Feb 9, 2005
Gay Lions
I really don't know where to begin in replying to William Marina's latest post. Here are just some of the highlights:
"A blatant [homosexual] culture trying to attract young males..."
"...homosexuals develop an overt culture and attempt to recruit/seduce among the young, especially those in the years of puberty."
And my personal favorite, "The [female lions (!)], however, wanted nothing to do with [homosexual male lions], apparently sensing they were threats to their cubs."
Apparently. Because we, like, did interviews with them.
Really, I didn't know where to begin in refuting this post. Then I noticed that there wasn't a scrap of evidence to back Marina's claims. There were no citations to any research in human sexuality, no evidence that the animal studies had any experimental validity, and nothing more than some fairly weak stereotypes to relate them back to humans. I realized, then, that I didn't need to refute this post. There's nothing here to refute [...]
Or was he really just trying for guilt by association, with no hard data whatsoever to get in the way?
[Note: I've removed a couple of sentences that on reconsideration I thought were not constructive. I keep having to remind myself that despite all appearances, perhaps Marina might not have bad intentions, and that maybe his misconceptions can be corrected. I hereby resolve to keep control of my temper in the discussions that no doubt will ensue.]
Update: I've posted a longer response at Positive Liberty. I'd crosspost, but I think the discussion here has gone on for long enough already.
"A blatant [homosexual] culture trying to attract young males..."
"...homosexuals develop an overt culture and attempt to recruit/seduce among the young, especially those in the years of puberty."
And my personal favorite, "The [female lions (!)], however, wanted nothing to do with [homosexual male lions], apparently sensing they were threats to their cubs."
Apparently. Because we, like, did interviews with them.
Really, I didn't know where to begin in refuting this post. Then I noticed that there wasn't a scrap of evidence to back Marina's claims. There were no citations to any research in human sexuality, no evidence that the animal studies had any experimental validity, and nothing more than some fairly weak stereotypes to relate them back to humans. I realized, then, that I didn't need to refute this post. There's nothing here to refute [...]
Or was he really just trying for guilt by association, with no hard data whatsoever to get in the way?
[Note: I've removed a couple of sentences that on reconsideration I thought were not constructive. I keep having to remind myself that despite all appearances, perhaps Marina might not have bad intentions, and that maybe his misconceptions can be corrected. I hereby resolve to keep control of my temper in the discussions that no doubt will ensue.]
Update: I've posted a longer response at Positive Liberty. I'd crosspost, but I think the discussion here has gone on for long enough already.