest 'vested interest group'.

And this amply proves my theory that 'gay' is really about gender (feminine gender to be precise) and not about sexuality. The fact is that gay men feel different from other men because of their feminine gender, but because of what society projects, they fail to see --- at a macro level --- feminine gender seperately from same-sex feelings --- so a gay identity becomes the only way to 'differ' from the masculine gendered 'straight' men.

We have already proved that 'straight' is not about heterosexuality but about gender (masculine gender to be precise)
 
it's all about women when it comes to male sexuality

men love women
their sex life revolves around women
95% of men want women for sex

how many times have you been told that buddha? 10,000,000,000?
 
leopold99 said:
i thought we were talking about humans not animals
Click to expand...
Sorry, you're mistaken, here lil foot was talking about horses, then he went on to discredit Bagemihl. and one thing led to another.
 
leopold99 said:
it's all about women when it comes to male sexuality

men love women
their sex life revolves around women
95% of men want women for sex

how many times have you been told that buddha? 10,000,000,000?
Click to expand...
I think my latest posting of evidences in the thread "95% of men have a sexual need for other men" --- i.e. too of papers presented in conferences --- amply proves my point without any doubt whatsoever.

By the way saying that 95% of men have a sexual need for other men does not mean that 95% of men cannot have a sexual need for women.
 
Fafnir665 said:
Okay, that reads "90 to 100% of species engage in homosexual acts" not "90 to 100% of members of any one species engage in homosexual acts." Could that

my keyboardjust died andb he ionscreen shit sucks
Click to expand...
No, Bagemihl clearly says that the observed incidences of male same-sex sexual behaviour in the wild range from about 1% to more than 90% in different species.

For mammals he gives figures ranging from 90% to 100% (e.g. bonobos), while others like Giraffes fall in between with 94% cases of male-male sex.
 
buddha i lived on a farm when i was growing up
and i never seen homosexuality in animals

the bantering as you call it is to get dominance for the female
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top