FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Homosexuality, is it biologically natural?





mediadar
The question is not meant to demean or opine on whether homosexuality is morally wrong or right. The question targets a search for scientific proof of it's occurrence in nature.

Please keep in mind the nature of the question and it's sensitivity, this could be an excellent topic as long as emotion and personal moral beliefs are brushed aside.


Just the facts,
Dar.
sangharsha
I think it is not natural....
Obviously the statement explains the notion.

But actually, you need to define what is natural. What we consider 'Natural' is not always biologically natural and what is biologically natural is not considered natural. [for eg practising open sexual behaviour.]

Its just way of socializing natural instincts...
mediadar
By natural I'm implying that it occurs instinctual in nature. Animals other than humans bonding with the same sex. There is documentation that supports the theory that it does occur naturally, however, prior to introducing the theories, I would like to see what the thoughts are on the subject.

Dar.
AftershockVibe
I don't see how it can be anything other than natural since it occurs in nature. It is a very close minded view that homosexual men and women are only a fluke statistic of people who choose to be different just to somehow rebel against society.

Homosexuality and male-male, female-female partnerships have been observed in a variety of different species. You have no more choice over your sexuality than over whether you are male or female.
Gieter
I agree with AftershockVibe. It is proved that some species show homosexual behaviour. Hamsters are know for this behaviour. So I think it's natural, but it's just a phenomenom that wasn't recognized in our culture till the end of the 20th century - this century.
risuarez
guys be careful about this thread. We were having a discussion as such in the spanish forum and an administrator went on to close it.
Gieter
I don't see any harm in it. The question is if homosexually is biologically natural, not if it is right or wrong (at least, that's the way I interpret it.)
AftershockVibe
Even if that was what was asked (right or wrong) I fail to see any problem with the topic provided everyone involved treats it like an actual debate and doesn't start spouting abuse.
DoctorBeaver
I read an article just the other day about the discovery of what may possibly be a "sexuality gene". Unfortunately I'm away for a few days so I can't check my Opera bookmarks.

If this thread is still live when I get home next week, I'll post the link.

My personal view, which I held long before I read that article, is that homosexuality is a perfectly natural thing. I know quite a few lesbians and nearly all of them have said that they've just never fancied men, or didn't feel right if they were in a female/male relationship.

I don't see that environmental factors can play too significant a role as there are gay people in all societies; even those where it is considered a really evil crime. When you consider the pressures that have been placed on people in the past (and still are in some countries today) to be "straight", the very fact that homosexuality has survived and, indeed, flourished, must mean there is an inborn tendency involved.

It's not like a naughty child rebelling against its parents. You're talking about a whole lifestyle, not a few aberrant adolescent years.
alkutob
It will never be a natural thing ...
Nature started since billions of years ... and there was nothing pointing that ever such a thing was normal .

But through the prehistoric times there were the queers who searched about atypical behaviors nd that was not a natural behavior sice then ,,but away to intruduce a man's or a woman's wild goose chase ...

It'd never been and never be because tha atman or human flesh in general find it creepy to think about it.

To conclode .. if there was what to point that an animal has this behaviour ... this will assure that it is not normal or natural .
Garnet
alkutob wrote:
It will never be a natural thing ...
Nature started since billions of years ... and there was nothing pointing that ever such a thing was normal .

But through the prehistoric times there were the queers who searched about atypical behaviors nd that was not a natural behavior sice then ,,but away to intruduce a man's or a woman's wild goose chase ...

It'd never been and never be because tha atman or human flesh in general find it creepy to think about it.

To conclode .. if there was what to point that an animal has this behaviour ... this will assure that it is not normal or natural .


If a person is creeped out by it, that surely isn't proof that it isn't natural. To find something "creepy" in almost every situation usually just means a lack of understanding.

Homosexuality has been observed extensively with flies, dogs, chimpanzees, and 465 (known) species. I'm fairly certain flies are amoung the first to follow their natural instincts Wink

As for whether or not this is a choice for humans, I don't think so. There was a long report on our news about individuals who have commited suicide because they felt they couldn't live happily that way. If it really is a decision and not natural why would these individuals have done such a thing?
illini319
As a scientist, I am compelled to answer that, yes, it is a genetic trait. Many species do exhibit behaviors that appear homosexual in nature (ex. a male doing a mating dance towards another male). In fact, genes have already been found (conserved all the way down to fruitflies) that when mutated can trigger a complete switch in how an animal behaves sexually. This is, to the point, of not procreating and hence one can argue that it is an evolutionary dead end. Yet it persists in nature... why is that? (I really don't know.) I thought this was an easier question to answer in humans because of our historical (and current) views on homosexuality have driven many homosexuals to repress their sexuality and even take on spouses (and yes, even procreate). Hence one can easily see, if one were to believe that there is a genetic component to this, how homosexuality can persist in the humans species: because of sociological repression of natural selection... But back to my original point: why does homosexual behavior persist in other species? Are these species more social than we realize? Or is there some other underlying event that we are missing/assuming?
DoctorBeaver
Illini - I too am a scientist (of sorts - I'm a psychologist). This discussion lies outside of my field of expertise so all I offer is opinion based on personal experience. I worked for many years in TV, films, theatre and music and, as a consequence of such, have had many gay people as friends.

As an addendum to what I said earlier, I don't think being homosexual or straight is black and white; it's a spectrum. At 1 end you have the totally straight of each sex, at the other end is homosexuality. Most people lie somewhere in between. Most people are at the straight end; but that is not to say that those at the other end are aberrant or unnatural.
wumingsden
I believe that it is natural, therefore strongly disagreeing with Alkutob, I guess we have to disagree with some things. I think you [Alkutob] are looking too much into the religious side of things, not listening to the scientific facts. i know that you are a deeply religious person but this thread is not aking your religious views on it.
I believe that its natural for a number of reasons. I guess the first one is because anybody from any specific environment can be gay. It does not matter what species or sex you are and nor does your surroundings make an impact on it. People that are brought up to believe that being gay is wrong are still gay no matter what other people tell them - to me this concludes that its a natural thing to do.
mediadar
My take is that, homosexuality, can be either a learnt behaviour or natural/genetic. The question I am asking would necessitate the removal of man in a 'state of grace' and returning him to his natural self.

Biology defines natural as: not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned. So if indeed it does occur in nature, ie: animals choosing to mate with the same sex without interference, it is biologically natural.

What I am looking for is objective observation as opposed to a subjective one predicated on morality.

Dar.
enricoc
I think that homosexuality is biologically natural but we have to keep in mind that on the biological side, the sense of life is reproduction and perpetuation of species! So homesexuality is natural but there are some mechanism to prevent that more than 50% of population is homesexual otherwise species will estinguish.
Garnet
I've looked into it a bit to answer the question about why it would continue to exist in animals when evolution shouldn't favor it. This will sound obvious but the main theory is that it helps with population control. Food availability, the girl/guy ratio, and the temperatures are all currently thought to be factors.

On google (too many links to bother posting just search it for yourself Wink )
there were examples of sheep, penguins (a couple that had been together for 8 years it said), and grizzly bears. Oddly it's also very common with salmon. That was a shock considering it would definitely not be handy for that specific species.

Sadly the internet seems bereft of any objective observation that doesn't happen in a zoo.
The Philosopher Princess
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Introduction}


mediadar, I would like to set some context for my position. Hence, this post. Later, I will address your issue more directly, relying on this context.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Definition}


The term natural, as I use it, means occurs in nature without human intervention.

Being natural, or being not natural, says absolutely nothing about whether something is good or bad. That is a different subject.

{Examples}
Planets are natural.
Taxes are not natural.
Trees growing in the “wilderness” are natural.
Trees planted by humans are not natural.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Definition}


Human intervention with regards to a particular human means intervention from outside of that human.

{Examples}
When a human voluntarily decided to take some medicine, no human intervention has occurred.
When a human was forced by others to take some medicine, human intervention has occurred.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Assertion}


Homosexuality is natural.

Homosexuality occurs in nature without human intervention. It occurs in many/most species including humans.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Theory}


Many areas of science are debatable because there is reasonable evidence on both sides of the various scientific issues. Some of these debates go away (over time) when abundant evidence comes to light on one of the sides. Other issues are very simplistic with virtually no evidence on one side, and yet some of these debates don’t go away. My theory addresses why.

(1) Simplistic scientific issues, and
(2) more complex scientific issues with ample evidence on one side
-- don’t go away in the following situation: When there is a separate, more important agenda other than just the truth of the science. Examples of such agendas are political agendas, religious agendas, personal agendas (e.g., embarrassment).

When these other kinds of agendas are more important than the truth of the science, then (naturally) the truth of the science gets suppressed, ignored, twisted, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Example Application of the Theory}


The notion that homosexuality is natural is a very simplistic scientific issue. It is not complex. Unlike some other kinds of scientific issues, it does not take schooling in science to be able to gather ample evidence to understand. Everyone has the opportunity to be a valid scientist when studying the phenomenon of homosexuality.

But, in the world of today, homosexuality is a part of forceful political agendas, scathing religious agendas, and, consequently, an abundance of personal agendas.

When these alternative agendas conflict with the actual science, then the actual science is dismissed. Then the various goals to interfere with the occurrence of homosexuality take precedence over scientific findings. But, since most people do not feel comfortable admitting that they are ignoring science, there becomes a need for pseudo-science, i.e., non-science dressed up to look like science.

Notice I said “today”. I don’t expect these conflicting (intolerant) agendas to last forever. Politics progresses. Religions transform. Personal agendas grow past embarrassment, etc. It’s just a matter of time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Conclusion}


The science of homosexuality is very interesting, especially given the strong disagreements between people on the subject. I commend you for raising this topic in the way you have. I will offer more for you, later (because this is already long).
stormybaka
Is it natural? Ever heard about the copious amounts of gay animals like Gorillaz and penguins being noticed lately in the news. Attraction is the most natural thing on this green earth and emotions are honest. So if you are atrracted to anyone at all, I see it as a natural everyday thing in your life. I guess procreation will be an issue within gay relations if they want children, but with the myriad of shite parents out there, maybe gay could be the way. They can adopt! I don't see any issue in people living *their* lives however they like. More diversity makes life fun!
Juparis
A very interesting topic... I think homosexuality is natural to a degree.. I think it all depends on our environment and other mental factors that we suffer in our childhood. When you are first born, who's to say whether you're straight or gay? I think it's somewhat of a developed trait, but not under the will or control of the person in question. That's just my opinion, though..

I think it's sad how hypocritical the American society is. Channels like MTV host hundreds of shows, all usually featuring at least one gay man or woman. Just by watching U.S. sitcoms, one would thinkt that a third of the U.S. was gay! Yes, it's less than a single percentile, isn't it? What's worse, is the hostility towards homosexuality. Even though those sitcoms display a happy acceptance of all gay people, the truth is that most people (unless this is just a local issue) tend to be homophobic (for lack of a better term) and will go out of their way to prove their heterosexuality. Actually, this almost exclusively appears in guys. I know plenty of women who have no problems being intimate with eachother (no sex), but I can't think of any [straight] guy that would let even a inkling of his feelings show through. That's an exaggeration, but yet so many people everywhere feel the need to oppress the homosexuals--as if they weren't humans--and to promote their own heterosexuality. Is this just a relapse of what happened with African Americans?
Soulfire
To me, it would appear that homosexuality is biological. Why would someone choose to be so different, knowing the hatred expressed by most people and hostility toward homosexuals? Why would someone surrender a wife and possibly kids? Why would someone willingly surrender normality?

To me, it just doesn't make sense that people "choose to be gay."
wumingsden
Soulfire wrote:
To me, it would appear that homosexuality is biological. Why would someone choose to be so different, knowing the hatred expressed by most people and hostility toward homosexuals? Why would someone surrender a wife and possibly kids? Why would someone willingly surrender normality?

To me, it just doesn't make sense that people "choose to be gay."


I definitly wasn't expecting that opinion from you Soulfire which I whole-heartedly agree with. May I just add that gay singles/couples can adopt or have their own child/ren.

Juparis, you say

Quote:

I think homosexuality is natural to a degree


but then you say

Quote:

I think it all depends on our environment and other mental factors that we suffer in our childhood


Surely "our environment and other mental factors" isn't natural but changed because of this "environment and other mental factors". Natural meaning that its natural to you, you haven't changed/are not different because of something thats happened

I disagree with these statements. My father and brother are homophobic, this however does not stop me from being "bi-sexual". What I've noticed though is that there is such a massive pressure on labelling youself, which is why I dislike the term bi-sexual. I am me and I cannot/and do not want to change this.

Note that nobody has an idea about my sexuality apart from my mother who thinks that I am "gay". I am quite young and some say that you go "through-a-phrase" like this but who cares. I have felt like I do all my life and so it feels natural to me. If I decide to "come out of the closet" so to speak then it is obvious that I will lose many friends/family. I haven't "come out of the closet" yet because I am not going to label myself like other people do.

Juparis, you also say

Quote:

Yes, it's less than a single percentile, isn't it?


I don't know about the US but in the UK around every 3 in 10 people have same-sex feelings although nowhere near this many are open about their feelings. This is because it is looked down upon by certain people, (these opinions are generally passed down from generation to generation).
skaccomatto
DoctorBeaver wrote:
I worked for many years in TV, films, theatre and music and, as a consequence of such, have had many gay people as friends.


This is exactly the sentence that will make me think that there is nothing genetic in homosexuality.... but it is rather a social thing..
wumingsden
skaccomatto wrote:
DoctorBeaver wrote:
I worked for many years in TV, films, theatre and music and, as a consequence of such, have had many gay people as friends.


This is exactly the sentence that will make me think that there is nothing genetic in homosexuality.... but it is rather a social thing..


So you think that children that go to the threatre when their young would turn out gay, that is so ludracris. If this was true than all people that are involved in "TV, films, theatre and music" would be gay but this isn't so.

DoctorBeaver, are you gay ?
Arnie
Who says animals cannot act unnatural?
AftershockVibe
skaccomatto wrote:
This is exactly the sentence that will make me think that there is nothing genetic in homosexuality.... but it is rather a social thing..


Not really. If anything it proves that you are more likely to be openly gay in places where it will be accepted and not met with abuse.

It's gotta be a lot easier to be an openly gay actor than an openly gay soldier.
xeroed
illini319 wrote:
As a scientist, I am compelled to answer that, yes, it is a genetic trait. Many species do exhibit behaviors that appear homosexual in nature (ex. a male doing a mating dance towards another male). In fact, genes have already been found (conserved all the way down to fruitflies) that when mutated can trigger a complete switch in how an animal behaves sexually. This is, to the point, of not procreating and hence one can argue that it is an evolutionary dead end. Yet it persists in nature... why is that? (I really don't know.) I thought this was an easier question to answer in humans because of our historical (and current) views on homosexuality have driven many homosexuals to repress their sexuality and even take on spouses (and yes, even procreate). Hence one can easily see, if one were to believe that there is a genetic component to this, how homosexuality can persist in the humans species: because of sociological repression of natural selection... But back to my original point: why does homosexual behavior persist in other species? Are these species more social than we realize? Or is there some other underlying event that we are missing/assuming?

The way I heard it was that when your genes were being marked as male and female from the estrogen and testosterone some of them can be mismarked such as the gene that would determine sexuality. This can happen alot which is a reason that some men look womanly and some woman look manly.

Arnie wrote:
Who says animals cannot act unnatural?

the definition of natural as defined by Dictionary.com:
"# Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
# Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
# Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
1. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
2. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
3. Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex." -http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural

animals are in nature (defined as: "A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality" once again by dictionary.com) and unless you are saying that human intervention or intervention by anyone else (aliens, God, or other animals) changed them (specifically in this argument; to make them gay) they are natural... and because unnatural is defined by unnatural, you would first have to establish what natural is, which is the point of this discussion.

In my opinion, being gay can be both natural or unnatural. I think that sometimes people will "pretend" or could /become/ gay. I don't think that this is something that happens much however it could happen. like ilini319 said, it is something that can be genetic, however I don't think it can be passed on, because people who are gay and have had children have had straight children. *shrug* I doubt that it'll be decided anytime soon, but I do hope that gays will be accepted.
Juparis
Sorry, wumingsden--it was late, and I didn't reread my post. T'was a slip-of-my grammar, and not a contradictory post altogether.

wumingsden wrote:

Surely "our environment and other mental factors" isn't natural but changed because of this "environment and other mental factors". Natural meaning that its natural to you, you haven't changed/are not different because of something thats happened
Care to rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. English is probably the most confusing language; especially when the face/emotions are removed and all you have is text.. Is this sarcasm? Oh well...


wumingsden wrote:
I disagree with these statements. My father and brother are homophobic, this however does not stop me from being "bi-sexual". What I've noticed though is that there is such a massive pressure on labelling youself, which is why I dislike the term bi-sexual. I am me and I cannot/and do not want to change this.

Did I even say your environment was limited to your personal family, here and now? Of course not. Children are exposed to much more than that! While I don't believe homosexuality is a concious choice, I find it hard to even immagine that homosexuality could be genetic. So what's left? It's a developed traight, though not by conscious will. You've had dreams, haven't you? Normal factors in your everyday life can greatly alter what you dream. So why cannot the same be said of other areas in our life? Perhaps, for different reasons of course, our subconcious mind realizes that we are much more comfortable being intimate (not necessarily sexually, as I've found the connotation to be) with the same sex than we are with the opposite sex. But how did our subconcious mind choose that? Nobody can say.

wumingsden wrote:
Note that nobody has an idea about my sexuality apart from my mother who thinks that I am "gay". I am quite young and some say that you go "through-a-phrase" like this but who cares. I have felt like I do all my life and so it feels natural to me. If I decide to "come out of the closet" so to speak then it is obvious that I will lose many friends/family. I haven't "come out of the closet" yet because I am not going to label myself like other people do.

Note also that nobody has an idea about my own sexuality. I see no reason to label one human apart from the next, however, because we are all the same. Some of us simply choose different options in life. I never understood why or how some people can get in such a fuss about it. Even Christians (including myself) have no right to call out and persecute homosexuals. A sin is a sin; we are all guilty of it. Homosexuals, like all other humans, have an equal chance of going to heaven.



As for the percentage, the only reliable number I was able to find averaged 1.3%. Most other numbers are exaggerations by the biased media... =/
nopaniers
I wonder (assuming that it is genetic) how such a trait can survive? Surely evolution (without making any value judgements) will breed out homosexuality on the basis that a hetero-sexual couple will have more children than a homosexual couple...
Arnie
Xeroed, humans are a sort of nature as well. According to science we're also animals. So basically you'd say that whatever we do is thus natural.

Of course I know that's nonsense (so please don't give me a witty reply on that...) - it only proves that it's no use working with such strict definitions of natural / unnatural. I was trying to break the discussion open, please don't close it. The point I was trying to make is that:
1) you have to consider whether heterosexuality is 'the way it was meant to be' (for whatever reason, intelligent design or not)
2) whether non-human animals can act against that 'way it was meant to be'

Because an often-heard argument is "animals do it as well, so it's natural". That rises the question: do all animals act natural, as if they're machines - always following exactly the same pattern?

And nopaniers also has an interesting point. This is certainly a strong argument pleading against "it's in our genes".
hanay
Personally, I do not beleive homosexuality is a normal of genetic 'thing'. It contradicts Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in the sense that in no way can homosexuality benifit or ensure the survival of our species.
selim06
i don't think so...at the beginning may be...i mean when you born your gens may be XXY or another cue and you may be homesexula but when you recognize what is real life and you grown you should select an option...You can't continue...biologhical possible but everybody shouldn't contine it...
ocalhoun
hanay wrote:
Personally, I do not beleive homosexuality is a normal of genetic 'thing'. It contradicts Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in the sense that in no way can homosexuality benifit or ensure the survival of our species.


Exactly. If it was hereditary, homosexuals would be extinct by now, not flourishing.
Mason11987
Um...animals have homosexual acts, for different reasons yes, but it's not "unnatural" by the standards of "natural things".

Homosexuality could help us from overpopulating ourselves into a world famine. I think they ARE helping Wink.
Arnie
Quote:
Um...animals have homosexual acts, for different reasons yes, but it's not "unnatural" by the standards of "natural things".
That statement needs some arguments. Otherwise this topic becomes a poll: if most people post "I (don't) think it's unnatural" (with or without arguments) then that opinion 'wins'. In other words, I think people must stop posting just statements. If you don't have any arguments just stay out of the topic...
wumingsden
Arnie wrote:
Quote:
Um...animals have homosexual acts, for different reasons yes, but it's not "unnatural" by the standards of "natural things".
That statement needs some arguments. Otherwise this topic becomes a poll: if most people post "I (don't) think it's unnatural" (with or without arguments) then that opinion 'wins'. In other words, I think people must stop posting just statements. If you don't have any arguments just stay out of the topic...


Its funny how you mention it but don't raise your own opinions unlike anybody else. Do you think homosexuality is natural ?
Arnie
I often do not specify arguments because I don't specify a statement either. This is because I don't want to take a stand. My postings are then intended to 'break open' the discussion or shed some new light from a non-outspoken POV.

But to the point, I think it's unnatural. I think heterosexuality was 'the way it was meant to be' - look for example at how our bodies are formed for it. The connection between reproduction and the act of sex is very amazing.
illini319
ocalhoun wrote:
hanay wrote:
Personally, I do not beleive homosexuality is a normal of genetic 'thing'. It contradicts Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in the sense that in no way can homosexuality benifit or ensure the survival of our species.


Exactly. If it was hereditary, homosexuals would be extinct by now, not flourishing.


I had alluded to this question at an earlier post. How, if there are so many examples of species that exhibit homosexual behavior, can there still be homosexuality in the gene pool (if homosexuality is defined as genetic)? Certainly, there is evidence out there that there is a strong genetic component to homosexuality. So our answer must acknowledge this.

We must understand that evolution is not a linear process. That in evolution, there is the underlying assumption that all species exhibit varying levels of mutation; MOST of which never get propagated further. So if we consider that gene(s) which dictate sexual orientation are subject to mutation (like any other gene in our body), then the logic follows that mutations within these gene(s) can manifest themselves as a change in sexual orientation. Since such a mutation (if absolute) renders the bearer incapable of procreating, then it also follows that this particular animal is no longer contributing to the gene pool. BUT, it doesn't mean that another animal, completely independent from this first example, cannot exhibit a similar mutation and end up with a similar phenotype. Such mutations are neither selected for or against. At an extreme case, if one were to 'round up' all genetically and behaviorally confirmed homosexuals and completely remove them from the face of this earth...it WILL NOT eliminate the chances of a new offspring from getting the same 'mutation' because mutation remains a constant part of every species. I hope that my explanation wasn't too confusing.
To further enhance this idea, we should also consider that in social animals, because of social code, certain genetic traits are actively suppressed or enhanced. Hence many human homosexuals, who already have a hard time coming to grips with their orientation, is not helped by society at large to 'come out of the closet.' They stay closeted and try to live a socially accepted life. They marry and have kids... and voila... the gene(s) continue to stay within the gene pool.
mediadar
hanay wrote:
Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a normal of genetic 'thing'. It contradicts Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in the sense that in no way can homosexuality benefit or ensure the survival of our species.


The Theory of Natural Selection

- One of the prime motives for all species is to reproduce and survive, passing on the genetic information of the species from generation to generation. When species do this they tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support.
- The lack of resources to nourish these individuals places pressure on the size of the species population, and the lack of resources means increased competition and as a consequence, some organisms will not survive.
- The organisms who die as a consequence of this competition were not totally random, Darwin found that those organisms more suited to their environment were more likely to survive.
- This resulted in the well known phrase survival of the fittest, where the organisms most suited to their environment had more chance of survival if the species falls upon hard times. (This phrase if often associated with Darwin, though on closer inspection Herbert Spencer puts the phrase in a more accurate historical context.)
- Those organisms who are better suited to their environment exhibit desirable characteristics, which is a consequence of their genome being more suitable to begin with.

In fact, Darwin's theory may support homosexuality, the need/right(so to say) to procreate is not prerogative to all humans. Some seek out hetero relationships others homogeneous in sex with the soul purpose of taking a mate for pleasure.(ie: good company, similar likes, not always purely sexual)

here is an interesting article. http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html

Ancient Greeks and Romans commonly took gay lovers despite taking a concubine.


Dar.
xeroed
Arnie wrote:
Because an often-heard argument is "animals do it as well, so it's natural". That rises the question: do all animals act natural, as if they're machines - always following exactly the same pattern?


the point is: can animals choose to be gay? cause if they can then they have to rationale out the pros and cons of it... normally you would think that since it means the speices won't go on, they would choose against it... thats the basis of animal instinct... to keep the species going... so if you think that being gay isn't atleast genetic somehow (being small mutations of chromosomes or even something else) then you are saying that animals have a higher brain capacity then we think they do... so in that light, how can we kill them and eat them?
The Philosopher Princess
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Introduction}


I promised some science. Part of doing science is observing and gathering data, which in this case would include actual cases of homosexuals in various species. I’m not providing this because it is a straightforward task, which anyone here can do for themselves.

Another part of doing science is formulating/discovering principles that describe natural phenomena, i.e., make sense of -- at a higher level -- the data that has been gathered. This is what I’ve written up for you here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Natural Biological Variations}


In Reality, it is natural to have variations in biological species (amongst other things). That is how it is that some in a species will survive given environmental changes, and some will not. But it is also natural to have variations co-existing ** some in the species gather, while others go out and hunt; some stay put taking care of the babies, while others defend them physically ** some in the species are “this” color, while others are “that” color, while still others are albinos ** some in the species are smaller to fit in smaller places, while others in the species are bigger and better for defending, while still others are very tall to reach places the others can’t.

Observers will find within any species an unlimited number of variations of all sorts. Anyone who doesn’t find variations is not looking.

So, it’s really not unexpected at all that sexual orientations within any species will be varied. In fact, it would be very noteworthy if some species didn’t have varied sexual orientations. Even within a group of, say, males who sexually prefer females, you will find all kinds of variations, including ** those who like lots of different females almost all the time ** those who like one particular female almost all the time ** those who like some females given certain very particular conditions ** those who like females only occasionally but especially not when football is on (Wink), etc. These and many more kinds of sexual variations exist.

The fact that homosexual males exist is really no big deal. It’s just another variation. And, of course, all the same goes for females.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Natural Division of Labor}


Division of labor is often used as a science of economics term, but it has application in biology -- at least I am using it that way.

In order for a species to survive the “harsh” world where mostly the survival of “fittest” is “allowed”, that species needs to have different beings doing different things. If all beings in a species did the same thing, lots of needed things would not get done. And, certainly, not each being can do everything itself. Together, the division of labor helps the whole species. How does the division of labor happen? By natural tendencies being different within different beings of the species.

For example, it is true that, (everything else being equal) the bigger and stronger animals will tend to survive better than the smaller and weaker. It is also true that males tend to be bigger and stronger than females in many species (but not all). Should we then conclude that mostly males survive in most species? Of course not! That is because of a natural phenomenon, which I’m calling division of labor. The males may fight/defend more than females, but often it is the females they are defending. Females survive very well alongside males because of the division of labor.

And, for example, in order to procreate, only the sperm is needed by males. The females have a much more “important” role in growing and nurturing the offspring. Does that mean that a species will be better off if the sperm is extracted quickly and then the males are sent off to death? Of course not! That’s because of the division of labor. The males have many more uses than just sperm.

It is probably imperative to understand the full biological principles constituting what I’m calling division of labor to be able to also understand why homosexuals are a natural and expected phenomenon of most species, including humans. (As with most principles, I suggest people start by studying the cases/examples that make more sense to them, then move to the cases that make less sense to them.)

Homosexuals can and do provide necessary support for the survival of species. It is not just a case where keeping the birthrates down is a good thing -- no! It is that they provide positive, complementary species help. If every able body were constantly tied down to having and raising offspring, there would not be any effort left to take care of other necessary tasks. Homosexuals, along with others not actively having children, perform these tasks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Natural Procreation and Non Procreation}


Those who are against homosexuality will tend to say that it is not natural because homosexuals don’t have sex to procreate. However, if it made sense that homosexuals aren’t natural because they don’t have sex to procreate, then it would also make sense that
(1) heterosexuals who don’t want to procreate aren’t natural,
(2) heterosexuals who do want to procreate, but can’t for whatever reason, aren’t natural,
(3) heterosexuals who do procreate, but their procreations die before they, themselves, can procreate, aren’t natural,
(4) etc.

In other words, there are lots of reasons that beings within a species don’t procreate or pass on their own genes -- and this is all natural. It happens in all species, from those that are the “evolutionarily least successful” to those that are the “evolutionarily most successful”.

It is utterly ridiculous to say that because a species needs procreation, in general, to survive, that every single member of that species must procreate. As mentioned, there are reasons why this would be a bad thing for the survival of the species. There are more reasons not mentioned, but at least you have a start.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Reading Suggestion}


On Human Nature by Edward O. Wilson

The whole book is very thought-provoking, but I recall that there is a chapter on homosexuality, which I’d highly recommend to you all. It gives scientific evidence supporting homosexuality as being biologically natural. It does not give the entire answer, and you will have to think through for yourself, but I bet it will offer almost all readers some concepts not considered before. It’s been awhile since I’ve read it, and I don’t have a copy right now, or I’d scan in some excerpts for y’all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Another Reading Suggestion}


There is not just one theory of evolution, and even Darwin’s theory has been enhanced since his time. More importantly, any reasonable theory of evolution does not include only one principle. In fact, there are many principles that would comprise it. It’s somewhat similar to Algebra not being just one formula, but many.

hanay wrote:
Personally, I do not beleive homosexuality is a normal of genetic 'thing'. It contradicts Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in the sense that in no way can homosexuality benifit or ensure the survival of our species.

The above is unsubstantiated and seems to be alluding to the notion that Darwin’s theory only includes one principle: maybe something along the lines of only beings that pass on their genes help the species. But this is just not true. There are numerous sub-parts to the whole theory.

Therefore, anyone seeking the truth of the naturalness (or non-naturalness) of homosexuality should read more thoroughly on Darwin’s and more updated theories of evolution. Reading should not be done for the purpose of following but in order to get one’s own brain working.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{Conclusion}


In conclusion, if you don’t think in terms of principles, along with actual hard evidence, then you’re not really doing the science, and you can’t validly claim your assertions to be true. What I’ve written here, though long and very casual, is just a start. I hope each of you will continue your own research and thinking.
jabapyth
I believe that homosexuality is mostly psycological or cultural. (There are, of course, exeptions, with disorders, etc.)
odinstag
With all the problems homosexuality causes, does it really matter if it is biological or enviromental?

I really don't think it matters why someone is messed up. We must still aknowledge they are messed up and do something to correct the damage it causes.

Look with open eyes and you will see that being gay is no good.
Konimaka
i really think it's nature.
i'm homosexual myself, and i can't help it.
sometimes i wish i wasn't, but i can't choose who i fall in love with
it's nature
and you can't control it
falling in love with someone is nature
wether it's falling in love with the same sex or not,
it's still nature
it's the way you were born, so like i said before, it's nature
Bondings
odinstag wrote:
With all the problems homosexuality causes, does it really matter if it is biological or enviromental?

It's not homosexuality causing the problems, intolerant people are the problem.
Arnie
Exactly, intolerance is the key word in all such discussions. For example, if people would stop being so intolerant towards murderers, we'd have a better society.

Interpretation of this is in the eyes of the reader.
Bondings
Arnie wrote:
Exactly, intolerance is the key word in all such discussions. For example, if people would stop being so intolerant towards murderers, we'd have a better society.

Interpretation of this is in the eyes of the reader.

Are you comparing homosexual people to murderers? Since when do they cause any harm?
Arnie
As said, interpretation of that post is very delicate. But my message is that 'tolerance' is considered too much of a magic word, a golden law that everyone must obey. Which does not always have to be correct, as you can see in the example.

I'm not comparing anything in particular. But if anyone would like me to, he will doubtlessly read my post with different eyes. I however am not intending to enter into such a discussion.
aegir
Homosexuality is natural. It happens commonly in nature in various species. I have kept fish (Copella arnoldi) in my aquarium. These fish often exhibited homosexual behaviour (female to female mating), as well as a heterosexual behaviour.

There are even theories why homosexuality can be beneficial in the terms of natural selection theory. Just one of them as an example: Male homosexual pairs of black swans are more succesful (because they are stronger) at raising offspring (adopted offspring, but adopted usually from their genetic relatives). Male+male+female bisexual families can raise their own offspring and be very succesful too.

I recomend a very interesting book on this subject: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl
Juparis
Arnie wrote:
As said, interpretation of that post is very delicate. But my message is that 'tolerance' is considered too much of a magic word, a golden law that everyone must obey. Which does not always have to be correct, as you can see in the example.

I'm not comparing anything in particular. But if anyone would like me to, he will doubtlessly read my post with different eyes. I however am not intending to enter into such a discussion.

So you're saying we should tolerate people killing other people--cutting their lives short without justification--before we even consider tolerating homosexuals, who do no harm to others?
(I was kidding; it's a joke)

Still, I think when someone is guaranteed liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, why should we (as a country) break our promise to a selective few? It's only repeating what's still being done to blacks, except it's isn't called racism. It's not fair, even when guaranteed to be so. Tolerance is key here--if you don't agree, arnie, I suggest you leave the country. (Unless you don't life in the US Laughing )
nimrod13
Let's see, what is my view on this? I think it is natural.
Of course, my answer might be partially influenced by the words of a certain person whom I admire to the absolute upmost--Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day. (I love that guy) Dancing
I think he put it very well...I'm not sure of his exact words, though, and I don't feel like looking them up.
He basically admitted in an interview that he was bisexual. He went on to explain that he believed everyone was...to a degree...somewhat bisexual. He belives that everyone was a tendency to have an interest in these things, it's just that parents and teachers and the such typically discourage them from such thoughts and fellings.
I'd have to agree with Billie...I mean, who can honestly say that they have never had any thoughts or feelings about these things? Maybe 2% of all people?
Of course, this is just my opinion. Anyone who disagrees is definatly entitled to. Smile
Juparis
I completely agree, nimrod13!

I forgot the exact statistic I read, but majority of men and women alike have either sexual encounters or serious sexual thoughts/desires with the same sex. I think it is indeed our society that forces most people to deny themselves what may come natural to them. But in the end, this confusion only leads to more chaos, bad relationships, and emotionally scarred people.

I'm not saying we should all indulge ourselves in immediate bisexuality, but i think if society was a little more tolerant--a little more forgiving, even--we'd find ourselves with more than just a single percent of openly gay or bisexual people.
atomictoyz
Please use Quotes next time you take something off a different site and post also with a link. (note that I haven't removed this due to the fact that is in the benefit of the Topic)

While the jury is still out on the subject.

Identical twins throw a nice wrench in it.

Quote:

Roughly the same number of Identical twins exhibit homosexual behavior in one and not the other as schizophrenia. Dr. Micheal Medina at the University of Washington studied this after a claim was made that a Gay Gene had been found. If its genetic then Identical twins is the first place to look. Another problem is that a significant number of the twins lived socially identical lives. Same friends, mother and father etc.... yet one was gay and one was not. Population geneticists using evolutionary theory still cannot answer the problem because it defies Natural Selection. Choosing extinction?

Considering how rare it is, it's not normal. For something to be normal, the population has to have a certain percent of the population with that mutation. HW Equilibrium would be a great starting point.

My theory is that it is unnatural in the genetic sense but a natural consequence of sexual perversion. I believe that mammals have a specific timetable for sexual maturity and that if the timetable is violated then a number of aberrations will occur.

My research is still in the early stages but a large number of the cases where promiscuity is involved, an incident occurred in the form of molestation, rape or exposure to sexual conduct was observed prematurely. Most of the study come from my own journey. I'm still trying to design the experiement to test and validate the theory. Alot of the research is very sad and scary and it seems that the internet and proliferation of adult entertainment is aggitating the problem. Certainly the domino effect is being seen today as children are victimized at rates never seen before.

The real problem is that if homosexuality is ok because it occurs in nature then pedo_philia falls under the same umbrella. Murder or Natural Selection are hard to distinguish without the guidlines of religion.


Beat, Rape and eat Mary are all seen in nature, but do you want to see it at the mall?

Have fun
wumingsden
nimrod13 wrote:
Let's see, what is my view on this? I think it is natural.
Of course, my answer might be partially influenced by the words of a certain person whom I admire to the absolute upmost--Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day. (I love that guy) Dancing
I think he put it very well...I'm not sure of his exact words, though, and I don't feel like looking them up.
He basically admitted in an interview that he was bisexual. He went on to explain that he believed everyone was...to a degree...somewhat bisexual. He belives that everyone was a tendency to have an interest in these things, it's just that parents and teachers and the such typically discourage them from such thoughts and fellings.
I'd have to agree with Billie...I mean, who can honestly say that they have never had any thoughts or feelings about these things? Maybe 2% of all people?
Of course, this is just my opinion. Anyone who disagrees is definatly entitled to. Smile


I believe that you ar referring to the following article which was originally printed in The Advocate (a lesbian/gay based magazine) which i fount reprinted at: http://www.theforumsite.com/forum.php?t=33836

Quote:

Coming Clean
Woodstock ’94 star Billie Joe of Green Day goes triple platinum and lines up with the pansies
By Judy Wieder

......While punk thrives on thumbing its nose at convention, the surprisingly serious Armstrong insists that bringing Pansy Division on the road with Green Day was not just a gimmick to shock fans. Before their switch to a mainstream label (Reprise), Green Day did two albums for Lookout Records, the same label Pansy Division is on. They also share with Pansy Division a commitment to what they call personal politics.

“I think Pansy Division is the kind of band that saves people’s lives,” Armstrong says matter-of-factly. “They’re catchy, and they’re really educational. They’re honest about their sexuality, and that saves lives.”

“Sometimes it gets kind of ugly because there are a lot of ignorant dorks out in the audience, and they start throwing s**t at Pansy Division,” he continues, discussing the tour. “I was kind of discouraged watching the audience flip them off. I kept thinking, Shit, these are the people who are here to see us?”

Armstrong’s response was to stop his band’s show in the middle of a set and address the audience. “You’re all f**king pathetic,” he told them. “There you were, three songs into their set, really enjoying them. And then you figured out from their lyrical content that they’re gay, and now you’re afraid of them. And that’s what it is, you know. You’re afraid of them. Well, I hope you all know that Pansy Division is the future of rock ’n’ roll.”

For Armstrong, who grew up with band member Dirnt in a suburb of Berkeley called Rodeo, homosexuality is neither a new subject nor one he must defend himself against. “I think I’ve always been bisexual,” Armstrong says simply. “I mean, it’s something that I’ve always been interested in. I think everybody kind of fantasizes about the same sex. I think people are born bisexual, and it’s just that our parents and society kind of veer us off into this feeling of Oh, I can’t. They say it’s taboo. It’s ingrained in our heads that it’s bad, when it’s not bad at all. It’s a very beautiful thing.”

When asked whether this beautiful thing is something he’s ever actually acted on, the recently married (and about to become a father) Armstrong smiles. “I think mostly it’s been kept in my head,” he says. “I’ve never really had a relationship with another man. But it is something that comes up as a struggle in me. It especially came up when I was about 16 or 17. In high school people think you have to be so macho. People get attacked just because someone insinuates something about their sexuality. I think that’s gruesome.”

Armstrong’s struggle with his sexuality isn’t something that has gone unnoticed by his fans. “I’ve gotten letters because I wrote this song on Dookie called ‘Coming Clean’ about coming out,” he says with the same ease that Kurt Cobain used to show while talking about his song “All Apologies” and the now-famous lyric from it: “What else should I say/ Everyone is gay.”.........
The Philosopher Princess
odinstag wrote:
With all the problems homosexuality causes, does it really matter if it is biological or enviromental?

I really don't think it matters why someone is messed up. We must still aknowledge they are messed up and do something to correct the damage it causes.

Look with open eyes and you will see that being gay is no good.

I’m not convinced, odinstag, that you believe what you’re saying. (That matters because if you are being sincere, then the substance in your text can be discussed. But if you’re not being sincere with us, then your text does not contain any substance.)

On the one hand, you claim:
Arrow Homosexuality causes damage.
Arrow Such damage should be corrected.
Arrow Therefore, the cause of the damage -- namely, homosexuality -- should be corrected.

On the other hand, you claim:
Arrow The cause of homosexuality (biological or environmental) does not matter.

You are asking us to believe that:
Arrow The causes FLOWING FROM homosexuality matter to you but the causes FLOWING TOWARDS homosexuality do not matter to you. I don’t see how anyone can possibly believe that.
~~~~~~~~~~
Stated another way, you are asking us to believe that:

Arrow You do have A GRASP on homosexuality causing “damage”.
and
Arrow It does matter to you to know what those causes are.

but, that

Arrow You do not have A GRASP on the causes of homosexuality, itself.
and
Arrow It does not matter to you what those causes are.

Something does not add up with the entire set of your claims; hence, my skepticism of your sincerity.
~~~~~~~~~~
If you do believe what you say, then it would be valid to ask you:
Arrow What “damage” do you believe homosexuality causes?

But if you do not believe what you say, then there is no point in asking you anything except:
Arrow When will you quit posting garbage and give us the truth of what you believe? Smile
illini319
atomictoyz wrote:

Quote:

The real problem is that if homosexuality is ok because it occurs in nature then pedo_philia falls under the same umbrella. Murder or Natural Selection are hard to distinguish without the guidlines of religion.



There is certainly a distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. While one could argue that both are simply a description of what one is attracted to, in real terms, there is a large difference. Namely, consent.
Shin
I think homosexuality is not normal. I don't mean they are insane or mental or anything like that. I define NORMAL as majority behavior, or "main stream" if you like. There is always an exception. I don't know whether homosexuality is biological natural. I can only say perhaps that the Exception exists... is natural.
Kashinilaya
I heard that, in a near future, men will be able to get pregnant (there is literature, stating that it happened in advanced societies in an ancient past, not scientifically proved yet). If this is true, homosexuality would not be a limitation for the propagation of species.
There are several reasons for homosexuality, not only the genetic explanation, including one that I don't hear much about (probably due to religious beliefs of the majority), which is that homosexuality is a choice of the the soul who is about to reincarnate. The reincarnating soul may wish to face some challenges caused by the sexual preference of the chosen body in a discriminative society. According to this spiritual theory, yes, homosexuality is biologically natural.
I believe in the above theory, but straight as I am, it doesn't affect me if it is true or not, except that I now see the subject with a much greater respect.
mediadar
{To the Philosopher Princess}

I thoroughly, and I mean this sincerely, enjoyed your posts. It would be easy for me to take an opposing position for the sake of establishing some semblance of a debate, however, I would be arguing against my own point of view.


Division of labour

I've used a similar argument recently while debating survival of the fittest and higher IQ's. So not to carry on ad nauseum, the point was simply that, the higher IQ may need the brawn of a lesser intellectually gifted person to accomplish a task, of course vice versa applies. As you've pointed out, survival of the species is not exclusive to procreation, many factors come into play.

Homosexuality, exponential growth?

I'm curious as to whether there exists a measurable exponential growth or decline in the frequency of homosexuality in relation to increased or decreased birth rates. The ability to extrapolate data from such a study to forecast trends or shifts would definitely help dispel the myth that homosexuality is nurture over nature.

I applaud your posts for their clarity, information and terseness.


Thank you,
Dar
mediadar
Shin wrote:
I think homosexuality is not normal. I don't mean they are insane or mental or anything like that. I define NORMAL as majority behavior, or "main stream" if you like. There is always an exception. I don't know whether homosexuality is biological natural. I can only say perhaps that the Exception exists... is natural.


Shin,

Biology defines normal as, functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.

Normal: Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.

If indeed homosexuality is natural, it would fall within the definition of normal occurrences within many species. Normal defined as 'majority behaviour' seems suited closer to what man/moral majority is willing to accept as normal as opposed to what science defines it as.

Hypothetical Case:
- MLB has 1500 baseball players, 900 players adjust their jocks prior to taking their stance in the batters box, are the 600 hundred remaining players not normal?

- Of these 1500 MLB players 1100 of them are juicing, the remaining 400 players are not normal?

Just a thought,
Dar.
The Philosopher Princess
Thank you, mediadar, for your comments on my contributions, here. Smile

mediadar wrote:
the higher IQ may need the brawn of a lesser intellectually gifted person to accomplish a task, of course vice versa applies.

I like that because it applies to both economics and biology. And we find people in both areas attempting (but failing) to thwart Nature by eliminating whom they perceive to be the lessers.
~~~~~~~~~~
That would be interesting to see studies on the change in frequency of homosexuality compared to the change in birth rates. If we run across something like that, let’s post links.
~~~~~~~~~~
I liked your post above discussing “normal”. I was thinking something along the same lines, but will only give a snippet.

Shin wrote:
I think homosexuality is not normal.
Shin wrote:
I define NORMAL as majority behavior

Using Shin’s definition:
** It is not normal to be a male in the UK (where there are [+-]1,362,000 more females than males).
** It is not normal to be a male in the US (where there are [+-]4,853,000 more females than males).
** It is not normal to be a female in India (where there are [+-]28,185,000 more males than females).
** It is not normal to be a female in China (where there are [+-]35,860,000 more males than females).

Gosh, what shall we do with all these abnormal people?

Is it a coincidence that the last 2 countries are places where females are considered a liability, and female babies are routinely killed, and female fetuses are routinely aborted? If not a coincidence, then normal is at least sometimes highly controllable by humans. I guess that might be what the homophobes have in mind: playing God and interfering with what is naturally biological.

Interesting that homophobes will often use God as their basis for being homophobes, but then they want to play God by interfering. Could they be missing what their God is really saying to them?
~~~~~~~~~~
(Population stats gotten from http://www.geohive.com/global/pop_gender.php.)
BruceTheDauber
The idea that it is morally wrong to be "homophobic" makes no sense to me. Rational people are naturally inclined to think for themselves and draw conclusions about whether they approve or disapprove of different behaviours. There's no sensible reason that I can see why it should be a moral sin to disapprove of homosexual behaviour, if it is not a moral sin to disapprove of, say, casual sex, or lending money at high rates of interest, or playing video games, or driving big cars. We should stop calling people homophobes, and we should stop pretending that distaste for or disapproval of homosexuality is a crime. That said, I don't agree with those who condemn homosexuality, I just think it is legitimate for them to have such views.
Whong
Homosexuality is biologically unnatural and wrong! Man and woman can make children, a man and another man can't neither can two women. Our biological task is to be fruitful and have children! Laughing
Some say that homosexuality is a matter of character, but it is not, it is a mental illness. No offece, but it is! Idea
This is all I can say! Wink

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is an abomination!
Exclamation
wumingsden
Whong wrote:
Homosexuality is biologically unnatural and wrong! Man and woman can make children, a man and another man can't neither can two women. Our biological task is to be fruitful and have children! Laughing
Some say that homosexuality is a matter of character, but it is not, it is a mental illness. No offece, but it is! Idea
This is all I can say! Wink

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is an abomination!
Exclamation


Although I always respected everyones opinion I do not respect yours simply because you do not respect gay peoples. I dislike the term "gay" and "bi-sexual" simply because I am me, unlike anybody else, but I am a 16 years old male who thinks their "bi-sexual". What does that make me, a half-mental person ? An half-abomination ? You are truely outstanding, in such a bad sense I cannot put it into words. I really do pity you. In my opinion your eyes are wide open but you are still blind. Everyone that knows me rather tries to put me down, or really respects me, I guess your another to add to my Negetive list. Nobody really knows me, not even "friends". People try and say bad things about people yet don't like it back, and in the end Karma will always come and bite you back in the ass.
You say...

Quote:
Some say that homosexuality is a matter of character, but it is not, it is a mental illness


Homosexuality is neither these two things. I have felt like I do all my life, to me its natural as well to most other people. Who are you to say my naturalness is a mental illness ? Does that mean one in 3-7 people have a mental illness ?

Homosexuality is in every country, religion, and culture no matter how much you try and deny it. If you don't wish to be left in the 15th century then I'd suggest you get a new look on life because new times are here, and with it freedom. Religion's are getting weaker by the day, if only they were more excepting then everyone, including "gay" people, would be more religious.
altec
Is it natural to kill? We see animals do the same.
Is it natural to have multiple sex partners? We see animals do the same.
Is it natural to have sex with your sister or brother? We see animals do the same.
Is it natural to have sex with your parents? We see animals do the same.
Is it natural to have sex with your aunts and uncles? We see animals do the same.
Is it natural to have sex with the same sex? We see animals do the same.
Is it natural to have sex with an animal? We see humans do it.

Is it natural for an animal to distinguish between what is right and wrong?

Are all these biologically "natural"?


Think about it.
Bondings
altec wrote:
Is it natural for an animal to distinguish between what is right and wrong?

You're turning the question upside down. Most of the time when you ask a person why homosexuality is wrong, they answer that it isn't natural.

So tell me what is wrong about it? I know it doesn't produce any children, but so does being single or infertile. And there is nothing morally wrong about that, I hope you agree.

So could you tell me, what is wrong about it; what harm does it cause to other people? And please don't say it's "sick" or "obvious" because those aren't real arguments.
Whong
It isn't my business to butt into others matters, but I believe that homosexuality is wrong, why? Because sex is meant to be for getting children it isn't for just fun! A man and a man can't get kids by fooling with each other.
If you like it, I can't stop you! Wink
wumingsden
Whong wrote:
It isn't my business to butt into others matters, but I believe that homosexuality is wrong, why? Because sex is meant to be for getting children it isn't for just fun! A man and a man can't get kids by fooling with each other.
If you like it, I can't stop you! Wink


You say...

Quote:
Because sex is meant to be for getting children it isn't for just fun!


Are you in any way associated with the Vatican ? Think about the differences between sex and making love. Hetrosexuals and homosexuals both practice this. Why would homosexulals have sex or make love when children can not yet be the eventual outcome.

Are you religious Whong ?
altec
Bondings wrote:
altec wrote:
Is it natural for an animal to distinguish between what is right and wrong?

You're turning the question upside down. Most of the time when you ask a person why homosexuality is wrong, they answer that it isn't natural.

So tell me what is wrong about it? I know it doesn't produce any children, but so does being single or infertile. And there is nothing morally wrong about that, I hope you agree.

So could you tell me, what is wrong about it; what harm does it cause to other people? And please don't say it's "sick" or "obvious" because those aren't real arguments.


I think what I have posted is clear enough.

I hope you don't see me as a very judgemental person. My accountant is gay. My next door neighbor is gay. But, I don't judge them. They are people. People with emotions. I would treat them no less than a friend.

What I don't agree is what people do behind the doors. The same with a straight person who has a strong tendency to have multiple sexual partners, the same with a grown person who has an "attraction" to young kids, the same with the person who has a sexual relationship with their brother or sister, the same with the person who is a parent who commits incest. All these fall under the category of "sexual immorality".

We should not be biased and let "homosexuality" different from these sexual acts. They are all the same.
The Philosopher Princess
BruceTheDauber wrote:
The idea that it is morally wrong to be "homophobic" makes no sense to me.

I agree. My philosophy does not say it is “morally wrong to be ‘homophobic’”. Instead, I just say that being homophobic is a personal problem. It’s like being a racist, a sexist, or a nationalist; each has a different kind of irrational fear against other people who are who they are naturally.

Homophobes, racists, sexists, and nationalists do not judge other people on their accomplishments, or lack thereof; they judge people on natural characteristics (or, almost natural, in the case of nationalism). They’re fearing people who can’t change, instead of saving their fear for things that can actually be addressed and dealt with. That’s not immoral -- just ignorant.

It’s not immoral to be ignorant. The real issue comes when these irrational fears turn into aggression against people.

The sexist male boss who despises women is not being immoral per se, but if he turns his irrational fear into rape, thinking “she deserved it for being too sexy”, he then is immoral.

The homophobe who physically threatens and even murders homosexuals is immoral, not for being a homophobe, but for the physical force. And you know this goes on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BruceTheDauber wrote:
We should stop calling people homophobes

Why? We need some term to identify the people who are scared of homosexuals just for being what they naturally are.

Androphobes have a fear of males. Gynephobes have a fear of women. Homophobes have a fear of homosexuals.

You can attempt to change the names of these phobias, but the characteristics needing identification won’t go away, unfortunately.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many people with phobias seek medical help for their condition. Let’s be clear: It is the people with the phobias (e.g., adrophobes, gynephobes, homophobes) who need help, not the people who have a natural characteristic (e.g., males, females, homosexuals).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BruceTheDauber wrote:
That said, I don't agree with those who condemn homosexuality, I just think it is legitimate for them to have such views.

Yes, it is “legitimate for them to have such views” -- as long as they refrain from aggressive force. And as long as they don’t use the Force of Government to codify into law “such views”. But you know, as well as I, that many people with “such views” work very hard to have their “such views” forced onto other people.

Some homophobes go to great political lengths to have laws enacted against homosexuals. Now that is definitely immoral. Not immoral for the homophobia part. Immoral for forcing one’s own “such views” onto other people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here’s another twist, especially for our thread instigator, mediadar, but good for everyone to consider.

Homophobia, is it biologically natural?

I couldn’t resist making the wording like that of this thread’s topic, but the question should actually be worded more precisely such as Are some inclinations towards homophobia biologically natural, or is all homophobia learned?

We already know that there is an exorbitant amount of evidence of homophobia’s being a learned trait.
** Some parents pass their homophobia on to their children.
** Some religions teach their flocks to be homophobes.
** Some political leaders will personally gain from force against people (homosexuals being just one example), so they work towards brainwashing their constituents.

New little homophobes are grown from hanging around big homophobes. Gathering this kind of evidence would be the easy part.

Now the hard part: Finding any evidence that some cases of homophobia are natural, and/or that some people have a genetic predisposition towards homophobia.

For example, we know that alcoholism is acquired by some people during the course of their (drinking) lives. However, it’s well established that some alcoholics have a predisposition towards alcoholism (or, more precisely, a predisposition towards being an addict, period). (Knowing about such addicted predispositions can help prevent the problems beforehand, if people take heed.)

You have to admit it’s kind of an interesting question, whether homophobia is ever natural or if it’s always taught to people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’d love DoctorBeaver’s opinion too. In fact, I noticed that he was going to come back here with an article link and hasn’t yet.
altec
illini319 wrote:
As a scientist, I am compelled to answer that, yes, it is a genetic trait. Many species do exhibit behaviors that appear homosexual in nature (ex. a male doing a mating dance towards another male). In fact, genes have already been found (conserved all the way down to fruitflies) that when mutated can trigger a complete switch in how an animal behaves sexually. This is, to the point, of not procreating and hence one can argue that it is an evolutionary dead end. Yet it persists in nature... why is that? (I really don't know.) I thought this was an easier question to answer in humans because of our historical (and current) views on homosexuality have driven many homosexuals to repress their sexuality and even take on spouses (and yes, even procreate). Hence one can easily see, if one were to believe that there is a genetic component to this, how homosexuality can persist in the humans species: because of sociological repression of natural selection... But back to my original point: why does homosexual behavior persist in other species? Are these species more social than we realize? Or is there some other underlying event that we are missing/assuming?


Since we are dealing with sexual behaviours, why only study homosexuality? Was incest among animals also studied as well?

I have 1 female dog and 1 male dog. They mated and have 3 male puppies and 1 female puppy. The male puppies grew up and mated with the mother. The male puppy mated with his sister. The male father dog mated with his daughter. Sometimes, I see the male dogs attempting to mate with other male dogs.

I see that in my cats as well. I have 3 male cats. They rape each other every full moon and new moon ( I don't know why). They are very noisy.

Why does homosexual behavior persist in other species? Why does incestuous behaviour persist in other species? Is this a genetic trait as well?

Are all these biologically "natural"?

I am against all of these sexual acts because it destroys and harms the basic family unit of a society - Husband, Wife, and Children. We are not animals. We are human beings.
Juparis
I personally believe that animals are able to commit incest because they are amoral. We, as humans, have too many high morals and birth defects to take into consideration whenver someone even thinks about incest. I think the birth defects that are a result kind of encourage the moral thinking that incest is wrong--which is good, IMHO.

As for humans not being animals, I wouldn't be so sure. All in all, we're just fancy animals that walk upright and have developed technology. Our DNA is 99.9% shared with that of some primates. I don't know if I'd say we aren't animals entirely, but we sure are different...
AdamantMonk
Yeah once I saw a male cat straddle another male cat but they're both cool so it's cool...

To what one person said about dogs effin their parents and crap, apparently if animals do it, it's natural. Just not socially acceptable to us humans.

Is it biologically natural for humans to drag their butts across the carpet?
Is it biologically natural for humans to lick their nads?

Hey! It goes both ways...
polarBear
It's natural if you define natural as ' a generalised behaviour in most of the animal species'. Yes, mostly every animal screws another one of its same sex at any given time, just because they feel like it. Animals don't have most of the inhibitions we do, so they just don't care about this things.

Now, we can discuss if it's biologically practical, knowing that most of the animals, humans included, are designed for reproduction. As it's phyisically impossible for two male/female mammals to reproduce, it's a pointless act as regarding the reproduction. Like scratching your ear. Or jerking off. And both of them are deeply natural behaviours too, right?
Whong
I'm just a Christian, humble servant of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!
Everything that is natural isn't still right! Eating is natural but if you eat to much it will have a bad effect on you, so it is not right to eat to much! Laughing

This a topic that can't be settled, everyone has their own ideas! May the Lord solve this one! Very Happy Wink
wumingsden
Whong wrote:
I'm just a Christian, humble servant of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!
Everything that is natural isn't still right! Eating is natural but if you eat to much it will have a bad effect on you, so it is not right to eat to much! Laughing

This a topic that can't be settled, everyone has their own ideas! May the Lord solve this one! Very Happy Wink


I thought so. This thread is not asking what your religion thinks of it but "The question targets a search for scientific proof of it's occurrence in nature"
bluedragon
I have one simple idea:

Population Control!

It makes perfect sense. Humans/animals are so horny, we gotta get off sometime, sometime with someone else?

Humans have taken over the world. We're overpopulated. We need homosexuality ... a lot more even.
BruceTheDauber
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
I just say that being homophobic is a personal problem. It’s like being a racist, a sexist, or a nationalist; each has a different kind of irrational fear against other people who are who they are naturally.


I disagree. It's not like being a racist, a sexist, or a nationalist. Those things have nothing to do with someone's behaviour.

Quote:
Homophobes, racists, sexists, and nationalists do not judge other people on their accomplishments, or lack thereof; they judge people on natural characteristics (or, almost natural, in the case of nationalism).


Well, no. To a "homophobe" (so called), homosexuality is a failure of accomplishment. It's about behaviour, not one's birth.

Quote:
They’re fearing people who can’t change, instead of saving their fear for things that can actually be addressed and dealt with. That’s not immoral -- just ignorant.


First of all, the assumption that they are afraid is, at best, mistaken. What's you're reason for believing that they don't just think homosexuality is wrong, without being afraid of homosexuals, the same way many people think that adultery is wrong, without being afraid of adulterers?

Quote:
It’s not immoral to be ignorant. The real issue comes when these irrational fears turn into aggression against people.


Who who says the homophobe is ignorant? When some conservative bishop says the Bible proclaims homosexual an abomination, said bishop is not speaking from ignorance.

As for "aggression", that's a totally separate matter.


Quote:
BruceTheDauber wrote:
We should stop calling people homophobes

Why? We need some term to identify the people who are scared of homosexuals just for being what they naturally are.


Because calling them homophobes is dishonest. Disapproval does not imply fear. Fear is presumed (without evidence) in order to short-circuit the discussion, and belittle the opponent.


Quote:
people who have a natural characteristic (e.g., males, females, homosexuals).


How can you say that homosexuality is a "natural characteristic" equivalent to maleness or femaleness? It obviously is not, even if genetic tendencies to be homosexual, heterosexual, etc., exist. If sexual preferences are fixed hereditary traits, and this makes them immune to moral disapproval, then does this apply every sexual preference equally? Does that mean that someone who disapproves of paedophilia or bestiality should also be branded a "phobe"?


Quote:
BruceTheDauber wrote:
That said, I don't agree with those who condemn homosexuality, I just think it is legitimate for them to have such views.

Yes, it is “legitimate for them to have such views” -- as long as they refrain from aggressive force. And as long as they don’t use the Force of Government to codify into law “such views”. But you know, as well as I, that many people with “such views” work very hard to have their “such views” forced onto other people.

Some homophobes go to great political lengths to have laws enacted against homosexuals. Now that is definitely immoral.


Not in a democracy, it ain't. If they think homosexuality is wrong, and they try to suppress it using the law, they're doing the same thing that people who disapprove of thievery are doing, when they try to get laws enacted against acts of theft. If they use the democratic process correctly, why should it be wrong?


Quote:
Not immoral for the homophobia part. Immoral for forcing one’s own “such views” onto other people.


Oh, right. So, if I disapprove of something that's not currently illegal, and I seek to use the democratic process to make it illegal, I'm doing something morally wrong, am I? Aren't you just saying it's immoral to make laws?
Bondings
BruceTheDauber wrote:
Not in a democracy, it ain't. If they think homosexuality is wrong, and they try to suppress it using the law, they're doing the same thing that people who disapprove of thievery are doing, when they try to get laws enacted against acts of theft. If they use the democratic process correctly, why should it be wrong?

The difference is that theft is harming other people. It's actually a very big difference.

If you call something wrong, then you also need to explain why it is wrong. And I haven't heard a single real argument about that.

Most people wear a watch on their left arm if I'm not mistaken. Now what if I claim that wearing it on your right arm is morally wrong? What if I try to make a law forbidding it or discriminating those people? Wouldn't you protest?
BruceTheDauber
Bondings wrote:

The difference is that theft is harming other people. It's actually a very big difference.

If you call something wrong, then you also need to explain why it is wrong. And I haven't heard a single real argument about that.

Most people wear a watch on their left arm if I'm not mistaken. Now what if I claim that wearing it on your right arm is morally wrong? What if I try to make a law forbidding it or discriminating those people? Wouldn't you protest?


Some anarchists would deny that theft causes harm to others, saying instead that the idea of property was itself harmful. That aside, there's as much case for saying that homosexuality does harm as there is that, say, pornography, incest, polygamy, prostitution, and various other sex-related things that are in many countries restricted by law. Homosexual men, it can be claimed (and has been), spread AIDS, put teenage boys at risk, undermine social cohesion, and hurt their families a whole by failing to reproduce. These claims can't be dismissed out of hand -- they have to be addressed.

Anyway, that something has to be demonstrated to be harmful in order to be reasonably deemed wrong enough to be made illegal is not at all certain -- there are ethical systems that are not founded on such an idea. Therefore, even if the arguments that homosexuality causes harm fail, there's more work to be done before you can say definitely that it is morally wrong to disapprove of homosexuality and attempt to suppress it by legal means.

If "what is not harmful is good" is a solid liberal ethical principle, then also freedom of speech is. To try to rule out expressions of so-called "homophobia" goes against the freedom of speech principle in a most fundamental way.
polarBear
BruceTheDauber wrote:
Some anarchists would deny that theft causes harm to others, saying instead that the idea of property was itself harmful.
No, not really. In another context where property doesn't exist, it may happen, though not on this model.
Quote:
That aside, there's as much case for saying that homosexuality does harm as there is that, say, pornography, incest, polygamy, prostitution, and various other sex-related things that are in many countries restricted by law.
I'd LOVE to see your sorces on that.

Ibidem wrote:
Homosexual men, it can be claimed (and has been), spread AIDS,
That argument was so blatantly false that its very propellers denied it around the '80s. Have any recent sources?
Quote:
put teenage boys at risk,
Like when those kids get high and drive, or get killed by a mara just because; that type of risk?
Ibidem wrote:

undermine social cohesion, and hurt their families a whole by failing to reproduce. These claims can't be dismissed out of hand -- they have to be addressed.
Oh, that type of risk... my bad, I thought you were talking about real stuff.
Newsflash: Gay people come from heterosexual couples, they don't fall from trees. On the other hand, gay families that adopt children show a tendency to form heterosexual grownups. Curious, huh?

Now for real. What do you have to do with ANYBODY's sexual preferences? I mean, if I don't even think about what you do with your genitals, what entitles YOU to tell ANYONE (not me, I happen to be on the same side of the choice as you) what he should do?
Soulfire
I can't really tell, I am not presented with enough evidence to decide, only to have an opinion. And I've already been torn down because of my opinions, but here are my contributions to this discussion:

1) Homosexuality is abnormal. It is the truth, because normal is male and female. That is not to say it is bad, just not the normal.

2) Homosexuality is unnatural. It is the truth, because it is against nature. Again the whole male and female thing would be nature's intention.

Again, I am not condemning homosexuality, just offering a few tidbits, because I am truly apathetic towards homosexuality. If you are gay, just don't flaunt it around and boast about it around me. What you do with your personal life and relationships is your business, as much as I don't care for homosexuality, I suppose it truly doesn't matter. It's not like they're hurting people.
polarBear
Homosexuality is abnormal. It is the truth, because normal is male and female. That is not to say it is bad, just not the normal.

Males are abnormal: Every year more female babies are born than males.
Rain is abnormal: Most of the time it doesn't rain
You (and me, and your parents, and mine) are abnormal: They are not like everyone else, they are like a)humans and b)your parents.

Look around, and you'll not find 1 person that you can say about him: "this dude is SO totally NORMAL". Give it a try. There's no normal anything, it's just an abstract concept to represent the chances of an event to occur.

Anyway:

Homosexuality is unnatural.

Clothing is unnatural: You already have hair and grease.
Houses are unnatural: There's no real need for a roof in anything you do normally.

It's just people having sex... there's not too much to ellaborate about this, after all... any vertebrate will eventually have sex in some manner.
HoboPelican
The topic was - Homosexuality, is it biologically natural?

Simple question. All you have to do is define what is meant by "natural".Laughing

We know it happens in nature, so, yes, it's natural. We also know it does not propagate the species, so does that make it "unnatural"? Maybe, but if there is a natural sexual drive and no females around...well, if you're just an animal, any port in a storm, so to speak. Seems pretty natural to me.

Some of you are bringing morals into this and that is not the question at all. I think our morals are one of the things raise us above an animal level. Heck, in many ways we have removed ourselves from the natural order of things.

So, can we leave morals and religion out of THIS discussion. Start a new one about whether homosexuality is morally whong.

If you do, THERE is where I'll try to get answers as to why people are so sure that homosexuality is a threat to our family values.
BruceTheDauber
polarBear wrote:
Quote:
Some anarchists would deny that theft causes harm to others, saying instead that the idea of property was itself harmful.
No, not really. In another context where property doesn't exist, it may happen, though not on this model.


Yes, really. Have you never heard the expression "all property is theft", given to us by the anarchist philosopher Pierre Joseph Proudhon in 1840? That slogan is the motto of those who believe that private property itself is wrong, from which follows the idea that "theft" of private property does no harm.

Another point to be made about theft is that in general it causes only temporary psychological distress, but no physical suffering. The psychological distress itself is contingent on people having an attachment to their property, which itself is an attitude that may be difficult to justify. In that case, theft is arguably no worse than other things that might cause psychological distress to others, such as rudeness, adultery, or, indeed, homosexuality.

Quote:
Quote:
That aside, there's as much case for saying that homosexuality does harm as there is that, say, pornography, incest, polygamy, prostitution, and various other sex-related things that are in many countries restricted by law.
I'd LOVE to see your sorces on that.


Well, what harm does incest do? If it leads to children, then the offspring stand a higher-than-normal chance of suffering genetic abnormalities. But if contraception is used, what harm then? Yet there's a strong taboo on incest, regardless, and most countries have strong laws against it. There's an argument that incest reduces social cohesion, but that's a very intangible harm, difficult to prove. Of the others, the same question can be asked -- what harm do they do? Some people are adamant that pornography and prostitution are harmful, but they have great difficulty in proving their case to skeptics. Polygamy is strongly taboo in many countries, and accepted in others, and those who insist it does harm find that there are many people who insist on its social benefits.

You can quibble with people who claim that homosexuality does harm, certainly, but you can quibble with the claims of harm regarding many things that are considered immoral. Homosexuality is not special in that regard.

A consistently liberal view would say that incest, pornography, polygamy and prostitution are all okay, alongside homosexuality, as long as it only involves consenting adults, but at the same time, it would say that it was okay to argue against that position, because the defence of such freedom of speech is an essential part of liberalism.

Quote:
Quote:
Homosexual men, it can be claimed (and has been), spread AIDS,
That argument was so blatantly false that its very propellers denied it around the '80s. Have any recent sources?


Well, no. Proponents of that argument are still at it, and they produce stats to back up their claim. See this site for a recent article claiming "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality":

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1

Quote:
Quote:
put teenage boys at risk,
Like when those kids get high and drive, or get killed by a mara just because; that type of risk?


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, there. Kids getting high and driving, or doing any other risky thing is irrelevant to whether or not such risk as may be presented by the stereotypical predatory older man intent on seducing teenage boys is a good thing or not.

Quote:
Quote:
undermine social cohesion, and hurt their families a whole by failing to reproduce. These claims can't be dismissed out of hand -- they have to be addressed.
Oh, that type of risk... my bad, I thought you were talking about real stuff.


It's arguably as real as the harm caused by most non-violent crime and most civil tort. Lots of things are illegal, or make one liable to being sued, even though the harm done is only psychological distress. Why should homosexuality be an exception?

Quote:
Now for real. What do you have to do with ANYBODY's sexual preferences? I mean, if I don't even think about what you do with your genitals, what entitles YOU to tell ANYONE (not me, I happen to be on the same side of the choice as you) what he should do?


Personally, I don't give a toss about other people's sexuality, in general, but I DO care about the manner in which some moral debate is delegitimized and suppressed by dishonest means, and that's what's going on when people equate those who disapprove of homosexuality (a form of behaviour) with those who express prejudice against certain ethnic groups, sexes, etc. (where the criterion of membership is not behaviour, but birth).
Bondings
BruceTheDauber wrote:
Well, what harm does incest do? If it leads to children, then the offspring stand a higher-than-normal chance of suffering genetic abnormalities. But if contraception is used, what harm then? Yet there's a strong taboo on incest, regardless, and most countries have strong laws against it. There's an argument that incest reduces social cohesion, but that's a very intangible harm, difficult to prove. Of the others, the same question can be asked -- what harm do they do? Some people are adamant that pornography and prostitution are harmful, but they have great difficulty in proving their case to skeptics. Polygamy is strongly taboo in many countries, and accepted in others, and those who insist it does harm find that there are many people who insist on its social benefits.

There are a few problems with incest. It very rarely happens between 2 adults with full consent, so it is rather a law to protect people. And of course I know it is a big taboo. But it won't always stay that way.

About pornography, isn't that like one of the biggest industries in the USA? I really don't think it is illegal or should be illegal. If you don't like it, don't watch/do it.

Polygamy (or the male thing, I forgot the word) is also a different case. It's harming the women involved in it as they most likely are forced into this. A marriage is also an union between 2 people.

And "all property is theft" is actually asking for a completely different sort of society like a communism. I think you are taking this discussion a bit too far in that case.

Quote:
The defence of such freedom of speech is an essential part of liberalism.

It doesn't include everything. Things like propagating hate and racism are harming others (a lot) and thus not allowed.
BruceTheDauber
Bondings wrote:
There are a few problems with incest. It very rarely happens between 2 adults with full consent, so it is rather a law to protect people. And of course I know it is a big taboo. But it won't always stay that way.


So what if it's rare? Why should it be illegal, if there's no discernable harm from it?

Quote:
About pornography, isn't that like one of the biggest industries in the USA? I really don't think it is illegal or should be illegal. If you don't like it, don't watch/do it.


It may be legal in the USA at the moment, but it's not legal everywhere, and in most places where it is legal, it is still in various degrees and ways subject to censorship. The point though is still this, people who object to pornography are not demonized the way people who object to homosexuality are.

Quote:
Polygamy (or the male thing, I forgot the word) is also a different case. It's harming the women involved in it as they most likely are forced into this. A marriage is also an union between 2 people.


Forced marriage is a completely separate matter from polygamy. Monogamous marriages can be forced, and polygamous marriages are usually not. There's no proof of any harm -- certainly no proof that it is worse than serial monogamy -- and polygamy of one kind or another has historically been accepted and commonplace in most parts of the world, except in Europe, since ancient times. Yet people who object to polygamy are not demonized the way people who object to homosexuality are.

The same again is true with regard to prostitution. It's been around forever, pretty much everywhere, and there's very little evidence that it does any harm. Yet those who object to it are not demonized the way those who object to homosexuality are.

Quote:
And "all property is theft" is actually asking for a completely different sort of society like a communism. I think you are taking this discussion a bit too far in that case.


Why do you imagine that is relevant? If our ideas about theft are radically wrong, they're still wrong. If it is okay to argue about whether theft should be illegal, without demonizing those who stand on either one side or the other of that argument, then why cannot such an argument about laws affecting homosexuality not also be conducted in a similar attitude of respect for the opinions of others?

Quote:
Quote:
The defence of such freedom of speech is an essential part of liberalism.

It doesn't include everything. Things like propagating hate and racism are harming others (a lot) and thus not allowed.


Again you're committing the fallacy of equating moral disapprobrium with racism. The two are completely different (one is about birth, and the other is about behaviour -- or do you deny that?), and you have produced NO plausible argument as to why they should be equated.
polarBear
Quote:
So what if it's rare? Why should it be illegal, if there's no discernable harm from it?

a) Just because law is a formalization of morals and its enforcement and b)to prevent abuse.
Any more questions about it?

Quote:

It may be legal in the USA at the moment, but it's not legal everywhere, and in most places where it is legal, it is still in various degrees and ways subject to censorship. The point though is still this, people who object to pornography are not demonized the way people who object to homosexuality are.


First of all, no one 'demonizes' your homophobia, everyone around is trying to explain that it's not something that anyone can truly 'object to', mainly because you aren't entitled to stick your nose on anybody's private matters.
Quote:
Forced marriage is a completely separate matter from polygamy. Monogamous marriages can be forced, and polygamous marriages are usually not.
:S In which culture?
Quote:
Why do you imagine that is relevant? If our ideas about theft are radically wrong, they're still wrong. If it is okay to argue about whether theft should be illegal, without demonizing those who stand on either one side or the other of that argument, then why cannot such an argument about laws affecting homosexuality not also be conducted in a similar attitude of respect for the opinions of others?

Nothing, is universally true or false. As for your lack of knowledge about anarchism and property, you should read about the ideas exchange between Marx and Bakunin, preferrably after reading the Capital and getting it. That would clear your concepts a lot. Or you could start a new topic on the subject.


Quote:
then why cannot such an argument about laws affecting homosexuality not also be conducted in a similar attitude of respect for the opinions of others?

Would you respect the result of a national debate on how long should a penis be and how to punish those who are shorter or larger?
Noone wants other people to debate on how their sex should be. In particular with so much crap being said about it.
wumingsden
BruceTheDauber wrote:

Some anarchists would deny that theft causes harm to others, saying instead that the idea of property was itself harmful. That aside, there's as much case for saying that homosexuality does harm as there is that, say, pornography, incest, polygamy, prostitution, and various other sex-related things that are in many countries restricted by law. Homosexual men, it can be claimed (and has been), spread AIDS, put teenage boys at risk, undermine social cohesion, and hurt their families a whole by failing to reproduce. These claims can't be dismissed out of hand -- they have to be addressed.

Anyway, that something has to be demonstrated to be harmful in order to be reasonably deemed wrong enough to be made illegal is not at all certain -- there are ethical systems that are not founded on such an idea. Therefore, even if the arguments that homosexuality causes harm fail, there's more work to be done before you can say definitely that it is morally wrong to disapprove of homosexuality and attempt to suppress it by legal means.

If "what is not harmful is good" is a solid liberal ethical principle, then also freedom of speech is. To try to rule out expressions of so-called "homophobia" goes against the freedom of speech principle in a most fundamental way.



Quote:
Some anarchists would deny that theft causes harm to others, saying instead that the idea of property was itself harmful.


Do you wear clothes ? Live in a house ? Have a car ? I guess you see where I'm coming from here.
How about the link between theft and property. People steal because they want something that they haven't got. Do you have a wife or children ?

Quote:
Homosexual men, it can be claimed (and has been), spread AIDS


So do heterosexuals, does this mean that its morally wrong ? Anybody can spead AIDS, simply by having sex. It is not dependant on having gay sex, just sex. It is easier to catch AIDs by having unprotected gay sex, yes, although it can be just as dangerous for unprotected straight sex.

Quote:
put teenage boys at risk


So a homosexual man puts teenage boys at risk ? Does this mean that straight men put teenage girls at risk ? Or Woman put teenage boys at risk ? Here we are talking about desires, surely a person who has a sexuality (so just about everybody) puts a certain group at risk then.
I think your getting your wires mixed with homosexuality and pedophilia.

Quote:
undermine social cohesion


How ?

Quote:
and hurt their families a whole by failing to reproduce


So what about people that don't want children, are they morally wrong ? Would the Government of China be happy if there were more homosexuals due to the fact that there are restrictions on childbirths ? Surely this would benefit the country ?

I noticed the link you gave in an earlier post is to a website dealing with Faith. This is why you have such strong views ?
mrbofh
I have nothing against Homoseksuals, but i don't like when they start hit on me... I never thought to be gay Razz realy, it's like grose!
Sorry for my english.
Slizer
I do not wish to offend anyone, only to cause some thought.

1. It has been said that each person chooses their own preference as to whether to be homosexual or heterosexual. If this is so, then it would seem to be a conscious decision, rather than a "natural" thing.

2. However, this leaves us with the issue of animals engaging in homosexual activity. I would like to bring to your attention the nature of hormones, which many men and women could contribute to say that such hormones can override the conscious thought process. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME ON THIS! I only mean to say that it is possible for a creature's sex drive to become so heightened, that it will have sex with almost anything. I have seen rabbits attempting to have sex with a bowl of water, or anything that will sit still long enough. In the case of humans, some have taken to using "inflatables." By this I mean to say, that a creature's sex drive, especially with the males, can reach such a point to which they desire little more than any form of sexual release.

3. Although the origins of homosexuality are beyond the ability of any alive today to determine, the fact is that it is around, and practised. The vast majority of people(especially in America) have been, or will be, exposed to homosexuality, unless they are somehow sheltered from it. Once the concept of homosexuality is introduced into the mind, it is almost impossible to eradicate, as information and memories, while not always easily recovered, are incredibly difficult to truly eradicate. So these people who have been exposed to homosexuality will have such in their minds virtually forever.

4. Of course, we as humans are curious creatures. We are always reaching for the unknown. From the depths of the sea to the depths of space, we are always searching for something new or yet to be experienced. This leads some who have encountered homosexuality to engage in it out of curiousity.

5. In addition to any psychological reasons, the add of sex drive can be a rather overpowering factor towards homosexuality. The process of homosexuality, it would seem then, essentially comes to conscious exposure, fueled by biological hormones(that cause desire any form of sex).

6. So, to wrap all this up, the conclusion I come to is that being a homosexuality is likely to not be "natural", so to speak. Sex is natural. Homosexuality, is a form of sex, but renders the biological, or "natural", functions of sex impossible. It appears that it is the heightened sex drive that leads one to homosexuality, in addition to conscious thought (in humans). So, I do NOT believe homosexuality to be a "natural" thing. However, note that it is present, both in humans and animals, and there are instances of both doing things that would normally not be done due to unusual circumstances and/or hormones.

I respect homosexuals, whether I approve of homosexuality or not. Each person is entitled to his own opinions, and courses of action, and while I may advise against certain choices, I still see them as the individual's to make. Do not make the mistake of thinking or telling people that I am a homophobe. I understand it to be your choice, and I respect you as a human being. I myself was homosexual for a period of time (although I never actually commited the act, but rather, was homosexual in mind and attraction.), but I decided that homosexuality was not the lifestyle I wanted. So, if someone takes offense at this post, they likely either need to read it in its entirety, or else are looking for a fight. I don't wish to cause any arguments, as I've said from the beginning, only to cause some thought.
wumingsden
Slizer wrote:
I do not wish to offend anyone, only to cause some thought.

1. It has been said that each person chooses their own preference as to whether to be homosexual or heterosexual. If this is so, then it would seem to be a conscious decision, rather than a "natural" thing.

2. However, this leaves us with the issue of animals engaging in homosexual activity. I would like to bring to your attention the nature of hormones, which many men and women could contribute to say that such hormones can override the conscious thought process. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME ON THIS! I only mean to say that it is possible for a creature's sex drive to become so heightened, that it will have sex with almost anything. I have seen rabbits attempting to have sex with a bowl of water, or anything that will sit still long enough. In the case of humans, some have taken to using "inflatables." By this I mean to say, that a creature's sex drive, especially with the males, can reach such a point to which they desire little more than any form of sexual release.

3. Although the origins of homosexuality are beyond the ability of any alive today to determine, the fact is that it is around, and practised. The vast majority of people(especially in America) have been, or will be, exposed to homosexuality, unless they are somehow sheltered from it. Once the concept of homosexuality is introduced into the mind, it is almost impossible to eradicate, as information and memories, while not always easily recovered, are incredibly difficult to truly eradicate. So these people who have been exposed to homosexuality will have such in their minds virtually forever.

4. Of course, we as humans are curious creatures. We are always reaching for the unknown. From the depths of the sea to the depths of space, we are always searching for something new or yet to be experienced. This leads some who have encountered homosexuality to engage in it out of curiousity.

5. In addition to any psychological reasons, the add of sex drive can be a rather overpowering factor towards homosexuality. The process of homosexuality, it would seem then, essentially comes to conscious exposure, fueled by biological hormones(that cause desire any form of sex).

6. So, to wrap all this up, the conclusion I come to is that being a homosexuality is likely to not be "natural", so to speak. Sex is natural. Homosexuality, is a form of sex, but renders the biological, or "natural", functions of sex impossible. It appears that it is the heightened sex drive that leads one to homosexuality, in addition to conscious thought (in humans). So, I do NOT believe homosexuality to be a "natural" thing. However, note that it is present, both in humans and animals, and there are instances of both doing things that would normally not be done due to unusual circumstances and/or hormones.

I respect homosexuals, whether I approve of homosexuality or not. Each person is entitled to his own opinions, and courses of action, and while I may advise against certain choices, I still see them as the individual's to make. Do not make the mistake of thinking or telling people that I am a homophobe. I understand it to be your choice, and I respect you as a human being. I myself was homosexual for a period of time (although I never actually commited the act, but rather, was homosexual in mind and attraction.), but I decided that homosexuality was not the lifestyle I wanted. So, if someone takes offense at this post, they likely either need to read it in its entirety, or else are looking for a fight. I don't wish to cause any arguments, as I've said from the beginning, only to cause some thought.


I do not consider yourself to be a "homophobe". I dislike this word a little due to the fact that if you disapprove of homosexuals it doesn't nesserily mean your a "homophobe". I class a "homophobe" as someone that has such strong opinions that they try and do something about it, for instance protest or fight with a homosexual because of their sexuality.

Quote:
I myself was homosexual for a period of time (although I never actually commited the act, but rather, was homosexual in mind and attraction.),


this is also the same for me, i haven't made up my mind what my sexuality is although I think it is "bi-sexual" - again, i don't like the term
DoctorBeaver
BruceTheDauber wrote:
The idea that it is morally wrong to be "homophobic" makes no sense to me. Rational people are naturally inclined to think for themselves and draw conclusions about whether they approve or disapprove of different behaviours. There's no sensible reason that I can see why it should be a moral sin to disapprove of homosexual behaviour, if it is not a moral sin to disapprove of, say, casual sex, or lending money at high rates of interest, or playing video games, or driving big cars. We should stop calling people homophobes, and we should stop pretending that distaste for or disapproval of homosexuality is a crime. That said, I don't agree with those who condemn homosexuality, I just think it is legitimate for them to have such views.


A phobia is an irrational fear. As such, any type of phobia implies a flawed psychology. Unfortunately the term homophobic has been come to mean being against homosexuals in general rather than the hating of them. These 2 meanings are, obviously, totally different.

If you take the true meaning of homophobic, then I believe it is indeed morally wrong to be so. However, simply not approving of homosexuality - so long as one's arguments are well thought out - is, as Bruce wrote, perfectly reasonable. Being against it simply because "it's not normal" is, to put it bluntly, a cop out. I say this because what is percieved as normal is probably very far removed from the fact of normality.

People will pretend that their behaviour in private conforms to societal norms whereas their behaviour may, in fact, be very different. It is this type of pretence that shapes the fabric of societal normality. If everyone was totally honest about their likes & dislikes there would probably be a major shift in what is thought of as normal. As such, being against an act simply because society has defined it as non-normal is a short-sighted nonsense.
eday2010
It's natural in the sense that it happens. It's not the norm, and it's not highly common, but it happens. Just like animals are born albino, to give and example. It happens naturally, but it's not common. Same with being a Nancy. Someone doesn't choose to be a gay. Often, they fight the fact that they might be at first. It's not like they are straight for 29 years and then one day just decide that they want to be gay. That gayness has always been in them somewhere. At some point, they just stop resisting it and become a fruit.

So, Natural? Yes. Common? No. OK? That's for each individual to decide.
mediadar
Juparis wrote:
I personally believe that animals are able to commit incest because they are amoral. We, as humans, have too many high morals and birth defects to take into consideration whenever someone even thinks about incest. I think the birth defects that are a result kind of encourage the moral thinking that incest is wrong--which is good, IMHO.

As for humans not being animals, I wouldn't be so sure. All in all, we're just fancy animals that walk upright and have developed technology. Our DNA is 99.9% shared with that of some primates. I don't know if I'd say we aren't animals entirely, but we sure are different...


Animals can't be amoral! they follow no philosophy or religion, thus underlines the problem, they follow the laws of nature.

Whong wrote:
I'm just a Christian, humble servant of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!
Everything that is natural isn't still right! Eating is natural but if you eat to much it will have a bad effect on you, so it is not right to eat to much!

This a topic that can't be settled, everyone has their own ideas! May the Lord solve this one!


So your opinion is based on a highly subjective and biased religion, and again, as previously asked, what if one of the couple is infertile, are they committing a moral sin by continuing to have sex knowing that they will not produce offspring? The arguments laid out by religious opinions are antiquated and in need of severe revisions. If animals are free to masturbate and display acts of homosexuality, and they do, then somewhere, somehow, someone has it all wrong.

Mediadar.
mediadar
polarBear wrote:
It's natural if you define natural as ' a generalised behaviour in most of the animal species'. Yes, mostly every animal screws another one of its same sex at any given time, just because they feel like it. Animals don't have most of the inhibitions we do, so they just don't care about this things.

Now, we can discuss if it's biologically practical, knowing that most of the animals, humans included, are designed for reproduction. As it's physically impossible for two male/female mammals to reproduce, it's a pointless act as regarding the reproduction. Like scratching your ear. Or jerking off. And both of them are deeply natural behaviours too, right?


I have to ask, polarbear, where do you think these inhibitions may stem from? I, personally have no problem strutting around naked. I've been to nude beaches and I really don't care who sees me, after all, who here has not seen a, penis, vagina or breasts? It becomes a question of insecurity, a fear of people of pointing and laughing, much like the fear that enslaved homosexuals in that proverbial closet for so many years.

As for the second paragraph of your post, Philosopher Princess wrote an interesting post addressing on whether it is biologically practical.

Mediadar.
tuncay
In my opinion, this should not be forgotten:

The so-called "natural" behaviour depends on the fact that, living beings, try to survive and reproduce. Obviously, it's not possible (as of today) to reproduce with homosexual relationships (both female and male).

One can deduce the behaviour is not natural but socio-cultural. This is quite a valid argument in the sense that, homosexuality was generally seen in the parts of societies where there is relatively few or no problems of survival (like drought, famine) etc was observed. And in a specific society, generally the rich or the elite had such tendencies.

Coming to today, we see that first of all the taboos are no longer as they were two centuries ago and also one can say that the survival type has changed. There were much more people who were trying to survive in the modern societies compared to today, today, with a decent job (which is relatively easy to get in a well-civilized country - such as the Western European countries) one can easily survive, and search for other things, where this other things may include homosexuality.
mantasx
I don't like homosexual people. I think god didn't want guys to like guys.
wumingsden
mantasx wrote:
I don't like homosexual people. I think god didn't want guys to like guys.


Could you please make sure your futute posts are contributing to the thread please, this discussion isn't asking what are your religions thoughts on Homosexuality, it is asking whether you think it is biological natural.

For you to anwser this question you have to be very-open minded, you cannot say that its wrong because your god says it is.
ladyrobina
I saw a Discovery program that claimed there was a marked increase in same sex sexual activity when animals or humans were in overcrowded environments.
Could it mean that it is a form of birth control in order to reduce population in these circumstances?
They also said that there was more violent behaviour.
Has anyone else heard of this?
Arnie
The 'problem' with the lot of you (not everyone :p) is that you are trying to prove that homosexuality is morally (un)acceptable. Yes, you are using the (un)natural factor of it, but just as an argument for that and not as the statement to (dis)prove. Both sides (for and against) do this. But the point is, if something is natural it doesn't automatically have to be good. The actual question is whether homosexuality is natural, not whether it is good. But nearly nobody cares about the answer to the first question, which is purely scientifical and does not include any good/bad decicion. The popular debate on homosexuality is the latter question, and that's what most of you are fighting over here. Yes, it is more interesting to discuss, but no, it is not the topic here.

Now I found this very well expressed by Whong, who many of you, even including a moderator, reproved simply because he mentioned his religion. And that while the actual point he was trying to make was very good and straightforward. All he did was state it from his perspective, and I don't blame him for doing that since you all do so.
Whong wrote:
I'm just a Christian, humble servant of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!
Everything that is natural isn't still right! Eating is natural but if you eat to much it will have a bad effect on you, so it is not right to eat to much!
Now I am convinced that most of you had only read the first line, and decided to reply with terms like "biased religion" etcetera. While in fact he had a very good point that was not an opinion on homosexuality, but a suggestion to the way this discussion is being held. Which I think still is at a very bad level, considering the fact that none of you grasped his meaning, but instead you all blindly stared on his first line - actually yourself being biased by prejudice rather than him.

Now personally I think there is little use in trying to find out whether homosexuality is natural or not. It doesn't matter, because natural doesn't have to mean good. Actually the question arises: does 'natural' equal 'the way it was meant to be' or 'caused by processes of the (human) body'? But - the first definition implies a moral judgement, while the second doesn't.
wumingsden
True, everything natural doesn't mean its good. However, if it is natural then to Christians its also believed that it was created by God. Yet if people see homosexuality as bad then how can God have created these things.

Did you read Whog's first post ?

whong wrote:
Homosexuality is biologically unnatural and wrong! Man and woman can make children, a man and another man can't neither can two women. Our biological task is to be fruitful and have children! Laughing
Some say that homosexuality is a matter of character, but it is not, it is a mental illness. No offece, but it is! Idea
This is all I can say! Wink

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is an abomination!
Exclamation


I then asked him whether he was religious, to me it is more than likely that religion plays a part into his beliefs.

Arnie wrote:
even including a moderator


I am gathering that you are talking about me, or the Princess, although it is more likely that this is about me.
There is soon going to me a thread/or announement/stick about the way people should see moderators. You see some selective others think that we moderators should be "impartial" or equilalent, meaning that we shouldn't raise our own opinions.
Arnie
Quote:
if it is natural then to Christians its also believed that it was created by God.
Depends on how you define 'natural': see the last part of my previous message. In the Bible there seems to be a sort of natural, that is called 'flesh', which does not conform to God's moral standards.

The point I'm making at the part of my post where I said "even including moderators" is that it is prejudice to reprove the guy because of the first line. His post was contributing a lot more than many others that you did not complain about. That has nothing to do with your right of expressing a (valid) opinion, that is incorrect judgement.

(By the way, I do not agree with Whong that homosexuality is a sickness, mind you. If you look at what it is according to the Bible, you should state Romans 1:18-32 that basically describes it as a curse. But this is not related to the natural-unnatural discussion.)
mediadar
Arnie wrote:
Quote:
if it is natural then to Christians its also believed that it was created by God.
Depends on how you define 'natural': see the last part of my previous message. In the Bible there seems to be a sort of natural, that is called 'flesh', which does not conform to God's moral standards.

The point I'm making at the part of my post where I said "even including moderators" is that it is prejudice to reprove the guy because of the first line. His post was contributing a lot more than many others that you did not complain about. That has nothing to do with your right of expressing a (valid) opinion, that is incorrect judgement.

(By the way, I do not agree with Whong that homosexuality is a sickness, mind you. If you look at what it is according to the Bible, you should state Romans 1:18-32 that basically describes it as a curse. But this is not related to the natural-unnatural discussion.)


Arnie, a viable definition for natural was established removing all constraints such as; "biblical definitions". The bible is just that, a bible, being pragmatic I prefer a definition provided via a reliable source, IE: a dictionary.

whong wrote:

I'm just a Christian, humble servant of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!
Everything that is natural isn't still right! Eating is natural but if you eat to much it will have a bad effect on you, so it is not right to eat to
much!


mantasx wrote:

I don't like homosexual people. I think god didn't want guys to like guys.


I fail to see "prejudice" in admonishing a post that failed to proffer information pertaining to the debate at hand, other than a subjective religious opinion, that was prejudiced in it's own right.

The debate is: "Is homosexuality biologically natural" and not whether god approves. God's approval is irrelevant at this point.

ladyrobina wrote:

I saw a Discovery program that claimed there was a marked increase in same sex sexual activity when animals or humans were in overcrowded environments.
Could it mean that it is a form of birth control in order to reduce population in these circumstances?
They also said that there was more violent behaviour.
Has anyone else heard of this?


This helps! We are looking for a reason as to why it occurs, and frequency of occurrence. This is an important piece of the puzzle as it may very well be a method of natural birth control. It's interesting that most people would accept two men holding rifles in their hands than at war rather than two men holding hands.

Ladyrobina,
I'd say more a method of maintaining birthrate as opposed to reduction. The plethora of disease that crop up each year coupled with George Bush help in reducing the population.

Back to Arnie,
arnie wrote:

1 - I often do not specify arguments because I don't specify a statement either. This is because I don't want to take a stand. My postings are then intended to 'break open' the discussion or shed some new light from a non-outspoken POV.

2 - But to the point, I think it's unnatural. I think heterosexuality was 'the way it was meant to be' - look for example at how our bodies are formed for it. The connection between reproduction and the act of sex is very amazing.


This was one of your initial posts with which I have taken the liberty of marking as section 1 and 2. Notice how section 2 contradicts section 1, in a debate as such there is no "breaking open" and there can only be factual evidence provided for observation else the debate becomes tainted.

A debate on morality can ensue the initial debate provided that the rules of debating are preserved, IE; clear factual evidence over subjective opinion. Philosopher Princess mentioned words such as, economics and distribution of labour, these are beneficial in establishing guidelines for a moral/amoral debate

Sincerely
Mediadar.
Arnie
Mediadar, you need to read better. You need to look at the quote I replied to, to understand why I said 'according to the Bible'. Thank you for your valuable time. Oh, and besides that, dictionaries do not have to be correct, especially involving complicated issues and definitions such as this.

I know you, as many people (see my previous message), think the mentioning of "Bible" is enough for the standard, well-known reply "it is not reliable blah-blah". But in this case the discussion was about what Christians would think about it, and then obviously that's the source to quote from. And if you have a problem with the question in particular, wumingsden's your man.

As for the second time you quoted me:
No clear factual evidence can in itself be an opinion. To get an opinion there is interpretation of your 'factual evidence'. That's where it has to get subjective. Even scientists disagree over the interpretation of, for example, graphs related to climate change (there is another topic on that on FH.)

That is, unless you want to have a debate over 1+1=2.
mediadar
Arnie wrote:
Mediadar, you need to read better. You need to look at the quote I replied to, to understand why I said 'according to the Bible'. Thank you for your valuable time. Oh, and besides that, dictionaries do not have to be correct, especially involving complicated issues and definitions such as this.

I know you, as many people (see my previous message), think the mentioning of "Bible" is enough for the standard, well-known reply "it is not reliable blah-blah". But in this case the discussion was about what Christians would think about it, and then obviously that's the source to quote from. And if you have a problem with the question in particular, wumingsden's your man.

As for the second time you quoted me:
No clear factual evidence can in itself be an opinion. To get an opinion there is interpretation of your 'factual evidence'. That's where it has to get subjective. Even scientists disagree over the interpretation of, for example, graphs related to climate change (there is another topic on that on FH.)

That is, unless you want to have a debate over 1+1=2.



Hi Arnie,
I read your post, and re-read it a second time, while I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed or by any standard the most verbose, I don't believe that I am illiterate. Nice personal attack though!

IE = id est (that is to say) perhaps I should have been clearer, the definitions we were using are as follows:

occurs instinctual in nature.
occurs in nature without human intervention.

the whole point of discussion was to eliminate religious beliefs.

this is what you responded to:

Quote:
Quote:
if it is natural then to Christians its also believed that it was created by God


and this your response:
Quote:
Depends on how you define 'natural': see the last part of my previous message. In the Bible there seems to be a sort of natural, that is called 'flesh', which does not conform to God's moral standards.


Can we agree that "the bible" didn't just appear mysteriously, and was in fact written by man? If so, then we have to put to question their motives. I would like to ask you, if it is not too much trouble, to elaborate on;
" sort of natural, that is called 'flesh', which does not conform to God's moral standards."

emphasis on "sort of" and "flesh", as I am(sincerely) not well versed on the bible. Quite simply I interpret flesh to mean carnal desire/carnal sin.
This being the internet and not knowing you from adam, I attempted to take what you've written literally not knowing all of your motives. It appears that you are championing the religious viewpoint.

Quote:
2 - But to the point, I think it's unnatural. I think heterosexuality was 'the way it was meant to be' - look for example at how our bodies are formed for it. The connection between reproduction and the act of sex is very amazing.


This is what you offered as factual! Do you believe that sex out of wedlock is a sin? Do you believe that sex for pleasure is a sin? For that matter anyone here who is hell bent on quoting the bible, if you can answer the above questions as "no", then you have eliminated the argument of carnal sin/desire.

Mediadar.
nealio1000
you cannot choose to be gay or not to be. You are born that it is a question of when it will apear in your life. Many heavily relgious people dont like to accept scientific fact so they start to believe that it is wrong. in my opinion it doesn't matter because it is proven fact that you dont choose to be gay and if you did than you wouldn't be really gay. Some things really bother me and one of them is when people stop believing in facts and start believing in their religious jibberish that was invented thousands of years ago
The Philosopher Princess
HoboPelican wrote:
We know it happens in nature, so, yes, it's natural. We also know it does not propagate the species,

Nope, we do not know that the characteristic of homosexuality “does not propagate the species”. In fact, I have proposed (earlier in this topic) that it actually does “propagate the species”.

If someone were to focus extremely narrowly, and discuss only the actual sexual acts of homosexuals amongst homosexuals, I guess it would be true that those actual sex acts don’t propagate those particular beings’ lineages. But there’s a lot more to propagating the species than that.

The sexual acts of heterosexuals using contraceptives also do not propagate those particular beings’ lineages. But there’s a lot more to propagating the species than that.

If one is going to talk about a species propagating, then one needs to keep to the context of species.

How does a species propagate? By “plenty” of beings in the species having offspring and “plenty” of beings in the species performing the vast amount of other tasks needed so that the offspring can survive to have offspring themselves. The vast amount of other tasks needed has nothing to do with actual sex acts and can be carried out by beings in the species irrelevant of their sexual orientation.

There is no logical reason to think that homosexuals can’t carry out the vast amount of other tasks just as well as heterosexuals, and they likely can carry out some even better. It takes many kinds to propagate a species.
~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry to pick on you, because you’re not the only one propagating (Wink) the completely false notion that homosexuals do not propagate the species. I haven’t noticed anyone else countering this falsity so I picked yours to address.
Arnie
Fine Mediadar, then I will totally chew it for you. The following quote was directed to me:
Quote:
if it is natural then to Christians its also believed that it was created by God.
Got it so far?

Now, the important part of this quote is for Christians. The quote speaks about what Christians would think about homosexuality: if they say it's natural, they must also say it's created by God, according to this quote. Following me? So the key here is that the quote is solely about Christianity. And you say that this discussion should not involve beliefs. Fine, but then you shouldn't come to me but to whoever posted the quote.

Keep in mind that we're talking about what Christians are supposed to say: if they agree it's natural they should also agree it's created by God (statement). So, that brings us to the question: is there a direct relationship, according to Christians, that what is natural is always created like that by God? I hope you're still with me here.

Now that brings us to my quote that you felt was bad because it used the Bible:
Quote:
Depends on how you define 'natural': see the last part of my previous message. In the Bible there seems to be a sort of natural, that is called 'flesh', which does not conform to God's moral standards.
Now if you look carefully, this quote is a reply following the line of thought that I described above. The question was: "is there a direct relationship, according to Christians, that what is natural is always created like that by God? I hope you're still with me here." Note the bold text. Which explains use of the Bible.

Now if you still don't get it, send me a PM because it would no longer be relevant to the topic. Don't expect me to defend against any fine accusations though, because I don't owe you anything.
HoboPelican
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:
We know it happens in nature, so, yes, it's natural. We also know it does not propagate the species,

Nope, we do not know that the characteristic of homosexuality “does not propagate the species”. In fact, I have proposed (earlier in this topic) that it actually does “propagate the species”.

Jeez, PP, I was using the 'propagate' definiton meaning 'To breed offspring'. I thought that was obvious. I was NOT saying or trying to imply that homosexuals had no value to a species. Laughing

Again, the topic is whether it is natural. I said that because it exists in nature, I can't see how it can be anything BUT natural. Do you disagree?
Quote:

Sorry to pick on you, because you’re not the only one propagating (Wink) the completely false notion that homosexuals do not propagate the species. I haven’t noticed anyone else countering this falsity so I picked yours to address.

Ok, glad to give you a jumping of point Laughing I don't mind being picked on! I agree "it takes a village to raise a child", but I still stand by my statement, with it's narrow focus.Very Happy

BTW- I know that the colored fonts is your trademark, but lordy, it sure makes it hard to read your very interenting posts Smile
Whong
wumingsden wrote:
True, everything natural doesn't mean its good. However, if it is natural then to Christians its also believed that it was created by God. Yet if people see homosexuality as bad then how can God have created these things.

Did you read Whong's first post ?

whong wrote:
Homosexuality is biologically unnatural and wrong! Man and woman can make children, a man and another man can't neither can two women. Our biological task is to be fruitful and have children! Laughing
Some say that homosexuality is a matter of character, but it is not, it is a mental illness. No offece, but it is! Idea
This is all I can say! Wink

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is an abomination!
Exclamation


I then asked him whether he was religious, to me it is more than likely that religion plays a part into his beliefs.

Arnie wrote:
even including a moderator


I am gathering that you are talking about me, or the Princess, although it is more likely that this is about me.
There is soon going to me a thread/or announement/stick about the way people should see moderators. You see some selective others think that we moderators should be "impartial" or equilalent, meaning that we shouldn't raise our own opinions.


Well let me put it this way, you all have a choise and you can do what you want. If you want to do things that are not considerd right or biological, its fine with me because who am I to judge! But if you ask my opinion, I'll still say that it is wrong and unbiological! I've given some reasons in my earlier posts! Do as you wish Confused, God has given men a free choise of what to do and what not to do! Wink
benwhite
Recent studies have continued to show the biological basis for homosexuality. We need to be care to differentiate biology and evolution. Related, but not mutually exclusive.

It turns out that a lot of gay men's hormonal reactions to an atractive male are the exact same a hetero-woman feels, and vice versa. As in, their bodies literally are attracted from the microscale. So it's not a "mental disorder" as many would claim. As far as the body is concerned, that's the way it naturally feels. Homosexuality is absolutely ingrained in a person.

The argument that becaue it doesn't make babies also doesn't preclude an evolutionary basis for homosexuality.

1. A lot of homosexuals still reproduce. Either because they're bi or because they feel pressured. Thus, if there is a genetic component, it won't be lost over time. Only the "gayest" who feel unable to reproduce will be lost out. Those over the spectrum would be maintained in any given generation.

2. Animals constantly do things that aren't good for themselves but are good for the group. Animals guard the eating group ("sentry behavior"). These animals starve in the short term but help protect the group overall. Gay sex as a physical release in times of scarcity is by no means out of the question. It would also be prudent to remember that homosexuality also was a part of accepted behavior and culture in the pre-Judeo-Christian world. To say that because we vilify it in our society makes it "unnatural" (which really means it's less common in this situation) is inaccurate. In such a case, when it was widespread, was it natural then?
Canadian Bacon
I'm not sure how widespread you think it was. Statistically 10% of the population is gay or "homosexual." I'm not one for political correctness so you will have to forgive me for using the term gay. Anyway I simply wanted to put my 2 cents out there on this topic. I don't dispute anyone else's opinions because you are entitled to have them.

I believe homosexuality to be a genetic failure, rather then a mental illness. When a man deposits his sperm into a woman billions are released and the race is on to capture the prize. With that said I believe the 10% statistic comes from the sheer number (billions) of sperm there are. It seems reasonable that the certain percentage divided wrong during mitosis/meiosis (i forget which) and won that prize. The resulting child would have the characteristics of interpriting the hormonal signals of the same sex improperly.

I do not believe homosexuality is "normal." It is a lot like winning the lottery, there are millions of odds in winning. In this case I for one would not like to win that prize. To propogate the species you need to start with one thing, the union between a man and a woman. All the other stuff is fine and dandy, but unless you start with that, the rest simply doesn't happen.
BruceTheDauber
Canadian Bacon wrote:
Statistically 10% of the population is gay or "homosexual."


Actually, less than 3% identify themselves as gay or bi.


This study concludes that 1.2% are gay, 1.15% are bi, and 11.85% have had a sexual experience with or felt a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex at least once:

http://www.plu.sg/main/facts_05.htm
Bondings
BruceTheDauber wrote:
Canadian Bacon wrote:
Statistically 10% of the population is gay or "homosexual."


Actually, less than 3% identify themselves as gay or bi.


This study concludes that 1.2% are gay, 1.15% are bi, and 11.85% have had a sexual experience with or felt a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex at least once:

http://www.plu.sg/main/facts_05.htm

That's a telephone survey. Do you really think that people who hide their sexual orientation for their own family, will openly reveal it on the phone?
Quote:
And since it was a telephone survey, one might suspect that there could have been substantial under-reporting.
benwhite
If we take the figure as somewhere in the ballpark of 10%...that's a ton of people. Even 3% is huge. I'm not sure how one can cite that numeber and then go on to describe it as not normal.

Normal doesn't just mean it's a majority. Around 2-3% percent of the US population has red hair. Left handedness is arond 10%. Certainly, I don't think we'd be calling those with less common genetic variants mutant freaks or failed experiments.
Canadian Bacon
I wouldn't be calling homosexual's freaks or anything of the sort. However to compare homosexuality to the colour of ones hair or lefthandedness is pretty much a (pardon the pun) fruitless argument. The genetic differentiation between a persons hair colour is a far cry short of a person's sexual tendencies. The basic argument is wether or not its normal, not acceptable. I don't believe it to be a normal act. A man should not have sexual tendencies towards another man, the same to be said for women. It is not a normal act for mammals of the same sex. I am not a religious person, however the saying "Adan and Eve, not Adam and Steve" definitely applies and for me makes perfect sense.

I do not begrudge someone for being born homosexual. It is what they were born like and they must live with that every day. I simply do not think it is normal.
benwhite
Please. How frequent does it have to be to be normal? I wasn't equating the genetic diversity involved in the traits, but the frequency. If people didn't find homosexuality morally reprehensible, then what would make it stand out so much from other rarer traits? That was my point.
marekdebowski
My best friend is a gay. Homosexuality is a natural thing. It occurs in animals' lives too. I saw two chimpanzees in the zoo, that were making sex...
bagofelix
AftershockVibe wrote:
I don't see how it can be anything other than natural since it occurs in nature. It is a very close minded view that homosexual men and women are only a fluke statistic of people who choose to be different just to somehow rebel against society.

Homosexuality and male-male, female-female partnerships have been observed in a variety of different species. You have no more choice over your sexuality than over whether you are male or female.


I beg to differ! Homosexuality is an abberation of the mind. It's unnatural. Something that is natural is something that helps you survive. That's one of the definitions of natural. Homosexuality is anti-survival. And you do have a choice. People are extremely irresponsible now a days. The very sentance "He made me angry" is proof of that. He didn't make you angry. He said something that led to you making a choice to be angry. It's a choice. Just like homosexuality. There is a point in life where you decide this exact thing. "I like men", or "I like women". It's a choice. Homosexuality is common. But it is not normal.
wumingsden
bagofelix wrote:
AftershockVibe wrote:
I don't see how it can be anything other than natural since it occurs in nature. It is a very close minded view that homosexual men and women are only a fluke statistic of people who choose to be different just to somehow rebel against society.

Homosexuality and male-male, female-female partnerships have been observed in a variety of different species. You have no more choice over your sexuality than over whether you are male or female.


I beg to differ! Homosexuality is an abberation of the mind. It's unnatural. Something that is natural is something that helps you survive. That's one of the definitions of natural. Homosexuality is anti-survival. And you do have a choice. People are extremely irresponsible now a days. The very sentance "He made me angry" is proof of that. He didn't make you angry. He said something that led to you making a choice to be angry. It's a choice. Just like homosexuality. There is a point in life where you decide this exact thing. "I like men", or "I like women". It's a choice. Homosexuality is common. But it is not normal.


bagofelix, does homosexuality happen in other species other than humans ? Do these animals have no real connection to humans - so humans haven't taught them stuff ? Would you class that what happens in nature as natural due to the fact that animals cannot make choices like thia ?
Whong
bagofelix wrote:
AftershockVibe wrote:
I don't see how it can be anything other than natural since it occurs in nature. It is a very close minded view that homosexual men and women are only a fluke statistic of people who choose to be different just to somehow rebel against society.

Homosexuality and male-male, female-female partnerships have been observed in a variety of different species. You have no more choice over your sexuality than over whether you are male or female.


I beg to differ! Homosexuality is an abberation of the mind. It's unnatural. Something that is natural is something that helps you survive. That's one of the definitions of natural. Homosexuality is anti-survival. And you do have a choice. People are extremely irresponsible now a days. The very sentance "He made me angry" is proof of that. He didn't make you angry. He said something that led to you making a choice to be angry. It's a choice. Just like homosexuality. There is a point in life where you decide this exact thing. "I like men", or "I like women". It's a choice. Homosexuality is common. But it is not normal.


Exactly! Laughing That's my opinion too! If God had intended men to have sex with men and women to have sex with women there wouldn't first of all be women! God made woman a companion for the man, a partner! Man and a woman can get children together but man and man can't neither can woman and woman!

So, my final conclussion is that homosexuality is a thing that occures sometimes somewhere, but it isn't natural! Some things that can be done and are done aren't natural!
crdowner
I have read posts in this thread that talk about homosexuality being a choice. I have read posts in which individuals have talked about "being homesexual" for some period of time. I think the authors of these posts are a bit confused.

As a gay man, I can tell you that I did not choose to be gay. From a very early age, even before puberty, I was attracted to the male body. I do not want to have sex with every male body that I am attracted to. Sometimes I just admire the male figure.

This is not to say that I find women repulsive. I think some women are beautiful but I am in now way attracted to them.

I know that most straight men think that sex with a man is repulsive. I can understand this since I find the thought of sex with a woman repulsive.

My point is that I never chose to find men attractive. It just happened. I did choose to "hide" my sexuality. I tried dating a few girls but it never felt right.

Let me ask all of you straight people a question. When did you decide to be straight? Did you wake up one day and decide to find the opposite sex attractive? I know the answer is "I didn't choose". So why do you think that gay people make a decision to be gay?

Lastly, I do not think that being curious about the same sex is the same as being gay. Someone said that he was homosexual for a while. I say that he was curious for a while. In my experience, you are not homosexual one day and straight the next or straight one day and homosexual the next. That implies a choice which I (and no one I have asked) ever made.
bagofelix
crdowner wrote:
I have read posts in this thread that talk about homosexuality being a choice. I have read posts in which individuals have talked about "being homesexual" for some period of time. I think the authors of these posts are a bit confused.

As a gay man, I can tell you that I did not choose to be gay. From a very early age, even before puberty, I was attracted to the male body. I do not want to have sex with every male body that I am attracted to. Sometimes I just admire the male figure.

This is not to say that I find women repulsive. I think some women are beautiful but I am in now way attracted to them.

I know that most straight men think that sex with a man is repulsive. I can understand this since I find the thought of sex with a woman repulsive.

My point is that I never chose to find men attractive. It just happened. I did choose to "hide" my sexuality. I tried dating a few girls but it never felt right.

Let me ask all of you straight people a question. When did you decide to be straight? Did you wake up one day and decide to find the opposite sex attractive? I know the answer is "I didn't choose". So why do you think that gay people make a decision to be gay?

Lastly, I do not think that being curious about the same sex is the same as being gay. Someone said that he was homosexual for a while. I say that he was curious for a while. In my experience, you are not homosexual one day and straight the next or straight one day and homosexual the next. That implies a choice which I (and no one I have asked) ever made.
To answer your question, yes I have. One day I was looking at one of my male friends at school. I felt a flicker of attraction towards him. I immediately squashed it and told myself, I will not be gay in any way shape or form. Never ever have I had a flicker again, I love women.
Michael B
Humans are at least have animal (depending of you beleive there is a spirtual side or not)

There for if there is no aminal that shows a behavor, it is not natural. End of story.

Personlay I have chosen never to get married and to be singel, but also in no way be gay. There is nothing wrong with to men (or women) being great friends but to what a marage certificate or something and do what ever else is just silly.
Nisk
Well since i am homo-phobic. It is hard for me to stay scientific on this matter. but i will try.
It is NOT natural because "Mother Nature" or "god" (another strong issue with me, hate religion)) created males and females, for obvious reasons to preserve and prevent the spicies from extinction. It is un-natural for example: male has to have affection for female. Thats whats natural. It was not intended to be any other way than that.
Homosexualism is NOT natural.
HoboPelican
bagofelix wrote:

I beg to differ! Homosexuality is an abberation of the mind. It's unnatural. Something that is natural is something that helps you survive. That's one of the definitions of natural. Homosexuality is anti-survival. And you do have a choice. People are extremely irresponsible now a days. The very sentance "He made me angry" is proof of that. He didn't make you angry. He said something that led to you making a choice to be angry. It's a choice. Just like homosexuality. There is a point in life where you decide this exact thing. "I like men", or "I like women". It's a choice. Homosexuality is common. But it is not normal.

All the above is personal feelings stated as fact. Worthless rhetoric. Where did you get your definition of "natural"? Read the dictionary entry below to learn a little, okay? Which definition refers to survival? And did you even read the posts about overpopulation in species where such actions where the thought is that it helps to keep populations down so that the species as a whole can survive?
You seem to be living in a different decade in your belief that it is a choice, my friend. Any study I'm aware of indicates it is NOT a choice, so if you know of some decent studies otherwise, post them.

Again, I say it happens in nature, therefore, by the first definition, it is natural! Now, if you want to debate morality, maybe you should start a different thread.

Quote:

nat·u·ral Pronunciation (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
4.
a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
b. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
8. Expected and accepted: "In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love" Duff Cooper.
9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
11.
a. Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
b. Born of unwed parents: a natural child.
12. Mathematics Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero.
13. Music
a. Not sharped or flatted.
b. Having no sharps or flats.
altec
I had a talk with my gay friend in the office. I asked him about his childhood and he told me he didn't have a good childhood as his father punished him severely. His mom always comes to the rescue, always defending him from the whip of his Dad's belt, and buckle as well. That's a very traumatic experience from a 2 year old child. It came to the point when he grew up, he started to fight back because he can't stand his dad beating up his mom.

I asked him whether he knows he is gay when he was 1-3 years old. He told me, he is not that sure. But when he reached around 6-7 years old, he knew because he likes girl's thing, but very confused.
mediadar
Arnie wrote:
Fine Mediadar, then I will totally chew it for you. The following quote was directed to me:
Quote:
if it is natural then to Christians its also believed that it was created by God.
Got it so far?

Now, the important part of this quote is for Christians. The quote speaks about what Christians would think about homosexuality: if they say it's natural, they must also say it's created by God, according to this quote. Following me? So the key here is that the quote is solely about Christianity. And you say that this discussion should not involve beliefs. Fine, but then you shouldn't come to me but to whoever posted the quote.

Keep in mind that we're talking about what Christians are supposed to say: if they agree it's natural they should also agree it's created by God (statement). So, that brings us to the question: is there a direct relationship, according to Christians, that what is natural is always created like that by God? I hope you're still with me here.

Now that brings us to my quote that you felt was bad because it used the Bible:
Quote:
Depends on how you define 'natural': see the last part of my previous message. In the Bible there seems to be a sort of natural, that is called 'flesh', which does not conform to God's moral standards.
Now if you look carefully, this quote is a reply following the line of thought that I described above. The question was: "is there a direct relationship, according to Christians, that what is natural is always created like that by God? I hope you're still with me here." Note the bold text. Which explains use of the Bible.

Now if you still don't get it, send me a PM because it would no longer be relevant to the topic. Don't expect me to defend against any fine accusations though, because I don't owe you anything.



I was being facetious, nothing gets passed you! It is apparent that your knowledge on the subject is philistine, relying on the bible as a panacea, ignoring any factual evidence. Sure some use god and the bible as a reference, but you would have to assume that humans are the only creature that god created with a soul, why do you suppose he would do that? Could it be that man created god?

My reasons for asking the question was, in short, to determine evidence of homosexuality occurring in nature, whether or not anyone feels that it is amoral is irrelevant. Arnie, you seem to be teetering on a wall of indecision, it would be interesting to see you take a stand one way or the other and provide some factual evidence as opposed to the typical sophomoric rhetoric that you've managed to assemble in your unkempt package that you would call a post.


-- "The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
--J.B.S. Haldane, evolutionary biologist.

The following is an extract from an essay written by
"Scott Bidstrup"

I will provide a link to the article for those interested in its entirety.

Same-Sex Pair Bonding in Animals
Just as in humans, animals often form long-term same-sex relationships. In species in which this normally occurs in heterosexual couples, that shouldn't come as a great surprise, but it does come as a surprise in species where heterosexual pair-bonds don't normally form for long if at all. This is true of bottlenose dolphins, which are not known to form heterosexual pair bonds, but which do in fact form homosexual pair bonds, including sex, and often lasting for life.
In animals in which "bachelor groups" form, such as bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, it is not uncommon for same sex pair bonds to form and last until one or the other member of the pair departs the relationship and breeds. It is also not uncommon for homosexual preference to form among members of such bachelor groups; when offered the opportunity to breed unencumbered with members of the opposite sex or the same sex, they choose the same sex.

The human pattern of bisexuality also appears in animals. In some cases, animals prefer same sex at one point in their lives, and change preference later. They may even change back and forth. In some cases, animals may seek sex with partners of either sex at random.

In animals with a seasonal breeding pattern, homosexuality can even be seasonal. Male walruses, for example, often form homosexual pair bonds and have sex with each other outside of the breeding season, but will revert to a heterosexual pattern during the normal breeding season.


Not At All Unusual
Lest you are tempted to believe that all of this is highly unusual and well out of the ordinary, you're in for quite a surprise. Homosexual behaviour is not only common, but even more common in other species than in humans. While numbers are hard to come by, there are a few that present some interesting patterns. In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality, but among mule deer, bisexuality is more common than homosexuality. Among our closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, few if any are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Indeed, all that have been observed are exclusively permanently bisexual.

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

I have to ask, if chimps and dolphins, closest to man in intelligence, display homosexual/bisexual tendencies, what really separates us from them and could morality be wrong seeing that homosexuality is natural?


Mediadar.
mediadar
bagofelix wrote:
I beg to differ! Homosexuality is an aberration of the mind. It's unnatural.


Given that proof/evidence was provided that species other than man exhibit homosexual behaviour, would you be so kind as to provide us with evidence supporting your statement?

bagofelix wrote:
Something that is natural is something that helps you survive. That's one of the definitions of natural. Homosexuality is anti-survival. And you do have a choice. People are extremely irresponsible now a days. The very sentence "He made me angry" is proof of that. He didn't make you angry. He said something that led to you making a choice to be angry.


Anger is a powerful emotion triggered by an event and often strikes like lightning without warning. I agree that you can train yourself to curb anger but this is not a choice rather a method of coping via stuffing the anger down. What happens after you've stuffed so much anger down?

If a genetic marker or predisposition to homosexuality is proved, what becomes of choice, does one still have to deviate from his natural path to appease the gods?

Mediadar.
megafx
Hmmmn this is quite interesting, If we look at teh facts, then we can see that the thing that sets us apart from animals is our compelling free will and freedom of choice. While it is not, I think natural at all to for homosexuality to occur (do you see any other animals doing it?) I do think that our free will is. Any by products of this would then be, in theory natural. So if you believe God gave us free will then you can believe that homosexuality is, also natural.
mediadar
megafx wrote:
Hmmmn this is quite interesting, If we look at the facts, then we can see that the thing that sets us apart from animals is our compelling free will and freedom of choice. While it is not, I think natural at all to for homosexuality to occur (do you see any other animals doing it?) I do think that our free will is. Any by products of this would then be, in theory natural. So if you believe God gave us free will then you can believe that homosexuality is, also natural.


It depends what you believe in, free will or determinism. If indeed you have a choice and you choose to be gay knowing that it is unnatural, then I agree, homosexuality is wrong. However, it does occur in nature, it does occur in man naturally so determinism wins this bout. Much can be learnt about ourselves by observing our surroundings and other life forms and not limiting ourselves to an antiquated set of rules passed down by stuck up old gits 3000 years ago. If science can be wrong, so can the bible.

I understand what bagofelix was saying, but my point is this, why should you have to make a choice to shove yourself into a closet when you are indeed only acting upon nature?

Mediadar
HoboPelican
megafx wrote:
...While it is not, I think natural at all to for homosexuality to occur (do you see any other animals doing it?) ...


Good lord, have you even read the previous posts about homosexuality occuring in nature? How can you even post that without being embarassed?

Come on, folks, it IS natural by practically any of the definitions posted here. What you are arguing is morality, a totally different issue. Can anyone post a refutation of it being natural using a valid definition of "natural"?
mediadar
HoboPelican wrote:

Good lord, have you even read the previous posts about homosexuality occurring in nature? How can you even post that without being embarrassed?

Come on, folks, it IS natural by practically any of the definitions posted here. What you are arguing is morality, a totally different issue. Can anyone post a refutation of it being natural using a valid definition of "natural"?


It's pretty sad when you think about it, the strongest arguments against homosexuality being natural are to the likes of:

Quote:
Exactly! That's my opinion too! If God had intended men to have sex with men and women to have sex with women there wouldn't first of all be women! God made woman a companion for the man, a partner! Man and a woman can get children together but man and man can't neither can woman and woman!

So, my final conclusion is that homosexuality is a thing that occurs sometimes somewhere, but it isn't natural! Some things that can be done and are done aren't natural!


Here's another article I found on those little sexual deviants, the Bonobo apes.
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/bonobo.html

It may help the 'christian crusaders' to know that; many of our own heterosexual practises are taboo in the religious community. No foreplay, no practise sex, just fornicating for production, now that seems unnatural and it is!

Mediadar.
HoboPelican
mediadar wrote:
...
Here's another article I found on those little sexual deviants, the Bonobo apes.
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/bonobo.html



OMG! Those guys are a riot! The Zoo where I live has a great bonobo display and it's so much fun watching them and THEN watching how parents explain what they are doing. Some parents very calmly talk about whats's going on and others makeup silly stories and some just hustle the young ones away.
Quite a floor show for "natural" sex play. Procreation only, hahahah.
mgumn
as a biologist i must add that there are many examples of Homosexuality in nature, but whether this is normal behaviour, which is hard to define, or simply a malfunction, even harder to define, is hard to pin down.

the best way to look at behaviour is if it is adaptive, i.e. ihas it, or can it be(en) selected for by microevolution. Microevolution must exist, even those who believe in creation must believe it, because god (according to the stories i might add) made only one man and one woman, but we see many different races of human beings, who are adapted to their habitats.

back to my point, can homosexuality be selected for?

well in theory yes, in many ways.

Correlated selection is a valid means of selection for homosexuality. Many find homosexuality hard to explain because one cannot pass on one's genes if one has sacrificed reproduction. However imagine a gene allele (a version of a gene) that makes women particulary succesful, perhaps by making them more attractive, more aggressive whatever. Imagine this same gene version forms a predisposition to homosexuality in males. Even though the negative selection for the trait is absolute in males, it helps reproduction in females, allowing it to be present in the population.

another means would be if homosexuality is a conveniant behaviour for forcing a male to remain in his family group and help with offspring, if for example reproductive success (i.e. offspring productivity) is low in males, this could be selected for. This behaviour is seen in humans but with grandmothers in african tribal populations, instead of continuing to have their own children, women in africa cease having children young (40's) and switch to helping their daughters have children instead

the last means is perhaps the most compelling. Many theorise that homosexuality is simply an extreme form of a human behaviour set that aids in social intergration. Homosexuality (in an ancestoral human population) may have helped form male-male bonds and alliances, gain experience in sexual behaviour etc, before mating with females.

this is backed up by the fact that bi-sexuality is far more common than homosexulaity, especially in teenage males, and that many ancient cultures (notably the ancient romans and Greeks) practiced this loose, adolescent homosexuality. It was quite normal to have a male partner in early teenage life in ancient greece, but it was perculiar to settle down to a permanant coupling.

it is interesting that we are more closely related to Bonobo apes than Chimpanzees, and that this species uses sexual behaviour as a socially facilitative tool. Humans use sex as a Social tool, but generally the insinuation of sex has replaced actual activity, flirting is still the most powerful tool in our social set.

so that is the theory of how and why, but is there any proof, genetically say

well some molecular biologists claimed to find an x-linked gene complex that was more common in gay men than straight men, and was conserved between gay twins and brothers. However more recent studies couldnt replicate the findings.
mgumn
arguing if anything is natural is a philosophical rather than scientific argument. To a biologist anything an animal does is most likely natural, and close observation usually reveals that any devient behaviour, is actually and alternative strategy to a similar problem.

Male Ducks will often form gangs and collectively rape female ducks. This was often considered devient behaviour, but the idea now is that these males, normally juvennilles, are more succesful at mating this way, than competing directly with stronger males and failing.

"Natural" philosophically is probably simply an expression of what humans consider normal. I'm an agnostic and a Behavioural Ecologist. Apes running around in clothes, building fantastic tools, escaping many of the equilibria that other animals have acheived with the planet, is not to me, all that natural ,we are one in millions.

douglas adams said something like - "Man considered himself the most intelligent species on the planet because he had invented civilisation, tools, war, the nuclear bomb the internal combustion engine etc. The Dolphins considered themselves the most intelligent species on the planet, because they hadn't"

i always liekd that sentance
The Philosopher Princess
You said some interesting things. If I might try to re-state one part to be more accurate.....

mgumn wrote:
there are many examples of Homosexuality in nature, but whether this is normal behaviour, which is hard to define

It’s not that the terms normal, abnormal, natural, etc. are “hard to define”, it’s that -- given so many potential definitions -- it’s hard to give one answer that addresses them all, if not impossible.

Here’s a key to situations where someone wants to assert something but has many possible definitions to use: Pick 1 definition, state it clearly, then assert what you want using that definition. Then pick another definition, state it clearly, and assert what you want given that one. Continue for as long as you still have something new to say and/or have not run out of interesting definitions.

This approach may not seem profound, but this reminded me of some people who continue to stay confounded by multiple definitions and mix themselves up on what they want to say. They really need this approach. Smile
horseatingweeds
@ Philosopher Princes and mugmn

From your post one can conclude that it is valid to say that homosexuality in humans may be natural. Natural meaning not augmented by man, coming from where man came from, his primitive self.

It is important to understand that when we speak of what is natural for humans in this way we are speaking of primitive man. It is easy to imagine a group of humans just like you and I living in a jungle. We would practice Natural Division of Labor were possibly several of the men would be responsible for hunting game and matting while the rest stay behind uninterested in the woman sexually but still, being built for combat, keep a watchful pair of eyes.

However, man progressed and began leaving us clues as to his nature. In nearly every society that we have some form of historical record for fertility has been of utmost importance to him. Common instances of homosexuality are found only in privileged society members and I am unaware of any that reflect our current notion of the ‘homosexual lifestyle’ or in other words being only gay.

Reasons for this are obvious. As man became modern he also learned how to build wealth and make war. Both of these activities, as well as the life span of early modern man being not usually above thirty, made lots of children necessary. Being a ‘homosexual’ in these societies WOULD harm the other member. By not contributing to the growth of the population the member would be weakening it and making it vulnerable to its neighbors. By not having children the member would also be breaking down the system of the family unit. Understand the importance of this system was more important that the kids having a Nana and Papa to visit in the summer, it was a survival system that ensured new productive members and a redundant system for care and distribution of resources through heirs. This system was so important to modern man that we see an institution formed independently yet almost universally developed to protect it that in our current society is called marriage.

In our current society we are free of many of the challenges that our forefathers endured. We have a very strong society that makes up for any lack of strength due to the absence of a family. Our average age is above seventy. We can build wealth to provide for ourselves at the bank and we have hired warriors to fight our neighbors. This time is very rare though, very rare and it will cycle as societies always have.

So I think, for the modern man the question is still worth discussing and now becomes more complex. Is it ‘natural’ for ‘modern’ man to be homosexual? For MODERN man it is brand new!


mediadar wrote:
Much can be learnt about ourselves by observing our surroundings and other life forms and not limiting ourselves to an antiquated set of rules passed down by stuck up old gits 3000 years ago.


Much can also be learned from an antiquated set of rules passed down by stuck up old gits 3000 years ago and not limiting ourselves to the observations of our surroundings and other life forms. The stuck up old gits where more humble than you and had your interests in mind, life 3000 years ago was not unlike life today and their ‘antiquated’ set of rules were intended for a much less privileged generation than our own so while their apparent usefulness is not apparent to many now, they will again and are worth our reverence.

Also, as a ‘Christian Crusader’ I will inform you that my beliefs and those of whom I consort are not based on what is natural, but what is in the interests of my creator, society and fellow man.
The Philosopher Princess
(On a personal note, I’ve been missing reading things from you lately, so was happy to see this.) I’m very glad to see such working through of some of the issues. Good job and good read (though there are some parts I should try to understand better).

You progressed towards this question excellently Idea:
horseatingweeds wrote:
So I think, for the modern man the question is still worth discussing and now becomes more complex. Is it ‘natural’ for ‘modern’ man to be homosexual? For MODERN man it is brand new!

The comparison of “primitive man” and “modern man” is very intriguing.

One thought strikes me immediately: Primitive homosexuals did not have many technological and non-technological methods that modern homosexuals have. An example of the former is in vitro fertilization. An example of the latter is the ability to have a friend impregnate you or you impregnate a friend, for the explicit purposes of making a baby for you and your homosexual partner.

With these kinds of things, some modern homosexual marriages (close family units) can lead an almost “normal” family life, whereas this would have been more difficult for primitive homosexuals. In other words, using a more “modern” definition of the term natural, it can become just as natural for homosexuals to pass on their genes as it is for heterosexuals. The old ”It’s unnatural!” argument of the homophobes goes away. Wow, that’s deep!

horseatingweeds wrote:
Also, as a ‘Christian Crusader’ I will inform you that my beliefs and those of whom I consort are not based on what is natural, but what is in the interests of my creator, society and fellow man.

I just hope that your creator and your society don’t instruct you to initiate force towards your fellow man against your fellow man’s wishes. As long as you work to achieve “the interests of [your] creator, society and fellow man” with persuasion not force (i.e., not using the power of government, mafia, or church thugs), then I respect your achievements, even if they are not in my interests. (And I do mean if, because I don’t think I know that they are not. In other words, at a certain level, your interests are my interests, as long as aggression is not being used to achieve them.)
horseatingweeds
The Philosopher Princess wrote:

One thought strikes me immediately: Primitive homosexuals did not have many technological and non-technological methods that modern homosexuals have. An example of the former is in vitro fertilization. An example of the latter is the ability to have a friend impregnate you or you impregnate a friend, for the explicit purposes of making a baby for you and your homosexual partner.

With these kinds of things, some modern homosexual marriages (close family units) can lead an almost “normal” family life, whereas this would have been more difficult for primitive homosexuals. In other words, using a more “modern” definition of the term natural, it can become just as natural for homosexuals to pass on their genes as it is for heterosexuals. The old ”It’s unnatural!” argument of the homophobes goes away. Wow, that’s deep!


I think here we need to quickly identify some definitions. Your description is a bit more modern, at a third level possibly, than I would intend. Modern man is man after he discovers cooperation in groups other than his family or pack, makes tools clothing and shelter.

The modern man you allude to I think deserves another classification. As modern man must focus substantial efforts, particularly woman, on procreation; this ‘neo’ modern man is in the process currently, I believe, in relieving himself, particularly herself, with procreation all together.

The advances in technology you have described are very resent, in the last fifty or so years. Modern man has struggled without them for thousands of years. I propose that we are currently making the step into neo-modern manhood. This neo-modern man will, except for his genetic material, be absent from pregnancy and labor all together. Sexuality, in this creature will be only recreational. Woman will finally be ‘truly’ liberated from child bearing and the hindrances involved.

This neo-modern man will also be more immune to other downfalls of homosexuality. A scorching Confused example of this is the physiological damage that male ‘sex’ does to the body. Without the protections and antibiotics of the neo-modern world a man is insured an recoil infection of the urinary system that will, if untreated, eventually make its way to the kidney and over the course of a few years destroy the kidney. There is also the gradual destruction of rectum and its ability to function. I hate bringing these up but they are medical fact.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
In other words, at a certain level, your interests are my interests, as long as aggression is not being used to achieve them.)


Not so, aggression is a good and important attribute that must be fostered in our society if we want to prevent, and I think this is what you are actually referring to, oppression. Wink

My creator would have me aggressively come to the aid of those who cry out to him.
The Philosopher Princess
horseatingweeds wrote:
Your description is a bit more modern, at a third level possibly, than I would intend. Modern man is man after he discovers cooperation in groups other than his family or pack, makes tools clothing and shelter.

Okay. I accept that. (But you should see how many further levels of modern I can get to -- even past your “neo” Wink level.) I didn’t really want to read about your “scorching Confused example” but you’re right that that is relevant to our sub-discussion.

horseatingweeds wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
In other words, at a certain level, your interests are my interests, as long as aggression is not being used to achieve them.)

Not so, aggression is a good and important attribute that must be fostered in our society if we want to prevent, and I think this is what you are actually referring to, oppression. Wink

My creator would have me aggressively come to the aid of those who cry out to him.

I try to always be clear that it is only initiation of force that I oppose, not force used in sincere defense. Aggressively coming to one’s “aid” is defense. Aggressively building up oneself and one’s arsenal for prevention is defense. But aggression against people who have not already aggressed is not defense, and is offense, and in my philosophy is immoral.

My philosophy recognizes that people sometimes need forceful defense. But forceful defense can validly only go so far as the offense is continuing. (I am not particularly able to physically defend myself so I work to develop my mind and use that as non-forceful defense sometimes {i.e., talk myself out of a situation}. And a handgun can sometimes make a woman physically equal to a man.)

So, I’m hoping that the aggression you mention is only for defense, and not for offense.

The strongest and most respectable men, in my opinion, are the ones who do not need to start and perpetuate fights and wars (to “prove” how strong they are). But knights-in-shining-armor, ready to defend, can be very handy. Smile

How this talk of force can relate to homosexuality is that people who use political laws to intrude and invade on homosexuals’ lives -- those people are using offensive force. And so are those who physically attack homosexuals. Even if they believe whatever is unnatural. And even if they believe God told them to. I don’t believe God tells people to be offensive, but if “listeners” misinterpret the signs, it still comes down to offense is offense and is immoral.
horseatingweeds
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
(But you should see how many further levels of modern I can get to -- even past your “neo” Wink level.) [/size]


Your not talking about homosexual artificial intelligence are you? Laughing

The Philosopher Princess wrote:

I try to always be clear that it is only initiation of force that I oppose, not force used in sincere defense. Aggressively coming to one’s “aid” is defense. Aggressively building up oneself and one’s arsenal for prevention is defense. But aggression against people who have not already aggressed is not defense, and is offense, and in my philosophy is immoral.

My philosophy recognizes that people sometimes need forceful defense. But forceful defense can validly only go so far as the offense is continuing. (I am not particularly able to physically defend myself so I work to develop my mind and use that as non-forceful defense sometimes {i.e., talk myself out of a situation}. And a handgun can sometimes make a woman physically equal to a man.)

So, I’m hoping that the aggression you mention is only for defense, and not for offense.


Hmmmm, yes. Philosophically, I would emphatically agree. However, the world is not made up of philosophers. Since the beginning of human civilization people have understood that if they wait until their neighbors attack they will eventually be destroyed. The paradox is that this understanding is what motivates one group, when the opportunity presents its self, to ‘preemptively’ attack.

It is simple defense strategy. I’m thankful that I am not in charge of such things. To effectively defend one must be willing to attack. It is less a question of morality than survival.

How does this bantering have anything to do with the topic? Well, I think it has something to do with oppressing homosexuals. I am honestly unaware of any current oppression.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
The strongest and most respectable men, in my opinion, are the ones who do not need to start and perpetuate fights and wars (to “prove” how strong they are). But knights-in-shining-armor, ready to defend, can be very handy. Smile


Agreed, belligerent morons pick fights, real me finish them.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
How this talk of force can relate to homosexuality is that people who use political laws to intrude and invade on homosexuals’ lives -- those people are using offensive force. And so are those who physically attack homosexuals. Even if they believe whatever is unnatural. And even if they believe God told them to. I don’t believe God tells people to be offensive, but if “listeners” misinterpret the signs, it still comes down to offense is offense and is immoral.


What situations are you particularly concerned with here?
daijoubu
comparing human homosexuality with homosexuality of lower mammals and others animals doesnt prove anything. the thread described a query whether homosexuality in humans is biologically natural. humans have long departed from that primitive realm. If the instincts are to be provoked, it is usually clouded with ur non-natural environment. the reason why people go into heated discussions is because they don't know what they are talkin' about.

however, a vague simulation (i like simulation games) may expose humans to their instincts. isolate a few humans in a realm where society doesnt yet exist. a man would approach another man not being ashamed or anything.. they may build a relationship, a human relationship in a generic form. a man may approach a woman and have a relationship related to his basic instincts of survival. a man may mistake a man for a woman but would have the relationship develop into a generic one since he is happy the way it is, no need for society to warp the relationships into more specialized forms. but since humans are already far from the natural (mammals) we would still have no basis for anything we say. things may be bad or good depending on how we view it.

more topics that appeals to us most yet still very vague may appear soon...
HoboPelican
daijoubu wrote:
comparing human homosexuality with homosexuality of lower mammals and others animals doesnt prove anything. the thread described a query whether homosexuality in humans is biologically natural.


Actually, I think if you read the first post you won't find anything indicating the question was specific to humans only. The question was only whether it was natural, so a discussion of the natural world is perfectly apropriate. As to the rest of you post, I really can't understand what you are saying,
Mannix
The anus was not made for that, so it's not natural.
HoboPelican
Mannix wrote:
The anus was not made for that, so it's not natural.

But it occurs in nature, so it IS natural. I guess it just depends on your definition, eh? Here is mine,

nat·u·ral Pronunciation (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural
The Philosopher Princess
horseatingweeds wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
offense is offense and is immoral.

What situations are you particularly concerned with here?

Things like this (which we all hear and read new stories fitting on a regular basis):

Arrow People being forcibly harassed, beaten, or murdered because they’re homosexuals (or perceived as such).

Arrow Political applications of force against homosexuals, preventing them from being able to do what others do -- backed by the monopolistic force of Government.

But I better leave it there, since I see that there’s more discussion coming in on this thread that is closer to the original topic.
daijoubu
Quote:

nat·u·ral Pronunciation (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.

but what is nature?
Quote:

na·ture Pronunciation (nchr)
n.
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
5. Theology Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: "She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble" Gertrude Stein.
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: "Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill" Percy Bysshe Shelley.
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.
10. The processes and functions of the body.


Quote:

ho·mo·sex·u·al Pronunciation (hm-sksh-l, -m-)
adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.


the topic asks (is homosexuality nat.u.ral?)
Quote:
The question is not meant to demean or opine on whether homosexuality is morally wrong or right. The question targets a search for scientific proof of it's occurrence in nature.


since homosexuality (sexual attraction to the same sex) doesnt contribute to the species and thus such behavior which doesnt help the species would cause it to be minimized. what does homosexuality do anyway help lower animals? it doesnt cause reproduction and is thus useless to the animal. thus it isnt natural. that is why any evidence of such behavior would then be regarded as a fluke then. or an error.

so my answer is that it OCCURS in nature but is minimal due to its uselessness in the natural world. perfectly simple

humans are more complex, that is why we have more homosexuals.
HoboPelican
<sigh>

daijoubu wrote:
since the homosexuality(sexuality) of animals (lower animals) are limited (no relationships like close friends or lovers like us humans) it isn't natural.
This is just a completely invalid statement. Whether they pair bond or not has no bearing on it being natural. On one hand, most species do not do this. They mate and separate. On the other hand, the world is filled with examples of animals of either sex forming attachements to other animals. Heck, any one who has multiple pets can see sometimes they become close and sometimes they hate each other.

Quote:
... it isn't natural. since it doesnt contribute to the species and thus such behavior which doesnt help the species would cause it to be minimized. what does homosexuality do anyway help lower animals?...


Jeez, hasn't this been covered already? Please read back through the posts and if you disagree with the statements about how it can help species, post your refutation.

People, are you REALLY arguing if it's natural or are you just saying you think it is morally wrong? If you are actually discussing the topic, I challenenge you post the definition of 'natrual' that you are using at the top of your post.

Mine is :
1. Present in or produced by nature.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural
The Philosopher Princess
(I'm not currently addressing the “animal” versus human points above, but something else.)

Seeing the following kind of “reasoning”, over and over is so curious to me.

“Homosexuality”...
daijoubu wrote:
doesnt cause reproduction and is thus useless to the animal.

Eating doesn’t “cause reproduction”. Is eating “thus useless to the animal”?
Sleeping doesn’t “cause reproduction”. Is sleeping “thus useless to the animal”?
Laughing doesn’t “cause reproduction”. Is laughing “thus useless to the animal”?

Why do people keep thinking that “reproduction” is the only thing that is natural? My theory is that people have learned only part of theories of evolution and are ignoring other things of Reality that are important.
HoboPelican
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
...
“Homosexuality”...
daijoubu wrote:
doesnt cause reproduction and is thus useless to the animal.

Eating doesn’t “cause reproduction”. Is eating “thus useless to the animal”?
Sleeping doesn’t “cause reproduction”. Is sleeping “thus useless to the animal”?
Laughing doesn’t “cause reproduction”. Is laughing “thus useless to the animal”?...


Hey, posting on this forum doesn't cause reproduction (in fact, it probably stops it Laughing ), thus it's useless to us animals!
daijoubu
HoboPelican wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
...
“Homosexuality”...
daijoubu wrote:
doesnt cause reproduction and is thus useless to the animal.

Eating doesn’t “cause reproduction”. Is eating “thus useless to the animal”?
Sleeping doesn’t “cause reproduction”. Is sleeping “thus useless to the animal”?
Laughing doesn’t “cause reproduction”. Is laughing “thus useless to the animal”?...


Hey, posting on this forum doesn't cause reproduction (in fact, it probably stops it Laughing ), thus it's useless to us animals!


1. humans can post in this forum. lower animals, (since the original topic was about nature) cant post in this forum

2. eating, sleeping ... are useful to the animal. that is true. but homosexuality doesnt provoke u to eat or sleep (ho·mo·sex·u·al = Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex). i may be off a few words, but lets focus on the idea.

if u were an animal in the na.tu.ral world, what would u get from SEXual attraction to the same sex?? an animal having a sexual attraction with another animal is driven by instinct, if it encounters the same sex, it would be against its instincts. ryt? so think about the nature of homosexuality of animals (not human).

lets try to be closer to the original topic... words are words but ideas lurk behind them..
HoboPelican
daijoubu wrote:
...
if u were an animal in the na.tu.ral world, what would u get from SEXual attraction to the same sex??

lets try to be closer to the original topic...


Daijoubu, why do you respond a humourous post but not answer the serious issues posed earlier? Go back and read my post that starts with the sigh and respond to that!

Come on! I made a serious refutation of your inane post about freindships in lower animals and also your statement about homosexuality not being helpful to the species. Respond to those intellligently...if you can Wink

And where is your definition for 'natural' like I requested?
daijoubu
i didnt see it since it was on page 5. i only saw the humourous post. my definition about natural is the same as yours but i included the meaning of nature (which meant 'A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality') since i have to define the word used in the definition of the word natural.

the complete meaning

na.tu.ral = Present in or produced by nature (nature = the primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality)


Quote:
Quote:
daijoubu wrote:
since the homosexuality(sexuality) of animals (lower animals) are limited (no relationships like close friends or lovers like us humans) it isn't natural.

This is just a completely invalid statement. Whether they pair bond or not has no bearing on it being natural. On one hand, most species do not do this. They mate and separate. On the other hand, the world is filled with examples of animals of either sex forming attachements to other animals. Heck, any one who has multiple pets can see sometimes they become close and sometimes they hate each other.


hehe i wuz sleepy (i am in GMT + 8:00 you know!)

yes... they form attachments, but tell me, are they connected to animal sexuality? i know that much ideas are in this forum anyway...
well kudos to all of u!

second part

Quote:
People, are you REALLY arguing if it's natural or are you just saying you think it is morally wrong? If you are actually discussing the topic, I challenenge you post the definition of 'natrual' that you are using at the top of your post.


i say that it does happen, juz lyk the rest of them does. but it doesnt happen very much.

juz 1 query, how does homosexuality help the animal species anyway?(in the natural world) juz curious bout this... ty in advance.


btw, homosexuality is focused on sexual attraction 2 the opposite sex, being gay or lesbian is focused on cultural or sexual matters. others posted about being gay early in this thread. they are just not exactly the same...
The Philosopher Princess
Hey, good news! The first part is not a hypothetical.

I actually am. . .
daijoubu wrote:
an animal in the na.tu.ral world
Very Happy

On the second part. . .
daijoubu wrote:
if u were an animal in the na.tu.ral world, what would u get from SEXual attraction to the same sex??

I would get the same thing I get from attraction to the different sex (gender), so there is no point in listing anything in particular.
HoboPelican
daijoubu wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
daijoubu wrote:
since the homosexuality(sexuality) of animals (lower animals) are limited (no relationships like close friends or lovers like us humans) it isn't natural.

This is just a completely invalid statement. Whether they pair bond or not has no bearing on it being natural. On one hand, most species do not do this. They mate and separate. On the other hand, the world is filled with examples of animals of either sex forming attachements to other animals. Heck, any one who has multiple pets can see sometimes they become close and sometimes they hate each other.

..
yes... they form attachments, but tell me, are they connected to animal sexuality? i know that much ideas are in this forum anyway...
well kudos to all of u!

Well, YOU were the one saying they didn't form close relationships. I was just showing how you were wrong.

Quote:

second part

Quote:
People, are you REALLY arguing if it's natural or are you just saying you think it is morally wrong? If you are actually discussing the topic, I challenenge you post the definition of 'natrual' that you are using at the top of your post.


i say that it does happen, juz lyk the rest of them does. but it doesnt happen very much.

And the point of that is? How does that relate to the question of it's being natural? If you agree that it happens, I have to assume you agree that it is natural (since you haven't listed an alternate defiinition of natural).

Quote:

btw, homosexuality is focused on sexual attraction 2 the opposite sex, being gay or lesbian is focused on cultural or sexual matters. others posted about being gay early in this thread.


This makes no sense to me so I'll ignore it until you can be clearer.
daijoubu
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Hey, good news! The first part is not a hypothetical.

I actually am. . .
daijoubu wrote:
an animal in the na.tu.ral world
Very Happy

On the second part. . .
daijoubu wrote:
if u were an animal in the na.tu.ral world, what would u get from SEXual attraction to the same sex??

I would get the same thing I get from attraction to the different sex (gender), so there is no point in listing anything in particular.




na.tu.ral = Present in or produced by nature (nature = the primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality)

that means we humans as examples are exempted. lower animals would not get the same thing they get from the opposite gender. since addition of humans as examples would always complicate things.

we are no longer part of the natural world (thefreedictionary.com definition). since we act differently. we dont need to complicate this.

this thread is fun, becoming lyk my philosophy class...
HoboPelican
daijoubu wrote:


na.tu.ral = Present in or produced by nature (nature = the primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality)


that means we humans as examples are exempted.

So your are saying that with those definitions, nothing human is natural?
I can live with that, but I think that limits anything you say on this forum to animals.

Quote:

lower animals would not get the same thing they get from the opposite gender. since addition of humans as examples would always complicate things.

we are no longer part of the natural world (thefreedictionary.com definition). since we act differently. we dont need to complicate this.
...


From what I can understand of your post, you are saying that you are leaving humans out of this discussion and that since homosexual behavior does occur in animals, it is by definition (that you posted above) natural.

Good, one more vote for it's natural!
The Philosopher Princess
daijoubu wrote:
na.tu.ral = Present in or produced by nature (nature = the primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality)

That’s the part I was talking about. Humanity and humans contain
(1) part that is as natural as you care to go, and
(2) part that is touched and influenced “by civilization or artificiality”.

(Civilization did not touch the color of my hair, for example. I assure you it is 100% natural. The length is another matter. Smile)
lib
Juparis wrote:
Did I even say your environment was limited to your personal family, here and now? Of course not. Children are exposed to much more than that! While I don't believe homosexuality is a concious choice, I find it hard to even immagine that homosexuality could be genetic. So what's left? It's a developed traight, though not by conscious will. You've had dreams, haven't you? Normal factors in your everyday life can greatly alter what you dream. So why cannot the same be said of other areas in our life? Perhaps, for different reasons of course, our subconcious mind realizes that we are much more comfortable being intimate (not necessarily sexually, as I've found the connotation to be) with the same sex than we are with the opposite sex. But how did our subconcious mind choose that? Nobody can say.

However, that doesn't mean that once chooses to be gay. As long as we're not consciously choosing to be gay, it can, to a xertain extent, be termes loosly genetic and natural. Also note that 2 people born within the same family (siblings) and brought up the same way, been exposed to mroe or less the same experiences, need not all be homosexual/heterosexual. Obviously, in such cases, we can't "pin the blame" on environment.


Arnie wrote:
Because an often-heard argument is "animals do it as well, so it's natural". That rises the question: do all animals act natural, as if they're machines - always following exactly the same pattern?

No, but don't forget that animals in wilderness have not been affected by human intervention as defined by The Philosopher Princess. Humans have a tendency to dictate rules to each other under religion, society, acceptance, code, cult, etc. Animals generally do not. We say these rules are for the general good, and hence live by the rules instead of what can commonly be called "natural instincts".


Arnie wrote:
But to the point, I think it's unnatural. I think heterosexuality was 'the way it was meant to be' - look for example at how our bodies are formed for it. The connection between reproduction and the act of sex is very amazing.

If you limit sex as being an action which involves a penis entering a vagina (clinically correct terms, by the way... and sorry to the scandalized), then you're right! Sex is meant only for heterosexuals. However, sex is not defined as that. Sexual intercourse is defined as:
Quote:
1. Coitus between humans. (Definition of coitus : "Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina."
2. Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.

So, well, as you can see, if sex between homosexuals can lead to orgasms comparable to (or even better than) the average orgasm between a heterosexual couple, then I fail to see why human bodies can't be said to be compatible for same-sex intercourse?


odinstag wrote:
With all the problems homosexuality causes, does it really matter if it is biological or enviromental?

I really don't think it matters why someone is messed up. We must still aknowledge they are messed up and do something to correct the damage it causes.

Look with open eyes and you will see that being gay is no good.

What problems? Why is being homosexual no good. You're being unfair to this thread in general. We've had some insightful replies about the advantages of homosexuality. For you to dismiss these without counter-arguments is unfair (and not worth debating, frankly).


Arnie wrote:
Exactly, intolerance is the key word in all such discussions. For example, if people would stop being so intolerant towards murderers, we'd have a better society.

Interpretation of this is in the eyes of the reader.

Which is why it's better to keep some things subjective. Anyway, let's argue murder. Murder is bad and causes problems. When A murder's B, he's causing emotional (and maybe financial) loss to B's family. There's a chance that if we tolerate B's murder, A may murder someone else, causing a real problem in that family as well. Comparing murder with homosexuality is bordering on absurd. The only "problem" caused by homosexuals is because of the intolerance of people. Social stigma causes mental trauma, and in most cases to the homosexual in question him/self/herself. In the case of murder, who's getting hurt, the murdered (and his/her family and kin) or the murderer?


Arnie wrote:
As said, interpretation of that post is very delicate. But my message is that 'tolerance' is considered too much of a magic word, a golden law that everyone must obey. Which does not always have to be correct, as you can see in the example.

Hmm... should we learn to be intolerant of incomplete homework? If a student fails to complete his homework because he fell ill, I say... SUSPEND HIM!. Certainly, tolerance is not good in all cases, nor is it bad in all cases. Tolerance must be decided on how much a thing that needs to be (or not to be) tolerated is hurting the society and the species in general.


atomictoyz's unsourced article wrote:
The real problem is that if homosexuality is ok because it occurs in nature then pedo_philia falls under the same umbrella. Murder or Natural Selection are hard to distinguish without the guidlines of religion.

Homosexuality is not OK just because it occurs in nature. It's OK because it causes no significant harm to the society. Paedophilia obviously does. This is like comparing murder and homosexuality. The desire to murder someone also occurs in Nature. By the way, heterosexuality also occurs in nature. Oh, and this too:
illini319 wrote:
There is certainly a distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. While one could argue that both are simply a description of what one is attracted to, in real terms, there is a large difference. Namely, consent.



altec, your post requires special attention. I'll address all your questions. Feel free to discuss further (with logic).
altec wrote:
Is it natural to kill? We see animals do the same.
Animals kill because they are carnivores and depend on preying on other animals for their survival. Lions do not eat grass, they hunt other animals for food.
Quote:
Is it natural to have multiple sex partners? We see animals do the same.
Animals do that because they don't have a sense of moral confinement to have only one partner. They also do that in order to have more offspring to propagate their species. Humans don't have to impregnate several members simply because our population is high enough. We also have a sense of moral confinement. We also realize the dangers of having multiple partners, such as the easier spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Quote:
Is it natural to have sex with your sister or brother? We see animals do the same.
It's a good thing, then, that animals have no sense of "family", and hence no fear of disgust regarding incest. Animals don't look at "uncle", "aunty", "brother", "sister", etc... they look only at "male" and "female". This also answers
Quote:
Is it natural to have sex with your parents? We see animals do the same.
Is it natural to have sex with your aunts and uncles? We see animals do the same.

Quote:
Is it natural to have sex with the same sex? We see animals do the same.
This case is quite different from the others. In the previous cases, we see all the animals (more or less) of a particular species having sex with their own "family" or killing other animals, etc., but you don't normally see all the animals of a particular species having sex with the same sex. However, you do see some individual perhaps isolated specimens from every species exhibiting homosexuality, in which case, it is perfectly natural.
Quote:
Is it natural to have sex with an animal? We see humans do it.
I don't see your point here, but it's good you mentioned that we see humans do it, because I'm not aware of animals normally indulging in cross-species sex unless by human intervension such as cross-breeding, etc.
Quote:
Is it natural for an animal to distinguish between what is right and wrong?
No, "animals" generally have no moral sense, like I said. They have "animal instincts". But it is natural for humans to judge right and wrong and to try and impose their judgements on others. Wink
Quote:
Are all these biologically "natural"?
Yes.
Quote:
Think about it.
Your turn Smile


[quote="altec"]The same with a straight person who has a strong tendency to have multiple sexual partners, the same with a grown person who has an "attraction" to young kids, the same with the person who has a sexual relationship with their brother or sister, the same with the person who is a parent who commits incest. All these fall under the category of "sexual immorality".[/quotee]
Once again, I say... adultery, paedophilia, etc cannot be compared to homosexuality. They are evils of their own. You can have homosexual adultery and paedophilia just as you can have heterosexual adultery and paedophilia.


@The Philosopher Princess, regarding this post, just wanted to ask... do you consider inequality or entertaining thoughts of superiority based on natural characteristics to be immoral. Ignorance is one thing, but knowingly thinking of other as being inferior to your because of things such as race, sex, sexuality, etc... wouldn't that be immoral?
Regarding homophobia, I'd be surprised if I ever came across someone who was born with a natural fear of homosexuality. I'm not denying it's possibility, but I think that it's highly unlikely.


altec wrote:
I am against all of these sexual acts because it destroys and harms the basic family unit of a society - Husband, Wife, and Children. We are not animals. We are human beings.

And maybe this is why we should learnt to respect other people's natural urges.
Secondly, I don't see why a small minority of people (homosexuals) who want to live together ought to affect the basic nuclear family unit. By the way, studies have proven that homosexual couples are just as able to raise adopted children as heterosexual couples. This information is available on the wikipedia article for Gay Marriage. By the way, adultery, divorce, etc destroy the basic family unit much more than homosexuality, if indeed homosexuality does.


BruceTheDauber wrote:
First of all, the assumption that they are afraid is, at best, mistaken. What's you're reason for believing that they don't just think homosexuality is wrong, without being afraid of homosexuals, the same way many people think that adultery is wrong, without being afraid of adulterers?

Then the word "homophobe" is a misnomer. The etymology of "homophobe" is that is it made up of 2 words - "homo", meaning "same", a short form for homosexual, in this case, and "phobe", derived from "phobia", which means fear. So, if someone just doesn't like homosexuality, or thinks it's wrong, we'd have to devise another word. The word "homophobe" by strict etymology means "fear of homosexuals"
Quote:
Does that mean that someone who disapproves of paedophilia or bestiality should also be branded a "phobe"?
Like I said, "phobia" is a fear. "Arachnophobia", for example, is fear of spiders, not just disapproval of spiders.
Quote:
Oh, right. So, if I disapprove of something that's not currently illegal, and I seek to use the democratic process to make it illegal, I'm doing something morally wrong, am I? Aren't you just saying it's immoral to make laws?
No, it's not immoral to make laws. It's immoral to make laws that make no sense or are discriminatory. Sexual preference is natural, just as sex itself is. You can undergo a sex change to convert to another sex, but if you're strongly homosexual or strongly heterosexual, you're not likely to change for the rest of your life, not is there likely anything you can do about it. Oh, and would you consider it immoral for me to start a Hitler fan club, and go from street to street proclaiming him to be a hero, and trying to get a law passed that requires everyone to celebrate Internation hitler day, and to celebrate the killing of all those people? I'm not violating anyone's democratic right, am I? There's a difference between freedom of speech and democracy, and being stupid/immoral.


Quote:
These claims can't be dismissed out of hand -- they have to be addressed.

They have beem... throughout the thread.
Quote:
To try to rule out expressions of so-called "homophobia" goes against the freedom of speech principle in a most fundamental way.
@ things:
1. Freedom of speech to express your idea is one thing. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and they are free to believe in it. However, to have state laws passed that force you to have only one opinion and which restrict you from pursuing non-harmful things such as homosexuality is immoral.
2. To prevent homosexuality and to try and forcibly supress it is a violation of the freedom of choice to have sex.
Quote:
Homosexual men, it can be claimed (and has been), spread AIDS, put teenage boys at risk, undermine social cohesion, and hurt their families a whole by failing to reproduce.
Sterile men are unable to reproduce. Shall we pass a law illegalizing infertility? Any HIV +ve patient can spread AIDS. Shall we pass a law illegalizing AIDS? Homosexuality need not undermine social cohesion. If we accept it as a matter of personal sexual preference, it need not be sucha big issue and cause such social stigma. By the way, religious beliefs and different religions undermine social cohesion. Let's take away the right to practise any religion you see fit.


Soulfire wrote:
1) Homosexuality is abnormal. It is the truth, because normal is male and female. That is not to say it is bad, just not the normal.

2) Homosexuality is unnatural. It is the truth, because it is against nature. Again the whole male and female thing would be nature's intention.

I'd agree to it being "abnormal" because we have an unfortunate tendency to accept the majority conditions as the normal conditions, and heterosexuality is a very small percentage (between 2-5 % only)
I disagree about its being unnatural because of the fact there there is not basic barrier in the human body to prevent it. Apart from that, it can also be looked upon as a case of population control. Apart from that, homosexuality also helps in the law of Division of Labor.


BruceTheDauber wrote:
Another point to be made about theft is that in general it causes only temporary psychological distress, but no physical suffering. The psychological distress itself is contingent on people having an attachment to their property, which itself is an attitude that may be difficult to justify.

Theft can cause permanent financial problems. Theft of a sentimentally valued article can sause psychological distress for prolonged periods, and is not comparable to rudeness, etc.
Quote:
There's an argument that incest reduces social cohesion, but that's a very intangible harm, difficult to prove. Of the others, the same question can be asked -- what harm do they do? Some people are adamant that pornography and prostitution are harmful, but they have great difficulty in proving their case to skeptics.

Pornography causes sexual perverseness, it employs child abuse and child sexual abuse in a lot of cases. Prostitution causes easy transfer of STDs, and causes adultery, etc, which definitely do undermine social cohesion.
Quote:
"The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality"

The onyl negative health effect of homosexuality is that AIDS spreads easier through anal sex than "normal" sex. If we're waging a war against homosexuality based on the ease of soread of AIDS, then let's also wage a war against anal sex.
Quote:
Kids getting high and driving, or doing any other risky thing is irrelevant to whether or not such risk as may be presented by the stereotypical predatory older man intent on seducing teenage boys is a good thing or not.

Homosexuals are not all sexual deviants and child molesters, and vice versa. Sexual predators can also be heterosexual. You could have the stereotypical predatory older uncle intent on seducing your 11 year old daughter.
Quote:
disapprove of homosexuality (a form of behaviour) with those who express prejudice against certain ethnic groups, sexes, etc. (where the criterion of membership is not behaviour, but birth).

The problem is that you consider homosexuality to be environment-cased and behaviorial. However, we (rather, I) consider it to be something ingrained since birth (in most cases). I also consider it to be a person's natural right... like religion. We are born in one religion, yet we are free to change our religion at any given time, and yet we sometimes face religious discrimination. This is comparable to sexuality-based discrimination.


Slizer wrote:
1. It has been said that each person chooses their own preference as to whether to be homosexual or heterosexual.
Has it? Hmm.. I was under the impression that it was because of a mutant gene...


Arnie celebrated when Whong wrote:
Everything that is natural isn't still right!

THat's quite right. But have we agreed that homosexuality is natural or not? The discussion is still on-going. Also, it's wrong to assume that all of us dismissed Whong's post after reading the first line. I just didn't find anything worth arguing about. He stated what he stated because of his faith/religion, and that is pretty obvious from his first post, not the second one which you quoted.


bagofelix wrote:
Something that is natural is something that helps you survive.

Is cancer unnatural? Is aging unnatural?


Quote:
Let me ask all of you straight people a question. When did you decide to be straight? Did you wake up one day and decide to find the opposite sex attractive? I know the answer is "I didn't choose". So why do you think that gay people make a decision to be gay? [/quote
Ah, a very interesting question. *applause* Smile


[quote="bagofelix"]To answer your question, yes I have. One day I was looking at one of my male friends at school. I felt a flicker of attraction towards him. I immediately squashed it and told myself, I will not be gay in any way shape or form. Never ever have I had a flicker again, I love women.

So, you forced yourself to become purely heterosexual, even though, naturally, you experiences a sliver of attraction for the boy? Interesting... BTW, your posts only proves that it's natural for a male tro be able to be attracted to another.


altec wrote:
I had a talk with my gay friend in the office. I asked him about his childhood and he told me he didn't have a good childhood as his father punished him severely. His mom always comes to the rescue, always defending him from the whip of his Dad's belt, and buckle as well. That's a very traumatic experience from a 2 year old child. It came to the point when he grew up, he started to fight back because he can't stand his dad beating up his mom.

I asked him whether he knows he is gay when he was 1-3 years old. He told me, he is not that sure. But when he reached around 6-7 years old, he knew because he likes girl's thing, but very confused.
Umm... what was your point?


horseatingweeds wrote:
Reasons for this are obvious. As man became modern he also learned how to build wealth and make war. Both of these activities, as well as the life span of early modern man being not usually above thirty, made lots of children necessary. Being a ‘homosexual’ in these societies WOULD harm the other member. By not contributing to the growth of the population the member would be weakening it and making it vulnerable to its neighbors. By not having children the member would also be breaking down the system of the family unit. Understand the importance of this system was more important that the kids having a Nana and Papa to visit in the summer, it was a survival system that ensured new productive members and a redundant system for care and distribution of resources through heirs. This system was so important to modern man that we see an institution formed independently yet almost universally developed to protect it that in our current society is called marriage.

WHy would a small minority of happy homosexual couples affect the general society. Read up. Homosexual parents are as good (and in some cases, better) than heterosexual parents. Similarly, all sterils men are also harming the society. All old men and women who are unable to contribute to population growth are harming society as well.
Quote:
In our current society we are free of many of the challenges that our forefathers endured. We have a very strong society that makes up for any lack of strength due to the absence of a family. Our average age is above seventy. We can build wealth to provide for ourselves at the bank and we have hired warriors to fight our neighbors. This time is very rare though, very rare and it will cycle as societies always have.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Throughout history, mankind has always moved towards systems which make us more comfortable and give us a better standard of living. If our current society is strong enough, then let homosexuals live together. If the times comes when it becomes abosultely compulsory to have every capable member contribute to population growth, then the conditions ought to be different, Also note that if such a condition were to arrive, marriage would be pointless since the society really needs pregnant women and children and emphasis will be laid on giving birth rather than to commitment.
Quote:
Also, as a ‘Christian Crusader’ I will inform you that my beliefs and those of whom I consort are not based on what is natural, but what is in the interests of my creator, society and fellow man.

To deprive certain sections of the society from what they truly want and what their natural sexual preference is is not in the interests of your fellow man or the currently strong society. However, it may be in the interest of your religion and its perceived creator.
Quote:
As modern man must focus substantial efforts, particularly woman, on procreation;

Basically, this is advocating becoming zombies without the freedom of choice for the sake of a currently very strong society, isn't it?

--------

I just read through 6 pages of this thread... and towards the last few posts, I got tired of reading... there are still a few unaddressed posts, but I'll take them as they come.

I suggest opening a thread in the Philosophy Forum about whether homosexuality ir immoral and whether or not it causes harmt o the society.
HoboPelican
Laughing Laughing Laughing
That is the longest freakin' post Ive seen here! How long did that take, you maniac? Maybe I'll just sit back and let you hold the fort for awhile. Cool
daijoubu
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
daijoubu wrote:
na.tu.ral = Present in or produced by nature (nature = the primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality)

That’s the part I was talking about. Humanity and humans contain
(1) part that is as natural as you care to go, and
(2) part that is touched and influenced “by civilization or artificiality”.

(Civilization did not touch the color of my hair, for example. I assure you it is 100% natural. The length is another matter. Smile)


aha! i see that we have different views on the word natural.
lib
HoboPelican wrote:
Laughing Laughing Laughing
That is the longest freakin' post Ive seen here! How long did that take, you maniac? Maybe I'll just sit back and let you hold the fort for awhile. Cool

Somewhere between 3-4 hours. Very Happy
I hate it when some dumbass jumps into a thread that's been progessing nicely and posts crap without reading what's already been discussed. I sat through dinner and read almost all the 6 pages. I kinda just skimmed through the last 3-4 posts though Embarassed

And The Philosopher Princess found a typo I had to correct:
Quote:
Homosexuality is not OK just because it occurs in nature. It's OK because it causes so significant harm to the society. Paedophilia obviously does.

Quite confusing that probably was.
Changed now to
Quote:
Homosexuality is not OK just because it occurs in nature. It's OK because it causes no significant harm to the society. Paedophilia obviously does.


EDIT: You can also probably see just how tired I was after typing all that:
In the long thread, I wrote:
I just read through 6 pages of this thread... and towards the last few posts, I got tired of reading... there are still a few unaddressed posts, but I'll take them as they come.

I suggest opening a thread in the Philosophy Forum about whether homosexuality ir immoral and whether or not it causes harmt o the society.
Jack_Hammer
Lib, I think you can discuss whether it is harmful to society and whether it is right or wrong in the same thread.

Though I think homosexuality of either kind (Lesbians or gays) is just fine, some people feel more inclined toward their own sex, and infact women are naturally part bisexual anyway (or so i believe Wink ). Saying that homosexuality is wrong is just like saying that if a man is born with a female brain (Medical condition) and that person wanting sergury and wanting everything a woman would want (A boyfriend) is wrong.
silvermesh
illini319 wrote:
As a scientist, I am compelled to answer that, yes, it is a genetic trait. Many species do exhibit behaviors that appear homosexual in nature (ex. a male doing a mating dance towards another male). In fact, genes have already been found (conserved all the way down to fruitflies) that when mutated can trigger a complete switch in how an animal behaves sexually. This is, to the point, of not procreating and hence one can argue that it is an evolutionary dead end. Yet it persists in nature... why is that? (I really don't know.) I thought this was an easier question to answer in humans because of our historical (and current) views on homosexuality have driven many homosexuals to repress their sexuality and even take on spouses (and yes, even procreate). Hence one can easily see, if one were to believe that there is a genetic component to this, how homosexuality can persist in the humans species: because of sociological repression of natural selection... But back to my original point: why does homosexual behavior persist in other species? Are these species more social than we realize? Or is there some other underlying event that we are missing/assuming?


I think assuming that the trait is inherited is the flaw here. On the same coin you could say that genetiacally species don't thrive because being male or female is a genetic trait, and thusly, sooner or later the species is going to be either all female or all male. your gender isn't inherited, and whether or not you are female isn't even dependant on both parents. I think homosexuality could be seen in a similar light. you're either one or the other. it's not necessarily an inherited trait, it's just a little fluke in the DNA that pokes out now and then. I'm of the personal opinion that it's a population control type of thing, probably showing up more often in bigger, denser gene pools. of course this is entirely speculation as I've only read a little research on the subject, and outside of first hand knowledge having been raised around animals(some dogs just want other dogs of the same gender), I'm not all that educated on the subject.
HoboPelican
silvermesh wrote:
...I'm of the personal opinion that it's a population control type of thing, probably showing up more often in bigger, denser gene pools. of course this is entirely speculation as I've only read a little research on the subject, and outside of first hand knowledge having been raised around animals(some dogs just want other dogs of the same gender), I'm not all that educated on the subject.


First off, I am not a biologist so my ramblings here are just that. But ...

If it is a response to over-crowding, I wonder what type of stimulus could trigger it? You have to admit, if we didn't have technology, the present population numbers sure would qualify as over-crowded.

Not even stating a belief here guys. Just questions.
druidbloke
It is natural obviously, as people and animals prove it, wether its in the genes or envioroment makes no difference, I believe its a bit of both, most other personality traits seem to stem from a mix of the two, we all have different dispositions and are not a blank canvas when we're born, so I believe being homosexual is the same, to say its in the genes exclusively to me smacks of excuse, like there is something wrong with it, but the person cant help it because its in their genes, as soon as some choice gets into the equation it suddenly becomes wrong, I think with some people who are genetically on the borderline can choose to be gay or straight, or bi and thats fine.
mediadar
The focus appears to be on reproduction as mans ultimate goal when in fact, it's not!

William Osler once said:
"The natural man has only two
primal passions, to get and beget."

I take this literally to mean man's goals are, A: to acquire and B: to sow his wild oats. Well, guess what? He too, was wrong.

The purpose of any living organism is a selfish one, it is to survive, and nowhere does it say that survival must include or is limited to, reproduction.
I use as a definition for survival: to live, persist, or remain usable through.

Once again, couples copulating knowing that their efforts won't produce offspring can be deemed as unnatural and for the holy rollers out there, it' a sin. I find this pretty hypocritical!


Quote:
This neo-modern man will also be more immune to other downfalls of homosexuality. A scorching example of this is the physiological damage that male ‘sex’ does to the body. Without the protections and antibiotics of the neo-modern world a man is insured an recoil infection of the urinary system that will, if untreated, eventually make its way to the kidney and over the course of a few years destroy the kidney. There is also the gradual destruction of rectum and its ability to function. I hate bringing these up but they are medical fact.


I agree that homosexual males are susceptible to some pretty funky diseases, but it's not like heterosexual males and females don't get their fair share of the clap. UTI's are common in women and occasionally the unfortunate male may procure one by dipping his wick in a nasty region, yes, thank Flemming for penicillin!

Survival, that is our goal, not everyone was designed for reproduction, so what purpose could someone have, hetero or homo, if they were unable to produce offspring, we may as well preemptively kill them all, right?

Just a thought,
Mediadar.
mgumn
the "goal" of any organism is to be a vehicle to the "selfish" genes which it contains and to ensure that they are passed on. This is obviously basic, but pretty true all the same.

why are people excluding human beings from other animals? we are animals, and our perception of consciousness is simply an illusion of the brain itself, we are subject to the same evolutionary and behavioural rules as any animal. You are seriously kidding yourself if you believe that mankind is special in anyway. As a behaviourlist you are always asking "can we be sure?" can we be sure that (for example) a chimpanzee has a theory of mind? No, we can look at its behaviour and infer a theory of mind due to its actions, but we can never be sure that the chimpanzee has a theory of mind.

Can we be sure that human beings have a theory of mind? Well i can type this message in the forum, and i am aware that i am doing it, and i am aware that other people, who think and feel in similar ways will read it.

Remeber that the human definition of theory of mind, is , well human. We think, we feel, and we perceive this to be special, but onyl because we can perceive.

an alien civilisation may find human beings and ask the same questions, imagine that we could never commmunicate with them, so they have to infer, do we have free will, or are we simply following extremely complicated pre set rules? They would probably conclude that, although they couldnt be sure, mankind probably has some semblance of a theory of mind to allow it to survive in a complex social society, but it isnt as big or special as their theory of mind.

my point? i'm not sure i have one, but what i am trying to say is that humans only seem so special because you yourself are a human. step away and you will see that we are simply well dressed apes.

And? well as i have said in a previous post there are many sensible evolutionary explanations for homosexuality both in other animals and mankind, sucess of reproduction is measured in genes passed on, so any behaviour, although detracting from its sucess directly, can benefit indirectly.

Quote:
This neo-modern man will also be more immune to other downfalls of homosexuality. A scorching example of this is the physiological damage that male ‘sex’ does to the body. Without the protections and antibiotics of the neo-modern world a man is insured an recoil infection of the urinary system that will, if untreated, eventually make its way to the kidney and over the course of a few years destroy the kidney. There is also the gradual destruction of rectum and its ability to function. I hate bringing these up but they are medical fact.


i find this a little scary. If this is medical fact i need to see the papers or text book this is from, i say this because i'm guessing you just made it up. The rectum is an extremely hardy organ, it takes alot of pressure, wear and tear ANYWAY. As homosexuality exists now, we can persume that it has been, as a behavioural strategy, reasonably succesful in the past. Homosexuality is well recorded in ancient greek society, up to 4000+ years ago, as has heterosexual anal sex. we can persume then, that it is not that damaging as a behaviour.
mediadar
Quote:
i find this a little scary. If this is medical fact i need to see the papers or text book this is from, i say this because I'm guessing you just made it up. The rectum is an extremely hardy organ, it takes alot of pressure, wear and tear ANYWAY. As homosexuality exists now, we can presume that it has been, as a behavioural strategy, reasonably successful in the past. Homosexuality is well recorded in ancient Greek society, up to 4000+ years ago, as has heterosexual anal sex. we can presume then, that it is not that damaging as a behaviour


Actually, homosexual males have a higher risk of contracting certain diseases such as Hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, UTI's, etc...

I'm not sure as to whether we can attribute this to higher promiscuity or anal sex, I will have to look into this. As for the sphincter and it's elasticity, well, if anal stretching occurs too quickly, fecal incontinence can result. Porn stars and the 'neo homo' have recognised this threat and now take precaution to stretch the anal sphincter slowly maintaining its elasticity.

As a heterosexual male married for the past 20 years I must say, If my wife and I had not practised certain variations of the regular routines, sex would have been a mere repetitious mundane act, about as exciting as doing the laundry, or taking out the trash. I for one don't see how 'Christians/Catholics' get by on just dull sexual activities, for the soul[sic] purpose of reproduction without any pleasure in mind. (PS the guys get off, poor women though)

Mediadar
wumingsden
mediadar wrote:
homosexual males have a higher risk of contracting certain diseases such as Hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, UTI's, etc...


This is true to a certain degree.
The risk is because of anal sex, not being gay. A hetrosexual couple are also at "a higher risk of contracting certain diseases such as Hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, UTI's, etc..." if they practive anal sex, so it is not determined on one's sexuality.
The Conspirator
Did you know animels can be homosexuel?
Acording to wikipedea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual#Homosexual_behavior_in_animals wrote:
Homosexual behavior in animals
Main article: Non-human animal sexuality

Squawk and Milou
Male chinstrap penguins, one of several homosexual pairs at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan.

Homosexual behaviour is common in the animal kingdom, especially in species closer to humans on the evolutionary scale, such as the great apes. Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorised that homosexuality, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimises intraspecies aggression, especially among males.
Male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.[10] German and Japanese zoos have also reported homosexuality among their penguins. This phenomenon has also been reported at Kelly Tarlton's Aquarium in Auckland, New Zealand.
Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls is common among American Bison. The Mandan nation Okipa festival concludes with a ceremonial enactment of this behaviour, to "ensure the return of the buffalo in the coming season." [citation needed] Also, mounting of one female by another is common among cattle. (See also, Freemartin. Freemartins occur because of clearly causal hormonal factors at work during gestation.)
Homosexuality in male sheep (found in 6-10% of rams) is associated with variations in cerebral mass distribution and chemical activity. A study reported in Endocrinology concluded that biological and physiological factors are in effect.[11] These findings are similar to human findings studied by Simon LeVay.


Note: The page dose have a
Quote:
This page is semi-protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.)

But after reading the talk page it seems to have to do with this
Quote:
Homosexuality in Animals

An addition I have made is being repeatedly deleted without explaination, I have altered it several times to fix any possible problems but it is now being deleted without an any edit tag
Male bighorn sheep are divisible into two kinds, the typical males amoung whom homosexual behavior is common and "effiminate sheep" or "behavioral transvestites" which are not known to engage in homosexual behavior. 2 3

if anyone can explain to me whats wrong with it I will hapily alter it, but at the moment I'm getting no constructive feedback

2:12 June 22 2006
I haven't checked your sources, but it looks fine to me. By the way, please sign your comments to talk pages with four tildes, like so: -~~~~ -Smahoney 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Or this
Quote:
Sikhism

I'm confused by the wording on this page in the religion section. it says:

Sikhism has no written view on the matter, but Sikh (Punjabi) society is generally ultra masculine and conservative, toleration of any homosexual behaviour or orientation is bound to meet outrage or strong disapproval

but this seems to be in conflict at least in part with the other wiki article "homosexuality and sikhism:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Sikhism

now, while i am not a sikh nor do i pretend to know what's up with sikh and sexuality (which is why i'm on wikipedia) i would suggest that the line in the latter article:

However, other Sikhs believe that Guru Nanak's emphasis on universal equality and brotherhood is fundamentally in support of homosexual's human rights.

kinda goes against the formers "ultra masculine" description (the latter does go on to say that this homosexual acceptance is a minority, but it at least raises the point that no all sikh could be described as ultra-conservative).

finally, the whole description of sikhs as ultra conservative and supra masculine needs to be at least sited if it is going to stay in the article, cause i read it and i think... says who? especially when there's another wiki article that doesn't agree... can we clean this up? --64.142.79.210 04:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Off topic: to see how perverted animals can really be click here,
mediadar
wumingsden wrote:
mediadar wrote:
homosexual males have a higher risk of contracting certain diseases such as Hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, UTI's, etc...


This is true to a certain degree.
The risk is because of anal sex, not being gay. A hetrosexual couple are also at "a higher risk of contracting certain diseases such as Hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, UTI's, etc..." if they practive anal sex, so it is not determined on one's sexuality.


I am aware that it has nothing to do with being gay, nor do I believe that it is due to 'anal sex' (with the exception of Hepatitis, of course), but it may have to do with higher rates of promescuity? However!!!!! Gay promescuity may have decreased over the years, can anyone help with numbers? (before I put my foot in my mouth!)


Mediadar.
mediadar
From Fox news.

Quote:
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > SCIENCE
Study: Older Brothers Increase Chances Men Will Be Gay
Monday, June 26, 2006

WASHINGTON — Having several older brothers increases the likelihood of a man being gay, a finding researchers say adds weight to the idea that there is a biological basis for sexual orientation.

"It's likely to be a prenatal effect," said Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines, Canada. "This and other studies suggest that there is probably a biological basis for" homosexuality.

S. Marc Breedlove of Michigan State University said the finding "absolutely" confirms a physical basis.

"Anybody's first guess would have been that the older brothers were having an effect socially, but this data doesn't support that," Breedlove said in a telephone interview.

The only link between the brothers is the mother and so the effect has to be through the mother, especially since stepbrothers didn't have the effect, said Breedlove, who was not part of the research.

Bogaert studied four groups of Canadian men, a total of 944 people, analyzing the number of brothers and sisters each had, whether or not they lived with those siblings and whether the siblings were related by blood or adopted.

He reports in a paper appearing in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that having several biological older brothers increased the chance of a man being gay.

It's an effect that can be detected with one older brother and becomes stronger with three or four or more, Bogaert said in a telephone interview.

But, he added, this needs to be looked at in context of the overall rate of homosexuality in men, which he suggested is about 3 percent.

With several older brothers the rate may increase from 3 percent to 5 percent, he said, but that still means 95 percent of men with several older brothers are heterosexual.

The effect of birth order on male homosexuality has been reported previously but Bogaert's work is the first designed to rule out social or environmental effects.

Bogaert said he concluded the effect was biological by comparing men with biological brothers to those with brothers to whom they were not biologically related.

The increase in the likelihood of being gay was seen only in those whose brothers had the same mothers, whether they were raised together or not, he said.

Men raised with several older step- or adopted brothers do not have an increased chance of being gay.

"So what that means is that the environment a person is raised in really makes not much difference," he said.

What makes a difference, he said, is having older brothers who shared the same womb and gestational experience, suggesting the difference is because of "some sort of prenatal factor."

One possibility, he suggests, is a maternal immune response to succeeding male fetuses.

The mother may react to a male fetus as foreign but not to a female fetus because the mother is also female.

It might be like the maternal immune response that can occur when a mother has Rh-negative blood but her fetus has Rh-positive blood. Without treatment, the mother can develop antibodies that may attack the fetus during future pregnancies.

Whether that's what is happening remains to be seen, but it is a provocative hypothesis, said a commentary by Breedlove, David A. Puts and Cynthia L. Jordan, all of Michigan State.

The research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > SCIENCE


Edit: Please use quote tags!
todabeat
I just want to add a comment, not to offend. or Add any religious belief... I on the personal don't have anything against Homosexuals.

But i do agree with it being Against nature. Becuase weather is religious or not. We are here on earth to procreate. To continue our bloodline for each human being.

and being gay, doesn't help much. I am not saying that is sick or WRONG. It's your chooice. But it has started to become somewhat of a fad, the 'new thing' to be gay. And I don't think that gay parades and most of gay right should have been made becuase you and other people encourge others.

Like i said. i am not trying to offend or anything, but that is just my opinion.
I have shared my idea with these two friends i have to became gay. Or came out right after high school. And they don't hate me or anything. There is still mutual respect. But i do believe that it IS NOT something you are born with like a lot of homosexual say.

Will
HoboPelican
todabeat wrote:
...

But i do agree with it being Against nature. Becuase weather is religious or not. We are here on earth to procreate. To continue our bloodline for each human being.
...
But i do believe that it IS NOT something you are born with like a lot of homosexual say.



So you're saying that a man and a woman who get married but decide to not have children are as against nature as homosexuals, since they are not procreating and continuing the bloodlines?

As to not being born homosexual, I respect your belief. Just keep in mind you can't know that because of your being straight.
wumingsden
HoboPelican wrote:
todabeat wrote:
...

But i do agree with it being Against nature. Becuase weather is religious or not. We are here on earth to procreate. To continue our bloodline for each human being.
...
But i do believe that it IS NOT something you are born with like a lot of homosexual say.



So you're saying that a man and a woman who get married but decide to not have children are as against nature as homosexuals, since they are not procreating and continuing the bloodlines?

As to not being born homosexual, I respect your belief. Just keep in mind you can't know that because of your being straight.


I'd just like to stick up for todabeat. They posted the above post in my thread "I Am Gay..." - however, the staff felt it nessery to move it to a more appropiate thread, and this one seemed the best one.
HoboPelican
[quote="wumingsden"]
HoboPelican wrote:
...

I'd just like to stick up for todabeat. They psoted the above post in my thread "I Am Gay..." - however, the staff felt it nessery to move it to a more appropiate thread, and this one seemed the best one.


Hey, Todabeat, I do appoligize if it seemed like I was attacking you. Wasnt my intent. Just posing a logical question based on your statement. The question actually relates to my situation. Married, no kids by choice. We are the infamous D.I.N.K.s Again, no disrespect meant.
S3nd K3ys
wumingsden wrote:
mediadar wrote:
homosexual males have a higher risk of contracting certain diseases such as Hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, UTI's, etc...


This is true to a certain degree.
The risk is because of anal sex, not being gay. A hetrosexual couple are also at "a higher risk of contracting certain diseases such as Hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, UTI's, etc..." if they practive anal sex, so it is not determined on one's sexuality.


Actually, it's true to more of a degree than you're admitting.

The medical risks such as HIV, Hepatitis etc (STD's) are part of it, but physical injuries are a direct result of taking it in the a.. err, I mean anal sex. Your body was not made to work that way.

IT'S NOT NATURAL. (I mean that biologically, not civilly or religiously) Your ass was not made to have penis sized (often larger) objects going INTO it, (unless it's a colonic. Laughing ), or running around your large intestine clawing and biting and wiggling around. I cringe when my wife uses her pinky finger! (I really do wish she'd trim her damn finger nails Shocked )

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html wrote:
Executive Summary

Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. There are five major distinctions between gay and heterosexual relationships, with specific medical consequences. Many derived from repeated anal penetration, and mouth-anal contact which is a large cause for health risks.

...
Physical Health

Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population.


But it doesn't stop there, oh no.

Quote:
* Mental Health

It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.

* Life Span

The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.


I'm guessing the life span issue has much to do with the un-natural behavior and the physical and mental consequences of those actions.
The Conspirator
I wouldn't take anything said on a catholic education sit seriously do it it being biased.
Please use an unbiased sources.
S3nd K3ys
The Conspirator wrote:
I wouldn't take anything said on a catholic education sit seriously do it it being biased.
Please use an unbiased sources.


You mean you wouldn't take anything anybody says that goes agains your beliefs seriously??

Admit it, it doesn't matter WHAT the source is, if you don't want to accept something, you dismiss it and try to find an avenue to justify the dismisal, such as the 'source'. Or by blerting out something completely stupid like "War is no excuse for steeling" Laughing Laughing Laughing

Go ask your doctor what the health risks are when you take it in the ass with a variety of objects that were not meant to be there. Then ask him the health risks of putting your tounge in your boyfriend's ass. Then ask him how healthy it is to put a live gerbil in your ass and let him run around...

Go on. Go ask him.

Then come back here and say "You were right. I was wrong. There ARE health risks with being homosexual besides STD's".

You = by your own ignorance... Wink
The Conspirator
You need to be banned.
I don't trust biased sources! I don't go on some search engine and do some search for some biased source. I won't unbiased sources, source that dose not care what the result is and anything from a site call Catholic education.org is not going to be unbiased!
Yes there are grater health risks with anel sex but that doesn't mean there are grater health risks for homosexuals. If a person, strait or gay engages in anel sex they are at a grater health risk!

If you can't have a civil conversation, shut up!
S3nd K3ys
The Conspirator wrote:
You need to be banned.

Yes there are grater health risks with anel sex but that doesn't mean there are grater health risks for homosexuals. If a person, strait or gay engages in anel sex they are at a grater health risk!

If you can't have a civil conversation, shut up!


In other words, not only do you NOT have what it takes to present a valid argument, you would have me SILENCED because I'm right?

I'm so sorry, but if you're a male and you're taking it anally, chances are you're homosexual. Hence your point about 'that doesn't mean there are greater risks for homosexuals" is invalid at best, and completely ignorant at worst.

Laughing Laughing Laughing
The Czar
Mr.Conspirator, I Think It Is ANAL Instead Of ANEL. Well about the topic, I think that it is destined instead of Biological Or Random ... And They Do actually have more risks in being so ... But they are fearless (I respect them) ...
S3nd K3ys
The Czar wrote:
MBut they are fearless (I respect them) ...


It's a thin line between 'brave' and 'stupid' It is largely defined by the success (or lack thereof) of the outcome... Cool
tidruG
S3nd K3ys wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
I wouldn't take anything said on a catholic education sit seriously do it it being biased.
Please use an unbiased sources.


You mean you wouldn't take anything anybody says that goes agains your beliefs seriously??

Admit it, it doesn't matter WHAT the source is, if you don't want to accept something, you dismiss it and try to find an avenue to justify the dismisal, such as the 'source'. Or by blerting out something completely stupid like "War is no excuse for steeling" Laughing Laughing Laughing

Go ask your doctor what the health risks are when you take it in the *** with a variety of objects that were not meant to be there. Then ask him the health risks of putting your tounge in your boyfriend's ***. Then ask him how healthy it is to put a live gerbil in your *** and let him run around...

Go on. Go ask him.

Then come back here and say "You were right. I was wrong. There ARE health risks with being homosexual besides STD's".

You = by your own ignorance... Wink

Is it natural or not, S3nd?
People know there are health risks involved with anal sex, not only between homosexuals, but between any 2 individuals.

PS: By "it", I mean homosexuality
S3nd K3ys
Biologically, it is NOT natural to take it anally. Your body was NOT made for that. Ask your doctor.

As for culturally, that's changing. It used to be a resounding NO.

Religiously, it's not natural. Still a resounding NO.

Civilly, that has yet to be determined.

IMNSHO, overall it's not natural.

But I have friends, (some are very close friends) who are homosexual (lesbian to be exact), and support them in their decisions.

I do not, however, think they should be afforded the same right of marriage (seen as a vehicle for propogation) given to heterosexual couples. While at teh same time I think they should be afforded the same benefits from the government monetarily as married couples recieve.
mediadar
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Biologically, it is NOT natural to take it anally. Your body was NOT made for that. Ask your doctor.

As for culturally, that's changing. It used to be a resounding NO.

Religiously, it's not natural. Still a resounding NO.

Civilly, that has yet to be determined.

IMNSHO, overall it's not natural.

But I have friends, (some are very close friends) who are homosexual (lesbian to be exact), and support them in their decisions.

I do not, however, think they should be afforded the same right of marriage (seen as a vehicle for propagation) given to heterosexual couples. While at the same time I think they should be afforded the same benefits from the government monetarily as married couples receive.


Lets go point by point.

1 - Biologically it occurs in nature, frequently! So yes it is natural.
2 - The Question does not concern culture, as society has been severely handicapped via religious influence.
3 - Religion does not define nature.
4 - Overall how can you say it is not, when the only proof you can provide was written by the largest group of hypocrites known to man. Science has provided us with proof of its natural occurrence.

The Vatican forbids the use of condoms yet catholics and christians use them to prevent unwanted childbirth and disease, while maintaining an ability to enjoy sex freely. Explain that as natural!

Anal sex can be performed safely, including maintaining "anal sphincter" elasticity. Don't bother referring to your christian diatribe on the matter, urologists can confirm this. All that need be done is take precaution from over-stretching to quickly.

Mediadar.
HoboPelican
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Biologically, it is NOT natural to take it anally. Your body was NOT made for that. Ask your doctor.

As for culturally, that's changing. It used to be a resounding NO.

Religiously, it's not natural. Still a resounding NO.

Civilly, that has yet to be determined.


Mediadar made the great counter-points, but I have to add my own Wink
First point - Not logical. Your nose was not designed to take your finger. Is picking your nose unnatural?

Second Point - Irrelevant. We are talking natural and culture is not at issue.

Third point - Irrelevant. We are talking natural and religion is not at issue.

Fourth point - Irrelevant. We are talking natural and civil standing is not at issue.

Besides all that, how do you equate marriage with propagation?

It occurs in nature, thus it is natural.

Post edit by WuMingsDen
The Conspirator
Enough with this "unnatural" argument!
A computer is not a natural thing, a car is not a natural thing, and using them is not natural cause we did not evolve (and for theists, god did not make us to) drive a car, the same thing with a computer.
You won;t natural? Go into the middle of the woods, get necked, make a speer from a rock and a stick, hunt and gather. Thats what we evolved to do.
mediadar
The Conspirator wrote:
Enough with this "unnatural" argument!
A computer is not a natural thing, a car is not a natural thing, and using them is not natural cause we did not evolve (and for theists, god did not make us to) drive a car, the same thing with a computer.
You won;t natural? Go into the middle of the woods, get necked, make a spear from a rock and a stick, hunt and gather. Thats what we evolved to do.


Actually, Conspirator, the creation of tools to simplify work has been part of man's evolution from the beginning, this can include automobiles, computers, aeroplanes, telephones, etc...

Making a spear from a rock and stick is basically the same as purchasing a bow and arrow or a rifle, it's part of our evolution, tools to simplify. As for naked, man made clothes from skins to protect him from the elements, this too, is natural. (part of man's nature or evolution). Man had to rely on his cunning to capture his prey, you see, one is racing to catch dinner, the other for his life! Who do you thinker wins that race?

Where natural and unnatural cross realms is what concerns this topic, the Roman and Greek societies accepted both heterosexual and homosexual behaviour up until Catholicism which only became endemic centuries after Christ's death.

In my late teens I was quite the flaming homophobic, it wasn't until I met a young man who worked with me, that my views began to evolve. I asked him if he had any attraction to women, he responded with a yes, but, nothing that he would want to act on, nothing more than the oh! she's very pretty. You see, he was gayer than times square on New Year's Eve. He had been so since puberty, and always found men to be more attractive than women. (in the physical sense). We became friends, not best friends, but friends. Since then I have been searching for an answer as to what makes a person gay. Nature seems to always trump nurture as the cause, coupled with the fact that ancient schools of thought that have sculpted many of our philosophies also accepted 'gay' as natural, well, I believe that modern morality, Christianity/Catholicism are wrong, and a moral evolution needs to occur, recognising man's nature, and not what several men may have deemed necessary. (Several of whom kept company with prostitutes and thieves).

Mediadar.
simp
Of course homosexuality is normal in all of nature, including but certainly not limited to humans. You might instead just as easily ask if heterosexuality is natural.
QrafTee
I think if it happens in human biology is must be rooted out and stopped as it is self-destructive, then again homosexuality itself has a built-in self-destructive mechanism as they cannot reproduce... so it's balanced out... sort of. But in the possibilty that it gets out of control, we might end up like those lizards which is only one race, females.
mediadar wrote:
The question is not meant to demean or opine on whether homosexuality is morally wrong or right. The question targets a search for scientific proof of it's occurrence in nature.

Please keep in mind the nature of the question and it's sensitivity, this could be an excellent topic as long as emotion and personal moral beliefs are brushed aside.


Just the facts,
Dar.
The Philosopher Princess
This is somewhat off-main-topic, though related, but I hope you’ll indulge me since it is a sincere (partial) response to lib’s super long cool post over here. The last part below might be on-topic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you for the very thoughtful question.

lib wrote:
@The Philosopher Princess, regarding this post, just wanted to ask... do you consider inequality or entertaining thoughts of superiority based on natural characteristics to be immoral. Ignorance is one thing, but knowingly thinking of other as being inferior to your because of things such as race, sex, sexuality, etc... wouldn't that be immoral?

In my political philosophy, no, that is not immoral. It is not thoughts, themselves, that are moral or immoral, but actions. My philosophy has one standard on which everything else rests: initiation of force against another human being is immoral. Everything else can be derived from that principle.

This is not to say that everything that is not immoral is thus good. Smoking cigarettes is bad, but is not immoral per se. Getting oneself educated is good, but is neither moral nor immoral to my philosophy.

In this philosophy, thoughts about doing something immoral are not immoral. Actually doing them is. I do have another standard against which we can judge people’s thoughts, but that is not only another whole subject, but getting into an area I’m not ready to make public.

So, lib, a person who is actively “entertaining thoughts of superiority based on natural characteristics” is not being immoral. People can have all kinds of horrible wishes against other people, but nothing immoral is yet happening. If and when they act on those wishes by using force against another human, then it becomes immoral. So, in my philosophy of Anti-Aggression, a person who murders a homosexual not even knowing they were homosexual, and a person who murders a homosexual because they are homosexual, are equally immoral. (You can tell that I don’t “buy into” the current lawful fad of distinguishing “hate crimes”. Either something is a crime or it is not. The hate is a personal problem.)

However, having said all this, my philosophy and I recognize that there are plenty of things that are not immoral, but are nevertheless Discourteous, Dumb, and self-Destructive. I have plenty of advice for helping people who want to stay away from those D’s, but that advice is outside of my political philosophy -- and my political philosophy “has no opinion” on such advice.

A business that refuses to hire homosexuals might be acting self-Destructively, but it should not be against the law for them to be Discriminatory on that basis. My philosophy is consistently Anti-Aggression: you cannot force homosexuals to do or not do something and you cannot force homophobes to do or not do something. They are all free to do as they like, as long as they are not using force against other people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib wrote:
BruceTheDauber wrote:
Oh, right. So, if I disapprove of something that's not currently illegal, and I seek to use the democratic process to make it illegal, I'm doing something morally wrong, am I? Aren't you just saying it's immoral to make laws?
No, it's not immoral to make laws. It's immoral to make laws that make no sense or are discriminatory.

I am even stricter than that. First, the so-called democratic process is irrelevant to being moral or immoral. Stealing is immoral, period. When a “democratic process” votes to steal from a group of people, and the stealing takes place, it’s still stealing and is immoral, even though the democracy voted for it to be okay.

Whether acts of stealing come from some individuals getting together and performing it, or whether it comes from some Government giving its permission to steal, is irrelevant. Stealing is immoral. (The way people irrationally worship the “democratic process” gets people really messed up in the head. They lose the ability to think through for themselves what is “right” and “wrong” and instead allow a huge Mob to make their decisions of what is moral for them. They think that just because they get to Vote on what is moral, it means they no longer need to figure it out for themselves, thereby passing off their responsibility.)

No, it’s not immoral to make laws per se -- only laws that are aggressive against human beings.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lib wrote:
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
BruceTheDauber wrote:
We should stop calling people homophobes

Why? We need some term to identify the people who are scared of homosexuals just for being what they naturally are.

Regarding homophobia, I'd be surprised if I ever came across someone who was born with a natural fear of homosexuality. I'm not denying it's possibility, but I think that it's highly unlikely.

First, let me state that I agree with your main point, given that the world of today includes homosexuality as being a public issue (rather than the non-issue it should be). (Example: Some people prefer green over blue, while some like blue over green. But as of today, this is a non-issue. If and when the greeniphobes start forcibly preventing greens, it will become an issue. I expect this homosexual issue to eventually go away. People’s preferences will still exist but few will care to force their preferences onto others in this area.)

I agree that my use of “naturally” in the above quote can be confusing, and that I probably should have refrained from using it that way. I commend lib for catching this. But what I said and implied is still correct, so, though it’s going to be tricky for me to explain, I will try.

The problem, I believe, stems from using the same definition in 2 places but from 2 different perspectives, and thus 2 different sub-contexts. You’ll recall I’d set forth the following:

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
{Definition}

The term natural, as I use it, means occurs in nature without human intervention.

I categorize human intervention into different kinds (2 of which I discuss here). There is human intervention that includes anything even slightly “touched” by a human. And there is human intervention that only comes about with some kind of force due to a group collectively using some kind of power, i.e., real intervention.

So let’s mentally separate all human intervention, i.e., human-related influences, into these 2 groups:
(1) human-related influences that happen as a “regular” part of human life without any particular large-group-purposeful influence, and
(2) human-related influences that are a result of large-group-purposeful intervention (in some way forced on people).

Let’s switch gears for a moment, then I will tie us back into the topic. Take an example of a person working at the entry level at a fast food restaurant, and what determines their salary amount.

If #1 is the case, then that whopper flopper’s salary amount is determined by free-market influences. When there are lots of whopper flopper wannabees, the salary tends to be lower; when there are only a few seeking those same jobs, the salary tends to be higher.

If #2 is the case, then we might have minimum-wage laws in place that literally force the salaries to be a certain amount (or higher), irrespective of what the market “says” is appropriate.

In both #1 & #2 cases, there is human influence. But there’s a big distinction between so-called “natural” human influences of the free market and the “unnatural”, arbitrary human influences of a monopoly system that forces things down people’s throats by law and backed up by police and the “justice” system.
~~~~~~~~~~
Okay, back to the homophobes. From the perspective of #1, meaning any and all human-related influences, most homophobes are probably not homophobes naturally. So, lib, you were very astute to raise this issue with me.

However, from the perspective of #2, which was the use I’d intended, meaning if we disregard the so-called natural human influences that “just” happen, and are instead looking only at human influences that come “unnaturally”, i.e., by monopoly intrusions via law and force, then any homophobes that exist are that way naturally. People are not forced to be homophobic, so if they are, it’s a “natural” phenomenon.
~~~~~~~~~~
And then, going back to homosexuals, I would say that homosexuals are that way naturally as fitting both the #1 & #2. In other words, homosexuality is neither caused by large-group-purposeful human intervention nor by free-market so-called natural human-related influence.
lib
@The Philosopher Princess, you're right about thoughts not being immoral, but actions being so. However, the reason I asked was because thoughts generally lead to action.
If I am personally discriminating against someone in my head or thinking of myself as superior to them, my attitude changes towards that person, which may be expressed in the way I talk or behave with that person.
But
Quote:
my philosophy and I recognize that there are plenty of things that are not immoral, but are nevertheless Discourteous, Dumb, and self-Destructive.
I guess that's fair.

Quote:
A business that refuses to hire homosexuals might be acting self-Destructively, but it should not be against the law for them to be Discriminatory on that basis. My philosophy is consistently Anti-Aggression: you cannot force homosexuals to do or not do something and you cannot force homophobes to do or not do something. They are all free to do as they like, as long as they are not using force against other people.

Well, refusing to hire homosexuals for the sole reason that they're homosexual, to me, seems against homosexuals' freedom of right of sexuality. If we were to give a free hand to every company to not hire coloured people or homosexuals or any other racially victimized groups, we could potentially be taking away a means of financial income of those people. Also, it's a sort of punishment for being coloured/homosexua/etc, if you're being separated from the rest not because of your inability to do a job, but just because you're coloured/homosexual/etc.

Regarding the second part of your post, I'll have to confess I didn't really completely understand it. But it's rather late right now, so I'll have to read it again later, and hopefully, will be able to understand it better.
horseatingweeds
Hey everyone!

Stop clogging this thread! With the exception of PhP, Lib and a chunk of S3 it has all been run over at least three or for times. Just READ please. Then if you have anything valuable add it.

I think this whole argument is hindered by ‘natural’. Natural means not messed with by man so nothing he does is natural. Maybe conducive is a better term.

Regardless, if you would READ you would see there are several discussions here using several different assumptions for ‘natural’.
The Philosopher Princess
Well, hew, I didn’t expect a complaint in my favor Surprised, but I guess since I haven’t heard a complaint in the other direction, I’ll respond once more.
~~~~~~~~~~
lib wrote:
However, the reason I asked was because thoughts generally lead to action.

I don’t think that’s true. It seems to me that we all have orders of magnitude more thoughts along the way of our life than we actually act on. And, we very often have conflicting and ambivalent thoughts, e.g., reasons to do something and reasons not to do that same something.

You could try to test this yourself by picking a day and trying to pay attention to all your thoughts along the way of the day. Mentally note, or even write down, how many you act on.

As a different but related subject, consider how difficult it already is for human collectives to fairly judge (and punish when appropriate) the actions of humans accused of physical crimes. If the human collective is to additionally judge the thoughts of people, just for being potentially “bad” thoughts, then you are turning a can of worms into a barrel of poisonous snakes. Wink

I do not mean to dismiss out of hand your notion that thoughts can lead to actions, because certainly there’s truth in that. But having that knowledge and choosing what to do about it, from unlimited possible paths, is another thing.
~~~~~~~~~~
lib wrote:
Well, refusing to hire homosexuals for the sole reason that they're homosexual, to me, seems against homosexuals' freedom of right of sexuality.

I see those two as being totally different. A so-called right to have others not interfere in your life is very different from a so-called right to others having to provide products, services, and employment to you against their will.

The original meaning of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was not that others had to provide those things for you, but that others should not interfere with your pursuit of those things yourself. Of course, the concept of rights has been warped big time since the wiser-but-not-perfect founding fathers declared such things.

If you force companies by the power of law to hire people they don’t want to hire, you have opened the door to your being forced to accept a job you don’t want. Going down the slippery slope of supporting arbitrary laws, and throwing principles out the door, leads to Animal Farm.
~~~~~~~~~~
lib wrote:
Regarding the second part of your post, I'll have to confess I didn't really completely understand it.

I didn’t explain it well I’m sure. My subtle but important distinction of natural, the concept is mostly on-topic so if anyone else understands and can explain better, have a try. Smile
corey
mediadar wrote:
My take is that, homosexuality, can be either a learnt behaviour or natural/genetic. The question I am asking would necessitate the removal of man in a 'state of grace' and returning him to his natural self.

Biology defines natural as: not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned. So if indeed it does occur in nature, ie: animals choosing to mate with the same sex without interference, it is biologically natural.

What I am looking for is objective observation as opposed to a subjective one predicated on morality.

Dar.


This whole subject reminds me of a film I watched many years ago in high school biology class. This film was about lab rats in a glassed-in box. It was quite a large environment for 8 or 10 rats, but when they scientists crowded in many more, the dynamics of the "society" changed. It was supposed to be a study on how crowding causes behaviors that would not normally be as apparent. Some of the rats did exhibit homosexual behavior after they were crowded together. This could be considered a normal occurrence in this crowded condition. I don't think that morality came into play with the rats.
HoboPelican
corey wrote:
.... I don't think that morality came into play with the rats.


LOL, I doubt it. But then again, the morality for humans isn't the issue here either, right?
felisleo
my question is "are there gay animals?" mamels?

if there is it might be natural Cool
HoboPelican
felisleo wrote:
my question is "are there gay animals?" mamels?

if there is it might be natural Cool



A number of examples of homosexual behavior are mentioned in the previous posts. It is pretty well documented that it happens in nature.
The Philosopher Princess
While a princess shouldn’t have to learn of such things, I have known dogs who were attracted to lawn chairs Anxious.

I think it’s safe to say that in the Animal King & Queendom, you will find a wide array of sexual orientations being natural. From monogamy to polygamy to what-was-your-name-again? to I-remember-that-animal-smell! From homosexuality to heterosexuality to bisexuality to autosexuality to asexuality! It’s all au natural!

And, if any of us thinks Humandom is any different, we can wake up and smell the pheromones Razz! Seriously, while humans are different from animals in noticeable ways, the areas where we are still the same can be confounding.
mediadar
Are we wrong?

Having determined that kinky freakish alternative sex occurs widespread in nature, could our current moral systems be wrong? I. for one, believe that homosexuality is more common than we would like to admit and occurs naturally ergo we are wrong? Homosexuality does not interfere nor hinder man's advancement. The argument most frequently used against homosexuality not being natural is, the lack of producing offspring, as we embrace impotence with open arms. A fear of the unknown I suppose.

Just imagine this, the world is currently well overpopulated, and if all the gay men and women decided that they would produce offspring and all the impotent people suddenly acquired the ability to produce(and did), I don't need to paint a picture. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I do believe that we'd be living much like Corey's rats.

Mediadar
Roberts'Classes
Sexuality, like many other human traits, encompasses such a wide spectrum that it is hard for me to believe that it isn't influenced by the genes you inherit.
syzygygoth
I have no idea whether homosexuality is genuinely biologically stimulated rather than encouragedby enivironment- I've never read up on it or studied it in any way. However, I can say that I keep and breed Chinchillas and if there are two males in a cage together, when they reach sexual maturity one of them will inevitably try to 'hump' the other. So maybe it is biological- I doubt Chinchillas have 'learned' this behaviour from anywhere!!
rick2000sept
I think it is natural, since homosexuality is a chemical reaction that occurs in the brain. Just like a syndrome it could be classified as a disorder, although, there is nothing wrong with it. I have no problems with associating with homosexuals or meeting them. Many people hate them, I can't understand why. I am hetero but I sympathize for homosexuals because they get harrassed so much.

And something to add, animals don't have morality, humans are the only animal that have the ability to think rationally. That means that we are the only species that is able to know we are thinking and analyze a situation from another POV.
watersoul
Natural or unnatural, what does it matter?
There are enough un-natural things going on in our society that nobody complains about such as GM foods, and keeping us alive for longer than we would normally last - consider organ transplants and people in coma's for example.
Feelings between 2 people (male or female) are the most natural thing in the world, they're just emotions born in the mind/heart/soul of the people concerned. There's no black or white in this one, it's all one big grey (gray) area with governments/media/religions all giving their own view on what is expected to be the behaviour society should follow.
People have had gay/bi relationships since we first existed on this planet, and sexuality is a minor issue compared to an individuals conduct toward their fellow man and environment.
...and I'm surprised when straight people are offended/upset when someone gay hits on them - I occasionally go to a few local gay nightclubs because the atmosphere is great and you can dance without some roughneck wanting a fight over nothing - if someone try's chatting me up i take it as a compliment, they're attracted to me (sadly for them with no result) but it's better than no one being interested!
Lennon
Can someone please stop this

STOP THIS

STOP THIS NOW

There is no way you can define nature philosophically. Do that and then you can define homosexuality in regard to nature.
Soulfire
I think it's a combination of many things, perhaps the chemical reactions in your brains, the environment you are raised in, etc.

I don't think it's as simple as many people make it out to be.
Lennon
Most of the psychologists explain it as hormones / neurotransmitters that are either genetically or environmentally induced.

Most of the religions describe it as lust.

Where's Utopia when you can't take it anymore and wanna get away?
HellsCowbells
Ok the title was only to make you look at what i write (well i could have some signification if you read me well). If you look in animal societies that work within a pack (such as wolfes for exemple) only the alpha wolf will reproduce with females. But what will happen with the other "inferior" beings of this society? They will live together they help themself survive.

As humans we need emotional relationship, maybe homosexuality will reflect such lack and is it a way to "help themself to survive".
busman
odinstag wrote:
With all the problems homosexuality causes, does it really matter if it is biological or enviromental?

I really don't think it matters why someone is messed up. We must still aknowledge they are messed up and do something to correct the damage it causes.

Look with open eyes and you will see that being gay is no good.


Neither is being an intolerant bigot.
JoryRFerrell
risuarez wrote:
guys be careful about this thread. We were having a discussion as such in the spanish forum and an administrator went on to close it.


File an appeal...that's bullshit as there is no legitimate reason to shut such a topic down specifically for
that type of content alone.
Bikerman
LOL File an appeal? Don't forget to include an afafavit and a

Seriously dude....just ask a moderator. And this talk of 'nobody has the right' is just so much bullshit. WE have the right to do what we want when we want to whoever we want. The fact that we generally DON'T just means the selection system us working OK. As a user you have NO rights. You do not pay for this service, the TOS are clear and give unrestricted freedoms to staff and no legal duty or servuce expectation for users - which is what you would want and expect for volunteers and a free system.

So please, dtop the legal bullshit and don't start quoting your rights and our duties because we might get pissed-off Smile

We are, pf couse, kind curteous and highly efficient and it is easy to see why people might think we sre prrobifing a professional service with the legal implications that invokves, but we is strictly volunteer and unpaid....
Ankhanu
I'm also going to just point out the fact that you people are responding to posts made over seven years ago... I'm going to lock this.
Related topics
Gay Marriage
Abortion rights in the US
I want to get married to my 8 yr old daughter....
Gays - Do You Accept Them?
What is MORALITY, the concept? Let’s be philosophers.
I Am Gay ...
What are your thoughts on gay marriage?
Distinguishing between sex and love for gay men difficult?!?
Conflicting Values
"Its not natural." And that makes it bad?
Do You Think Gay And Lesbian Happy?
The Church and Homosexuality
...all religion aside - is it wrong to be gay?
Homosexuality & Adoption
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.