Homoseksualnost i usvajanje djece

[Avetinho]

Neophodno je poznavati zakonske odredbe.

Radi se o tome da se zakon promijeni i ustanove civilizacijske norme, medju koje spadaju ljudska prava i zabrana diskriminaceje po rasnoj, etnickoj, polnoj, starosnoj, invalidskoj, religijskoj, zdravstvenoj i osnovi seksualne orijentacije. Ako sam zaboravio koju legitimnu, neka me neko dopuni.

[Leo_alfa]

Poznavanje zakonskih odredbi je neophodno kako bi se izbjegle loše analogije.

Kako bi se izbjegle lose analogije potrebno je razumijevanje. Dok zakonske odredbe predstavljaju upravo rezultat promisljanja i razumijevanja problematike (ili bar stepen do kojeg smo to uspjeli), obratno postaviti stvari nema smisla.

[S4mpion]

Ne vrijedi. Normu kreiramo mi. Sve što staviš na papir može postat norma.

[Niemand]

Upravo si opisala jedno tipicno ljudsko ponasanje koje nije svojstveno iskljucivo odredjenoj grupi koja se po necemu drugom izdvaja. Sve homoseksualce vezati uz to ponasanje je stereotip (svi su isti, jesu, ali ne po ponasanju, nego po seksualnoj opredjeljenosti). Zahtijevati simpatije je prosto glupo, pa ko god da to radi, bio homoseksualac ili ne.
S jedne strane mogu razumjeti da postoji odredjeni stav koji veliki broj ljudi potencira cesto bez razloga i preko mjere, ali opet ni to nije svojstveno iskljucivo homoseksualcima (ako vec jeste kao sto pises, nemam razloga da ti ne vjerujem), nego i drugim skupinama ljudi cija prava se zanemaruju i umanjavaju, npr. Romi. U SAD-u se na taj "fazon" cesto komicari i zezaju kada kroz skeceve opisuju razne situacije gdje crnci "igraju na kartu" upravo toga sto su crnci, pa uplicu rasizam tamo gdje ga nema i onda imas jednu globalnu zezanciju...

Upravo, kao sto rekoh u prethodnom postu svi su manjina necega po necemu, pa tako i po ovom pitanju. Neki to potenciraju uporno, neki ne. Samo sto su jedni uvijek glasniji.
A za sliku

[Leo_alfa]

Ne vrijedi. Normu kreiramo mi. Sve što staviš na papir može postat norma.

A na osnovu cega? Valjda cemo razmisliti malo prije nego napisemo zakon. Ukoliko hocemo, onda taj zakon moze imati smisla. Znaci da je to sasvim logican slijed kojim idu ove stvari o kojima pricamo.
Kada se na doneseni zakon postave novi zahtjevi slijedi isti princip, razmislimo i donesemo izmjenu zakona, dopunu zakona, novi zakon, ali ne odgovaramo "Imamo zakon, to je raspravljena stvar i ciao." inace bi se jos uvijek gadjali kamenjem i sibali po trgovima.

[Avetinho]

Upravo si opisala jedno tipicno ljudsko ponasanje koje nije svojstveno iskljucivo odredjenoj grupi koja se po necemu drugom izdvaja. Sve homoseksualce vezati uz to ponasanje je stereotip (svi su isti, jesu, ali ne po ponasanju, nego po seksualnoj opredjeljenosti). Zahtijevati simpatije je prosto glupo, pa ko god da to radi, bio homoseksualac ili ne.
S jedne strane mogu razumjeti da postoji odredjeni stav koji veliki broj ljudi potencira cesto bez razloga i preko mjere, ali opet ni to nije svojstveno iskljucivo homoseksualcima (ako vec jeste kao sto pises, nemam razloga da ti ne vjerujem), nego i drugim skupinama ljudi cija prava se zanemaruju i umanjavaju, npr. Romi. U SAD-u se na taj "fazon" cesto komicari i zezaju kada kroz skeceve opisuju razne situacije gdje crnci "igraju na kartu" upravo toga sto su crnci, pa uplicu rasizam tamo gdje ga nema i onda imas jednu globalnu zezanciju...

Upravo, kao sto rekoh u prethodnom postu svi su manjina necega po necemu, pa tako i po ovom pitanju. Neki to potenciraju uporno, neki ne. Samo sto su jedni uvijek glasniji.
A za sliku

Ne potenciraju oni to zato sto su manjina, nego zato sto, ako ne cute i sakrivaju ko su i sta su, dobivaju batine, bivaju otpusteni s posla, stigmatizirani u svim oblastima zivota, nemaju paravo da osnuju brak s kim zele, niti da usvajaju djecu. Donedavno je u Bosni bilo krivicno djelo biti homo, eto bar to vise nije tako.

[Leo_alfa]

Ne potenciraju oni to zato sto su manjina, nego zato sto, ako ne cute i sakrivaju ko su i sta su, dobivaju batine, bivaju otpusteni s posla, stigmatizirani u svim oblastima zivota, nemaju paravo da osnuju brak s kim zele, niti da usvajaju djecu. Donedavno je u Bosni bilo krivicno djelo biti homo, eto bar to vise nije tako.

S tim se mogu sloziti u potpunosti. A za ovaj boldirani dio nisam znao

[York Light 100`s]

Dje si doktore, nisam vidio da si to ti. Koji su to hormoni poremeceni, i kako se odremecuju?

Evo me pacijentu, da to sam ja
Poremećaj hormona, pa procenti ženskih hormona u muškaraca i muških u žena. Ima razlog zašto je dobar procenat homoseksualnih muškaraca feminizirano i ne, ne govorim o pederima iz komedija ili stereotipima sa gay parada

Sta kaze tvoja medicina, kako se to odremecuje, i o kojim tacno hormonima se radi, gdje se stvaraju, i koji su procenti normalni.

Vidim da si strucan, zato te pitam.

Nisam ni stručnjak niti doktor nego se osjećam kao kada bi me pitao da dokažem da se voda uzima na usta a ne na uho a sam proces kako se unosi tečnost u organizam nam govori koji je ispravan postupak.
Većina feminiziranih homoseksualaca a i sama privlačnost prema muškom polu samo potvrđuje da je homoseksualnost poremećaj.
Ne možeš mi reći da dva muškarca, jednog privlači muško a drugog žensko, da je na istom nivou kao dva muškarca gdje jedan voli žene tipa Kim Kardashian a drugi žene tipa Maya Sar ili kao dva muškarca, jedan voli deblje žene a drugi mršavije žene gdje se može reći da je sve samo stvar ukusa, ovdje se ipak radi o drastičnoj razlici, privlačnost prema istom ili suprotnom polu.
Čak i ima dosta članaka o tome na internetu

A review of current research shows that there is no evidence supporting a social cause for homosexuality [8, 9]. On the contrary, there are multiple studies, both with animals and humans, demonstrating the causative relationship with the pre-natal testosterone during a critical stage in "defeminization".

Dr. Harry Harlow's famous studies with Rhesus monkeys [5] demonstrated that such things as love and the ability to nurture healthy children was a learned skill that could be altered by after birth experiences. This non-biologic effect may play a role in female homosexuality and may also be a contributing factor in the degree to which congenital homosexuality is either expressed or repressed. But they do not cause homosexuality.

How Do Brains Get Gender?

Embryology teaches that early embryos all start out as female. At some point in early gestation, if the chromosomes destine the fetus to be male, the embryo is altered by the genetically programmed addition of certain hormones, called androgens. These androgens, especially testosterone, instruct the embryo to develop male characteristics. In their absence, the embryo continues to develop into a female.

An "XX" pair of chromosomes will yield a female; an "XY" pair will result in a male. The "X" is always contributed from the mother (since she has only "X's"), but the father can contribute either an "X" or a "Y"-- so it is the father's genetic contribution that determines the gender of the child. If homosexual men have "XY" pairs which are typically male in all respects, what makes their hypothalamus different?

Ukratko, socijalno okruženje ne može biti uzrok za seksualno opredjeljenje u šta većina vjeruje jer imamo homoseksualaca koji su odrasli na selu u konzervativnim i religijskim porodicama a imamo i slučajeva gdje su odrasli u centru Berlina ili New Yorka gdje se slobodnije živi, znači stvar je u androgenim hormonima, manjak tih hormona dovodi do toga da je većina muškaraca ili feminizirana i(li) ih privlači većina stvari šta žene privlači pa čak i partner kao što kod žena previše tog hormona isto može biti relevantno po pitanju hetero ili homo.

[Avetinho]

Ne potenciraju oni to zato sto su manjina, nego zato sto, ako ne cute i sakrivaju ko su i sta su, dobivaju batine, bivaju otpusteni s posla, stigmatizirani u svim oblastima zivota, nemaju paravo da osnuju brak s kim zele, niti da usvajaju djecu. Donedavno je u Bosni bilo krivicno djelo biti homo, eto bar to vise nije tako.

S tim se mogu sloziti u potpunosti. A za ovaj boldirani dio nisam znao

Homoseksualnost u Bosni i Hercegovini

U Federaciji BiH homoseksualnost je dekriminalizirana 1996. godine a u Republici Srpskoj 1998. godine.

http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoseksua ... ercegovini

[Niemand]

Ne potenciraju oni to zato sto su manjina, nego zato sto, ako ne cute i sakrivaju ko su i sta su, dobivaju batine, bivaju otpusteni s posla, stigmatizirani u svim oblastima zivota, nemaju paravo da osnuju brak s kim zele, niti da usvajaju djecu. Donedavno je u Bosni bilo krivicno djelo biti homo, eto bar to vise nije tako.

Ne bih se slozila sa ovim. U bosni ima ne mali broj homoseksualaca koji zive normalno (sta god to znacilo). A sad sta mahala misli o njima, to je druga stvar. Licno poznajem djevojku koja je homoseksualna. Otvoreno, javno, nazovi kako hoces. Nema nikakvih problema.

[bleee_sa]

Ne potenciraju oni to zato sto su manjina, nego zato sto, ako ne cute i sakrivaju ko su i sta su, dobivaju batine, bivaju otpusteni s posla, stigmatizirani u svim oblastima zivota, nemaju paravo da osnuju brak s kim zele, niti da usvajaju djecu. Donedavno je u Bosni bilo krivicno djelo biti homo, eto bar to vise nije tako.

Ne bih se slozila sa ovim. U bosni ima ne mali broj homoseksualaca koji zive normalno (sta god to znacilo). A sad sta mahala misli o njima, to je druga stvar. Licno poznajem djevojku koja je homoseksualna. Otvoreno, javno, nazovi kako hoces. Nema nikakvih problema.

Daj broj

[Niemand]

Daj broj

Ima curu ba a Niemand ima samo 20tak brojeva u mobitelu

[York Light 100`s]

Ne potenciraju oni to zato sto su manjina, nego zato sto, ako ne cute i sakrivaju ko su i sta su, dobivaju batine, bivaju otpusteni s posla, stigmatizirani u svim oblastima zivota, nemaju paravo da osnuju brak s kim zele, niti da usvajaju djecu. Donedavno je u Bosni bilo krivicno djelo biti homo, eto bar to vise nije tako.

S tim se mogu sloziti u potpunosti. A za ovaj boldirani dio nisam znao

Homoseksualnost u Bosni i Hercegovini

U Federaciji BiH homoseksualnost je dekriminalizirana 1996. godine a u Republici Srpskoj 1998. godine.

http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoseksua ... ercegovini

Jao, jao, šta reče u RSu je homoseksualnost dekriminalizirana 1998. a u Federaciji 1996?
Pa u RSu u 2015. još nisi dekriminaliziran ako se zoveš Meho ili Huso, u BiH si još dekriminaliziran ako si dijete iz mješanog braka, e jesi i našao državu gdje ćemo pričati o ugroženosti gayeva
U jednom dijelu države dobiješ po nosu ako nosiš zastavu BiH a neko se žali što ne vihori zastava duginih boja

Za šta se bori to Udruženje Q?

Udruženje Q, osnovano 2002. godine a registrovano početkom 2004., je posvećeno zaštiti ljudskih prava LGBTIQ osoba (lezbejki, gej muškaraca, biseksualnih, transrodnih, interseksualnih i queer osoba) u Bosni i Hercegovini.

da Hase Bošnjo koji izađe iz ormara konačno može slobodno šetati Višegradom i drugim gradovima Šumske a da ne dobije kamen u glavu

[Idemedosumom]

Homoseksualnost je anomalija, neprirodno stanje, bolest. I ne baš tako davno su takvi ljudi išli kod ljekara da se liječe. A danas su pederi skroz normalna stvar. Ali zato oni koji idalje misle da su pederi bolesni, eh takvi ljudi se danas smatraju "bolesnim" (homofobija, koja lolčina), i danas bi oni trebali ići na liječenje.

Mnogi se ovdje trude dokazati kako homoseksualnost nije isto kao i druge seksualne devijacije, ali to uopšte nije bitno, ako jednoj skupini popustiš, onda će i ove druge zatražiti svoja "prava", a vremenom ih vjerovatno i ostvariti, uzmemo li u obzir tendencije i utjecaj zapada.

[int21]

Ja sam protiv jer mislim da nije normalno da dijete odrasta u takvoj sredini. Nemam nista protiv homoseksualaca. Neka rade sta im je volja, ali djecu im ne bi davao.

Gabrielo, ne bih ni ja tebi davao da odgajas djecu u takvoj homofobicnoj sredini. Nemam nista protiv homofoba, neka rade sta im je volja, ali im ne bih dozvolio djecu.

[int21]

Homoseksualnost je anomalija, neprirodno stanje, bolest. I ne baš tako davno su takvi ljudi išli kod ljekara da se liječe. A danas su pederi skroz normalna stvar. Ali zato oni koji idalje misle da su pederi bolesni, eh takvi ljudi se danas smatraju "bolesnim" (homofobija, koja lolčina), i danas bi oni trebali ići na liječenje.

Mnogi se ovdje trude dokazati kako homoseksualnost nije isto kao i druge seksualne devijacije, ali to uopšte nije bitno, ako jednoj skupini popustiš, onda će i ove druge zatražiti svoja "prava", a vremenom ih vjerovatno i ostvariti, uzmemo li u obzir tendencije i utjecaj zapada.

Seksualne devijacije? Sve sto nije misionarska poza su devijacije jel?

Nikako da odvojite licni seksualni zivot sa nasiljem nad drugom osobom. Sta tu nije jasno?

Znas sta su po meni devijacije? Oni sto bi isli tuci homoseksualce. Oni sto zaustavljaju ljude na ulici i prijete im sto se drze za ruke, ili sto se oblace ovako i onako....devijacije su sto se macho babo napije pa u razbije majku a dijete zapostavlja......devijacije su kad se dva hetero muskarca ljube na ulici jer je to nesto fazon pozdrav.....devijacije su kreteni sto parkiraju na trotoar ni nikako da nauce da trotoar nije jednako parking. Isto kao sto homoseksualnost nije jednako pedofilija.

I da kad smo kod lijecenja. Ne tako davno Dr. Walter Freeman je lijecio djecu lobotomijom, samo zato sto su bila zivahna ili hiperaktivna. Znas li mozda broj unistenih zivota tom procedurom?

Al na kraju krajeva, ko razmislja skontao je na prvu, ko slijepo vjeruje, ne treba kontati.....

[Idemedosumom]

Homoseksualnost je anomalija, neprirodno stanje, bolest. I ne baš tako davno su takvi ljudi išli kod ljekara da se liječe. A danas su pederi skroz normalna stvar. Ali zato oni koji idalje misle da su pederi bolesni, eh takvi ljudi se danas smatraju "bolesnim" (homofobija, koja lolčina), i danas bi oni trebali ići na liječenje.

Mnogi se ovdje trude dokazati kako homoseksualnost nije isto kao i druge seksualne devijacije, ali to uopšte nije bitno, ako jednoj skupini popustiš, onda će i ove druge zatražiti svoja "prava", a vremenom ih vjerovatno i ostvariti, uzmemo li u obzir tendencije i utjecaj zapada.

Seksualne devijacije? Sve sto nije misionarska poza su devijacije jel?

Nikako da odvojite licni seksualni zivot sa nasiljem nad drugom osobom. Sta tu nije jasno?

Znas sta su po meni devijacije? Oni sto bi isli tuci homoseksualce. Oni sto zaustavljaju ljude na ulici i prijete im sto se drze za ruke, ili sto se oblace ovako i onako....devijacije su sto se macho babo napije pa u razbije majku a dijete zapostavlja......devijacije su kad se dva hetero muskarca ljube na ulici jer je to nesto fazon pozdrav.....devijacije su kreteni sto parkiraju na trotoar ni nikako da nauce da trotoar nije jednako parking. Isto kao sto homoseksualnost nije jednako pedofilija.

I da kad smo kod lijecenja. Ne tako davno Dr. Walter Freeman je lijecio djecu lobotomijom, samo zato sto su bila zivahna ili hiperaktivna. Znas li mozda broj unistenih zivota tom procedurom?

Al na kraju krajeva, ko razmislja skontao je na prvu, ko slijepo vjeruje, ne treba kontati.....

Da li ti je poznato čemu služi sex u prirodi? Sigurno da znaš. Eh, sve drugo je manje-više devijacija.

[int21]

Da, devijacija zato sto se tebi ne svidja.

Btw, da li si ti znao da i u prirodi, mimo ljudi, ima homoseksualizma kod zivotinja?

[ultima_palabra]

Pravo na homo brak (pravo koje nema nijedan građanin zemlje) dakle dodatno pravo.

Pravo na usvajanje djece (koje nema nijedan građanin koji nije u braku), dakle opet dodatno pravo.

Zakon nije selektivan i jednako važi za sve. Sve preko toga je traženje dodatnih prava.

Tako su crnci trazili zakon o ravnopravnosti crnaca. Po tvojoj logici, to je dodatno pravo, jer bjelci su vec bili ravnopravni -- dakle crnci su trazili dodatno pravo. Valjda su imali zestoku propagandu, pa im je upalilo.

Moram ti priznati da dugo nisam vidio gluplji argument, nego sto je onaj tvoj.

Fakat, koji kvaziintelektualizam... zakon nije selektivan i važi jednako za sve Znači i Sejdić i Finci traže dodatna prava? I pravo saudijske žene da vozi auto je dodatno pravo?

Ljudska prava su iznad bilo kojeg zakona, i zakoni se usklađuju sa njima... ako država hoće da je dio demokratskog svijeta.

[Idemedosumom]

Da, devijacija zato sto se tebi ne svidja.

Btw, da li si ti znao da i u prirodi, mimo ljudi, ima homoseksualizma kod zivotinja?

To je jedna od najvećih zabluda vas lgbt štovatelja. Kod životinja ne postoji seksualno opredjeljenje, samo instinkt. Evo jedna interesantna studija koja na konkretnim primjerima pobija boldiranu tvrdnju, ako ti nije mrsko pročitati:

from ”Born that way” theory
The Animal Homosexuality Myth
by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

Animals Do It, So It’s Natural, Right?
The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:
- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly “homosexual” acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?
In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:There is no “homosexual instinct” in animals, It is poor science to “read” human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.

Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal “homosexuality,” “filicide” and “cannibalism” are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.

– Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts
To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.
Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

Third, an animal’s instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal’s behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

In humans, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]

At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal’s instinctive impulses result in cases of animal “filicide,” “cannibalism” and “homosexuality.”
– Animal “Filicide” and “Cannibalism”
Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving “mixed signals” from their instincts:
Most female cats can switch between “play mode” and “hunt mode” in order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of “hunt mode” may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the “hunting” instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue…. Compare the size, sound and activity of kittens with the size, sound and activity of prey. They are both small, have high-pitched voices and move with fast, erratic movements. All of these trigger hunting behavior. In the tomcat, maternal behavior cannot always override hunting behavior and he treats the kittens in exactly the same way he would treat small prey. His instincts are confused.[5] Regarding animal cannibalism, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes: Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce. [6]

– Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States
To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.

Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man’s disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They “borrow,” so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.
– Explaining Seemingly “Homosexual” Animal Behavior
Bonobos are a typical example of this “borrowing.” These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:
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. [7]

Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, “When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex.” [8]

Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:
Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance–in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who’s boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent…. And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with. [10] Other animals engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.
– “Homosexual” Animals Do Not Exist
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. [11] Despite the “homosexual” appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a “homosexual” instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains: Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction. [12] It is unscientific ro “Read” Human Motivation
And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior
Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often “read” human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:
The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal’s motivation he is applying human psycho-dynamics a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach. [13] Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure….The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature. [14] Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat: Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena….We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer – in both the gathering and interpretation of data – come to the forefront in this situation….. With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)…. With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations.” [15] Dr. Bagemihl’s interpretation, however, throughout his 750 page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, “an imprint of St. Martin’s Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books.”

-Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational Human Behaviour
Some researchers studying animal “homosexual” behavior extrapolate from the realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man’s nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside, for example, states:
Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. … Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals. [16] Simon LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal “homosexuality” will help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states: It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of non-procreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is “against nature”: the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable. [17] Other researchers feel compelled to point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions: For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn’t natural. They make a leap from saying if it’s natural, it’s morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn’t be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don’t take care of the elderly. I don’t particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes. [18] The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself: It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. …. The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature. [19] The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man’s rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human.
Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man’s rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature. [20]
To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.
-From Science To Mythology
Dr. Bagemihl’s Biological Exuberance research displays his fundamental dissatisfaction with science and enthusiasm for aboriginal mythology:
Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures about systems of gender and sexuality… [21]
To Western science, homosexuality (both animal and human) is an anomaly, an unexpected behavior that above all requires some sort of “explanation” or “cause” or “rationale.” In contrast, to many indigenous cultures around the world, homosexuality and transgender are a routine and expected occurrence in both the human and animal worlds… [22]
Most Native American tribes formally recognize–and honor–human homosexuality and transgender in the role of the ‘two-spirit’ person (sometimes formerly known as berdache). The ‘two-spirit’ is a sacred man or woman who mixes gender categories by wearing clothes of opposite or both sexes …. And often engaging in same -sex relations. … In many Native American cultures, certain animals are also symbolically associated with two-spiritedness, often in the form of creation myths and origin legends relating to the first or “supernatural” two-spirit(s)….A Zuni creation story relates how the first two spirit–creatures that were neither male nor female, yet both at the same time–were the twelve offspring of a mythical brother-sister pair. Some of these creatures were human, but one was a bat and another an old buck Deer. [23]
Dr. Bagemihl applies this androgynous myth, so widespread in today’s homosexual movement, to the animal kingdom with the help of Indian and aboriginal mythology. He invites the West to embrace “a new paradigm:”[24]Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological Exuberance brings us full circle–back to the way of looking at the world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves binary oppositions….Biological Exuberance is…a worldview that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable. [25]

-Conclusion
In summary, the homosexual movement’s attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science.

[1] The expression homosexual movement is used to designate a vast network of organizations, pressure groups, intellectuals and activists who strive to impose changes in laws, customs, morals and mentalities, so that homosexuality is not only tolerated but also accepted as good and normal. Hence, movement activists pressure society to legalize both the practice and the public manifestations of homosexuality, such as same-sex “marriage,” while relentlessly assailing those who defend traditional morals.
[2] For a brief overview of the evidence debunking the “it is in the genes” and the irreversibility of same-sex orientation theories see the TFP’s flyer “Not Genetic! Not Irreversible! Not Natural!” http://www.tfp.org/tfc/boston_scientific.pdf.
[3] Cf. Simon LeVay, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996). Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999).
[4] Cf. RŽgis Jolivet, TraitŽ de Philosophie, (Lyon-Paris: Emmanuel Vitte, ƒditeur, 1950), Vol. 2, pp. 306-396.
[5] Sarah Hartwell, Cats that kill kittens, at http://www.messybeast.com/kill_kit.htm (Our emphasis.)
[6] “Cannibalism in Animals.” (Our emphasis.)
[7] Frans B. M. de Waal, “Bonobo Sex and Society,” Scientific American, Mar. 1995, pp. 82-88, http://www.songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html. (Our emphasis.)
[8] “Cachorro Gay?” Focinhos Online, www2.uol.com.br/focinhos/petsnodiva/index.shtml.
[9] Jacque Lynn Schultz, “Getting Over the Hump,” ASPCA Animal Watch, Summer 2002, http://www.petfinder.org/journalindex.c ... t&template. (Our emphasis.)
[10] Ibid. (Our emphasis.)
[11] LeVay, p. 207.
[12] Antonio Pardo, “Aspectos mŽdicos de la homosexualidad,” Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89.
[13] “Exploding the Myth of Constitutional Homosexuality,” National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/exploding.html. (Our emphasis.)
[14] “Cachorro Gay?”
[15] Bagemihl, p. 2. (Our emphasis.)
[16] Dinitia Smith, “Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name,” The New York Times, Feb. 7, 2004. (Our emphasis.)
[17] LeVay, p. 209.
[18] Quoted by Dinitia Smith, “Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name.”
[19] Bruto Maria Bruti, Domande e risposte sul problema dell’omosessualitˆ, http://www.paginecattoliche.it/domande- ... ualita.htm. (Our emphasis.)
[20] “Man is correctly defined as a rational animal; animal refers to the proximate genus; rational refers to the specific differentiation.” Joannes di Napoli, Manuale Philosophiae (Turin, Italy: Marietti Editori, 1961), Vol. 2, p. 165.
[21] Bagemihl, p. 5.
[22] Ibid., p. 215.
[23] Ibid., p. 216.
[24] “The final chapter of part 1, ‘A New Paradigm: Biological Exuberance,’ calls for a radical rethinking of the way we view the natural world. This revisioning begins with an exploration of another, alternative set of human interpretations: traditional beliefs about animal homosexuality/transgender in indigenous cultures.” Ibid., p. 5.
[25] Ibid., p. 262.

[int21]

Izvini, mrsko mi je citati. Ali hoces reci da se nikad nije desio sex izmedju dvije zivotinje istog spola?

Da ili ne?

Pola ljudi na kugli zemaljskoj ima pravo da ima djecu i da ih usvaja, a ne bi im dao da cuvaju dvije nacrtane ovce. Ali homofobima je problem da homoseksualci imaju bilo kakvo pravo.

Vodeci se istim principima vas homofoba, poslije homoseksualaca ce i ovi i oni traziti prava. Mozemo isto za vas reci, poslije zabrane homoseksualnim osobama, ukinucemo pravo ateistima jer nisu prirodni. Pa onda bolesnicima koji boluju od neizljecivih bolesti. Pa onda.....

ALi ne....vi ste pravovjerni i sve znate najbolje, a svi koji nisu ko vi su devijanti. Svaka cast.

[Idemedosumom]

Izvini, mrsko mi je citati. Ali hoces reci da se nikad nije desio sex izmedju dvije zivotinje istog spola?

Da ili ne?

Pola ljudi na kugli zemaljskoj ima pravo da ima djecu i da ih usvaja, a ne bi im dao da cuvaju dvije nacrtane ovce. Ali homofobima je problem da homoseksualci imaju bilo kakvo pravo.

Vodeci se istim principima vas homofoba, poslije homoseksualaca ce i ovi i oni traziti prava. Mozemo isto za vas reci, poslije zabrane homoseksualnim osobama, ukinucemo pravo ateistima jer nisu prirodni. Pa onda bolesnicima koji boluju od neizljecivih bolesti. Pa onda.....

ALi ne....vi ste pravovjerni i sve znate najbolje, a svi koji nisu ko vi su devijanti. Svaka cast.

Ja ti savjetujem da počneš čitati, postoji veća šansa da ćeš onda znati.

[int21]

Izvini, mrsko mi je citati. Ali hoces reci da se nikad nije desio sex izmedju dvije zivotinje istog spola?

Da ili ne?

Pola ljudi na kugli zemaljskoj ima pravo da ima djecu i da ih usvaja, a ne bi im dao da cuvaju dvije nacrtane ovce. Ali homofobima je problem da homoseksualci imaju bilo kakvo pravo.

Vodeci se istim principima vas homofoba, poslije homoseksualaca ce i ovi i oni traziti prava. Mozemo isto za vas reci, poslije zabrane homoseksualnim osobama, ukinucemo pravo ateistima jer nisu prirodni. Pa onda bolesnicima koji boluju od neizljecivih bolesti. Pa onda.....

ALi ne....vi ste pravovjerni i sve znate najbolje, a svi koji nisu ko vi su devijanti. Svaka cast.

Ja ti savjetujem da počneš čitati, postoji veća šansa da ćeš onda znati.

Iskreno, poceo sam citati ovaj tekst i jako me podsjetilo na strucnjake Deretica i Miroljuba Petrovica (ako znas ko su ti sarlatani). Hoces reci neko napise neki homofobni text, i potpise ga kao fol naucni rad, i odmah je to istina. Daj ba.....Ja sam zavrsio matematiku, ako pricas o dokazima, onda dajes konkretne dokaze a ne spominjes mitologiju.

[S4mpion]

Tako su crnci trazili zakon o ravnopravnosti crnaca. Po tvojoj logici, to je dodatno pravo, jer bjelci su vec bili ravnopravni -- dakle crnci su trazili dodatno pravo. Valjda su imali zestoku propagandu, pa im je upalilo.

Moram ti priznati da dugo nisam vidio gluplji argument, nego sto je onaj tvoj.

Fakat, koji kvaziintelektualizam... zakon nije selektivan i važi jednako za sve Znači i Sejdić i Finci traže dodatna prava? I pravo saudijske žene da vozi auto je dodatno pravo?

Ljudska prava su iznad bilo kojeg zakona, i zakoni se usklađuju sa njima... ako država hoće da je dio demokratskog svijeta.

Zakon kreira ljudska prava tako da je pogrešna tvrdnja da su prava iznad zakona, već rekoh:

Poznavanje zakonskih odredbi je neophodno kako bi se izbjegle loše analogije.

[ultima_palabra]

Zakon kreira ljudska prava tako da je pogrešna tvrdnja da su prava iznad zakona

Stvarno ne znam kako si uspio ugurati toliko pogrešnih stvari u tako kratku rečenicu.

Zakone donosi zakonodavna vlast. Ukoliko sudska vlast procijeni da ti zakoni nisu uskladu sa ustavom (koji garantuje određena prava i slobode građanima te zemlje) i konvencijama o ljudskim pravima, ona će naložiti zakonodavnoj vlasti da te zakone izmijeni.

Ne može zakon "kreirati" ljudska prava. Do njih se dolazi napretkom ljudske civilizacije i onda se zakoni prilagođavaju tome.