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.
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...
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.
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 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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 .
| 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 
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?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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 )
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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{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).
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!
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?
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."
| 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). | 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.. | 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 ?Who says animals cannot act unnatural?
| 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. | 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.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... =/ 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...
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".
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.
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...
| 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.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 . | 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... | 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 ?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.
| 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. | 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. | 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?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{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 (), 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. I believe that homosexuality is mostly psycological or cultural. (There are, of course, exeptions, with disorders, etc.)
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 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
| 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.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.
| 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?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.
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
| 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 
)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) 
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. 
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.
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 | 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)
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. |
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.”.........
|
| 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:
Homosexuality causes damage.
Such damage should be corrected.
Therefore, the cause of the damage -- namely, homosexuality -- should be corrected.
On the other hand, you claim:
The cause of homosexuality (biological or environmental) does not matter.
You are asking us to believe that:
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:
You do have A GRASP on homosexuality causing “damage”.
and
It does matter to you to know what those causes are.
but, that
You do not have A GRASP on the causes of homosexuality, itself.
and
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:
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:
When will you quit posting garbage and give us the truth of what you believe? | 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.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.
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.
{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
| 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.Thank you, mediadar, for your comments on my contributions, here.
| 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.) 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.
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!
Some say that homosexuality is a matter of character, but it is not, it is a mental illness. No offece, but it is! 
This is all I can say!
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is an abomination!
| 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!
Some say that homosexuality is a matter of character, but it is not, it is a mental illness. No offece, but it is!
This is all I can say!
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is an abomination!
|
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.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.
Last edited by altec on Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
| 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.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! | 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! |
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 ? | 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. | 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. | 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.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...
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...
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?
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! 
| 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! |