• Avicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    “Being gay is gay” is the tautology this whole thing will eventually evolve to as all their arguments get refuted one by one.

    • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      I wouldn’t bet on it. If they cared about their arguments getting refuted via logic and/or facts, then they’d already have dropped their bullshit.

      No, they’re emotionally still children taught by bullies how to “win” by refusing to back down no matter what, and that “might makes right” so they all back each other up. It unfortunately all too often works for them by simply wearing out their opponents - who can’t fathom not giving AF about the facts, and/or just don’t know how to defeat such obstinance.

  • Jerb322@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Those aren’t the same turtles in the two pictures. The one on the left looks like a Galapagos and the two on the right are Sulcata…

    We have a Sulcata and he humps his water bowl at least once a week.

    Im sure some animals have gay tendencies, but are these two turtles having sex or do they just hang out together? Are they given a choice to hang out with femmes, or do they keep them, males and females, separate so they don’t breed?

    Im all for guy rights and all, but this kinda stuff is why others don’t take you serious.

  • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Turtles are the horniest animals on the planet.

    If you don’t have enough girls per male, they will not be able to eat or drink because they are constantly molested by the fuckmachine males.

    If you want to live with turtles, don’t mix genders, or get a whole lot of turtles…

        • theherk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          30 minutes ago

          The words exist across languages because we use them to mean something. If they had neither denotative nor connotative use, your comment itself would not mean anything. That you made the comment seems to me to imply that you know there is a difference.

    • CXORA@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Well that’s not true. Hatsune miku is not natural in the slightest.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Is an anthill not natural despite having been made by natural beings?

        Is Hatsune Miku not natural despite having been made by natural beings?

        Hatsune Miku is the anthill of humanity. The peak of our nature.

        • CXORA@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          35 minutes ago

          You’d be hard pressed to find a majority of people who agree that things made by humans are natural.

          That’s pretty much the one thing that gets called not natural.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Hatsune Miku is capable of possessing the Decepticon Soundwave so she is very much not natural.

          Also I would personally consider things created by creatures in the animal kingdom to be unnatural by default. With a further breakdown between naturalistic vs manufactured, with naturalistic being for example an anthill while manufactured would be for example a biface.

          Natural biological processes such as breathing, pissing, and shitting are natural though.

          • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I mean, I’m being facetious, for the record. It is, of course, a deeper and more interesting topic

            Though, what I would end up saying in reality is that the distinction is for the most part meaningless in my opinion. The manufactured does not have to inherently be at odds with the natural.

  • Toneswirly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    When I was a teen I asked my religious homophobic grandma if animals dont have rational thought but can still be gay, how did they “choose” to be gay? Her response? Gay penguins dont have souls so it doesnt count.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      54 minutes ago

      Just shows you that people like that just want a neat and tidy (thought terminating) answer, rather than to know the actual truth.

    • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      13 hours ago

      To which I’d have been tempted to reply: “Then how is it that they care for one another if they are without souls? Maybe being so callously judgemental of that which you don’t understand makes you the soulless one who doesn’t count.”

  • Omega (she/her)@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    It’s cute and all but… I really hate that arguement. If it wasn’t natural, it wouldn’t make it any less moral. We don’t need to play by their rhetorical rules. I know that this is just a cute thing, but I see this kind of things all the time and I feel quite strongly about it. So what if I wasn’t born this way? So what if it’s not natural? Does it somehow make things worse? Or is just an excuse to justify hatred of something that just grosses the 'phobes out?.. y’know?

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Glasses are not natural, pacemakers are not natural, cars are not natural.

      Anyone who uses “not natural” as an argument while not living in a brush hut and cooking over a woodfire is just a hypocrite

    • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      15 hours ago

      To be fair, when arguing with anyone about things not being natural, point out the car they drive, the processed food they cook, the job they work: all very unnatural things that people “choose” to do.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        53 minutes ago

        Yeah but cars don’t go to hell when they die, and they really just care about gay peoples’ souls! They swear!

    • Mandrilleren@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I’ve been saying this for years. It doesn’t matter if you choose to be gay or not. It doesn’t matter how many biological sexes there are. People should do what ever the fuck they want with their own bodies and personalities.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      14 hours ago

      You know what else isn’t natural? Clothes, houses, cars, glasses, phones…

      It’s just a dumb argument to begin with, and it’s not even correct. Par for the course for conservatives.

  • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Where exactly is the line between “natural” and “unnatural” and why should Humans abide by what is Natural anyway?

    • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      34 minutes ago

      Chimpanzees are one of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.

      Chimpanzees are known to be cannibals

      Does that make cannibalism “natural”?

    • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Those who complain such nonsense are almost always those using religion in an attempt to control and/or manipulate others because “God” is in theory “perfect” and therefore unquestionable. They conveniently forget “God” not only isn’t the one making the complaint, but is also the one who supposedly created what they’re complaining about to begin with.

      • theangryseal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        They always have an answer though. Always.

        I don’t understand how people can be so arrogant. Religious people come in two flavors though; the leaders who tell everyone what god wants (lol), and the people who follow those leaders but aren’t arrogant enough to think that their feelies must be the will of god.

        “‘at queer made me uncomfortable, and my discomfort is god talking to me.”

        “Amen brother dipshit!”

        • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          They may have an answer, but the “logic” behind them is frequently circular/self-referential in nature, and therefore invalid. But it sounds good enough to them so they’ll refuse to even think about - let alone acknowledge - the large gaps/leaps in their so-called “reasoning” that so often completely destroy the foundations of their claims.

          You’re right: they almost always have “an answer” & as long as they’re prepared with something to say, then they’ll never care about how valid it is. They’ve got an answer, and that makes 'em right (wingnuts), goddammit!!!

        • CXORA@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Nah, 90% of all christian people are supremely arrogant.

          They believe they are special, and better than every one else by divine mandate.

          • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            TBF, that description pretty much applies to virtually all religious wingnuts, regardless of their specific “faith.” Arrogant fanaticism is hardly unique to Christians.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I was in a band by that name. We only played instrumental national anthems.

      In hindsight, both factors might have reduced our marketability a bit…

  • CrayonDevourer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    63
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    Maybe that’s why they’re almost extinct. By 1840, they had almost completely died out as a species.