NationStates Jolt Archive

I think most people look at this topic in the wrong way.
Sex is meant for procreation and nothing else. Certain species have evolved or learned to take pleasure out of the act but the reason for the ability is too pass on your genes. So in this sense you could say homosexuality is un-natural.
But talking about what is natural has little relevance when talking about humans. Compared to other species we are extremely different. Unprotected we would not be able to survive on most on this planet, we have no great physical ability that gives us an edge...
What we have is the aposable (not sure on spelling) thumb and our brain.
We should not have survived so long, no other intelligent creature is very successful in nature.
But with our brain we have learned to control our environment and do as we please and how could you define a term like "love".
So if joe found john cuter than joanna who cares? If joe was with joanna and they had anal sex, would joe be gay or straight? or neither.
What if joe wanted joanna to stick her finger up joe's ass?

i guess it must be natural since they dont choose to be homosexual and i bet many gays/lesbiens would much prefer is they were straight.
Un-natural would be for a gay person to pretend to be straight, or vice versa.
Apparently it is decided at puberty because of hormones. But i think its only around that age you realise what these terms mean.
Edit: also, to age homosexuality. Hadrian(the roman who built the big wall in UK) was bisexual. Hitler may have been gay.

there is no gay gene, even if there is one it doesnt matter, it is still deviant behavior. Pedofiles can make a case for being born that way and that lifestyle is not accepted YET.

Just to clear up a very troubling statement.

Homosexuality is generally between two CONSENTING people (or more). Pedophilia is centered around an adult who interferes with a child that DOES NOT HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING of consent and/or has not given consent. To put pedophilia and homosexuality in the same category is rather troubling as you have obviously no idea what you are talking about. I am worried that people might actually LISTEN to your spurious statement. I suppose that is why there is no prison sentence for homosexuality, when there IS DEFINATELY a sentence for pedophiles.

I would also like to point out that the majority of people that are convicted of pedophilia are STRAIGHT. (straight means heterosexual, for those people having trouble keeping up)

Lastly, many gay or lesbian people do not mind discussing this subject. However, I notice that it is the anti-gays that are attempting to 'flame' this thread. As my mum used to say... If you don't have anything constructive to say, then don't say anything at all.

I'm tired of gay peopl threads. They get old!

I am a little tired of them too, but i must admit i am curious as to why straight people and anti-gays keep starting these threads.

Let me pose you a question though.

If homosexuality is a concious choice, do you honestly think that there would be so many people in this world who would choose the option that will put them up for ridicule, hatred and possibly loss of respect from their friends and families?

Homosexuality is Natural. If god exists, then he must love his gay children, because he gave us superior communication skills, colour sense, fashion sense and has arranged things so that we don't have to go to war. Just face it. You heteros are jealous. hehe. (an attempt to bring a little humour into the thread)

I'm tired of gay peopl threads. They get old!

Oh bugger, and here I was thinking homosexuality would grant me immortality.

;)

Just on a note, i feel like the arguments are getting stale. Anyone heard of the anti-gay law in Virginia??? This state sucks! Any thoughts... please

I think most people look at this topic in the wrong way.
Sex is meant for procreation and nothing else. Certain species have evolved or learned to take pleasure out of the act but the reason for the ability is too pass on your genes. So in this sense you could say homosexuality is un-natural.
But talking about what is natural has little relevance when talking about humans. Compared to other species we are extremely different. Unprotected we would not be able to survive on most on this planet, we have no great physical ability that gives us an edge...
What we have is the aposable (not sure on spelling) thumb and our brain.
We should not have survived so long, no other intelligent creature is very successful in nature.
But with our brain we have learned to control our environment and do as we please and how could you define a term like "love".
So if joe found john cuter than joanna who cares? If joe was with joanna and they had anal sex, would joe be gay or straight? or neither.
What if joe wanted joanna to stick her finger up joe's ass?

If sex is meant for procreation, and nothing else, why would 'god' have created animals that try to have sex with incompatible species?

Why do bonobos monkeys greet each other with sexual intimacy, regardless of age, gender or familial affiliation?

Why can a girl orgasm from breast stimulation?

There are many other logical reasons for sex. Intimacy ensures a protective nature, for example. Animals (or people) that bond closely, will tend to associate with each other more (which may lead to procreation, or may just make the 'herd' safer. Procreation is just one option.

How can you say no other intelligent creature is very sucessful in nature? If they were not successful, they'd be extinct, and you wouldn't know whether or not they were intelligent, because they'd be gone. Humans seem to have survived mainly due to an affinity for groups, rather than their opposable brains.

You can define a term like "love" as a feeling that makes an individual care a lot about another. Sometimes more than their own survivability. This would be a good mechanism to ensure creatures stay together long enough to breed, or long enough to protect each other.

If Joe has anal sex with Joanna, that doesn't make him straight or gay. It just means he felt the urge to penetrate her somewhere different for a change. He may be straight, and likes anal sex. He may be gay, and doesn't like anal sex, or girls, but he's really.... realllyy.... drunk.

And if Joe wanted Joanna's finger in his ass, it would probably mean he wanted her to massage his prostate - which also has nothing to do with gender orientation.

But - one last thought... the procreative urge is natural - you said it yourself "sex is for procreation".... what about if you feel that urge, but desire a different expression of that urge. Still natural... just "unconventional".

To be honest, whatever people might think its none of their busniess anyway, being gay does not affect anyone else so what is the point in being against it. Im Heterosexual but i have absolutely no problem with gay people because they are freindly normal people (which most straight people dont seem to be)

Why can a girl orgasm from breast stimulation?

REALLY?!?!

REALLY?!?!

You never encountered this???

You never encountered this???

no... interesting.

I believe that it's natural - though it's not normal. The norm is made up of the majority (51% or more) and the majority are heterosexual. Get my meaning?

I believe that it's natural - though it's not normal. The norm is made up of the majority (51% or more) and the majority are heterosexual. Get my meaning?

i dont think that it's not normal, biology defines normal as functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies. At one point the majority thought that the world was flat, but that belief doesnt reflect reality. What the majority may think can be a misconception. The majority is generally misinformed and/or ignorant.

no... interesting.

It's one of the things that makes the whole "sex is for reproduction" argument so futile.

Members of either gender can reach orgasm through a variety of different forms of stimulation - not all of them immediately considered sexual, and can acheive orgasm through that stimulation of almost any part of the body - not all of which are considered sexual.

The orgasms themselves still (seem) to occur in the same basic places, although (especially with some female orgasms) it can be hard to tell where the orgasm actually 'happens'

The second big argument against "sex is for reproduction" is the female capacity for orgasm. Females of the human species can actually want sex more after they orgasm, and in increasing intensity with each orgasm they have. Since the male part of the equation (by which I mean the ejaculation itself) lasts for a handful (no pun intended) of seconds... why does the female 'need' to continue to orgasm? And what about the breathing and stimulation techniques that make a female capable of sustaining an orgasm for extended periods of time (I have read of durations as long as an hour).

The third big argument against "sex for reproduction", is that males do not have to ejaculate to orgasm. Mastering the correct Tantric techniques allows a male to orgasm without ever 'spilling his seed".

To be honest, whatever people might think its none of their busniess anyway, being gay does not affect anyone else so what is the point in being against it. Im Heterosexual but i have absolutely no problem with gay people because they are freindly normal people (which most straight people dont seem to be)

I just wanted to highlight this post, as it is a very sensible comment. I wish more people thought like this, because toleration is better than hatred.

I believe that it's natural - though it's not normal. The norm is made up of the majority (51% or more) and the majority are heterosexual. Get my meaning?

All statistical, though. I personally am not convinced that there is quite the clear-cut divide most people perceive. I do think some people will only ever be aroused by the opposite gender, and some will only ever be aroused by their own gender, but I suspect the vast majority have the CAPACITY to be aroused by either gender.

Unfortunately, our modern societies have crucified homosexuality, and it is not 'acceptable' - so I suspect, a large number of otherwise 'ambi-sexual' people closet themselves away with the narrow-minded religious zealots.

Studies of identical twins who were seperated at birth and than given up for adoption show that such traits and diseases such as diabetes and homosexuality are linked to genetics. There are kids who show homosexual behavior as young as 4 or 5. Obviously, they have no control and little comprehensive perception of their environment at that age, so it's not like these young kids are buying into a culture, they are doing what's natural to them.

Studies of identical twins who were seperated at birth and than given up for adoption show that such traits and diseases such as diabetes and homosexuality are linked to genetics. There are kids who show homosexual behavior as young as 4 or 5. Obviously, they have no control and little comprehensive perception of their environment at that age, so it's not like these young kids are buying into a culture, they are doing what's natural to them.

i see your point. But such studies have been largely inconclusive, and although correlations have been found, they have not represented CAUSES.

Just on a note, i feel like the arguments are getting stale. Anyone heard of the anti-gay law in Virginia??? This state sucks! Any thoughts... please

No it does not suck, not any-more, ;)

* RIM - SHOT *

No it does not suck, not any-more, ;)

* RIM - SHOT *

i guess empathy is not in your vocabulary

No it does not suck, not any-more, ;)

* RIM - SHOT *

As Anya pointed out, you may lack empathy...

or there is another alternative... since you implied that there would be NO fellatio with a law that ostracises homosexuals....

There is actually a danger in trying to prove Homosexuality is genetic. Religeous types and arseholes in general will not suddenly chnge their minds and accept gays. They will most likely start looking for a 'cure' and and demanding the right to screen their babys for 'gay genes'.

As has been said before in this discussion whether it is natural or not is irrelevant, who cares?

There is actually a danger in trying to prove Homosexuality is genetic. Religeous types and arseholes in general will not suddenly chnge their minds and accept gays. They will most likely start looking for a 'cure' and and demanding the right to screen their babys for 'gay genes'.

As has been said before in this discussion whether it is natural or not is irrelevant, who cares?

There are two groups that have very strongly vested interests here:

1) Those who are reduced in their rights, or treatment - because of the sexuality they have 'chosen' and that is 'unnatural'. These people stand to gain much if they can prove it is natural, and not a choice but a fact of life.

2) Those extreme right-wingers who want to be able to prove that they are 'definitely not gay'... to back up the appearance they have been faking since their teen years, just to gain acceptance. If they can get enough people to believe their arguments, it will divert attention away from themselves.

And then, there are those of us who would just like to see bigots abusing their chosen victim minorities, and people treated as people.

I think the medical community should spend its time trying to cure actual diseases. You know, the things that hurt people? There's no point spening research time and money trying to "cure" something that is perfectly natural and hurts no one.

It hurts of course. It is hurting the people who are doing since they chose to be outcast of societies. It is hurting their families who some may never have grand children.
It is hurting many people.
So it is perfectly justified to research the causes of homosexuality and the factors which may cause it.
Whether it can be avoided then is another question. But in other to answer that more research is required.

It hurts of course. It is hurting the people who are doing since they chose to be outcast of societies. It is hurting their families who some may never have grand children.
It is hurting many people.
So it is perfectly justified to research the causes of homosexuality and the factors which may cause it.
Whether it can be avoided then is another question. But in other to answer that more research is required.It hurts the people involved because they DIDN'T choose to be what they are. Why should we allow everyone to actively hate on them and ask them to change from something that they never really wanted to be, when instead we could ask others to be more tolerant. Cancer is killing. Two guys together isn't killing people.

And you know what, screw the grandparents. It's not their choice about whether or not their children get to reproduce. Their children could easily choose to be heterosexual and to not reproduce. Where would they be then? Is there something still wrong with their children?

There's other things that are much worse and require much more attention than this issue.

Also, " @ " Kyber,
Well, I do - partially - apologise, I was un-aware that english was not your primary language. Its just that " @ " makes many people think your talking " @ = at " them, rather than " with " them.
As in, it seems to place you in a self assumed position of natural superiority, and can be seen by some as really rude in conversation. I hope that helps you in future communication with others in english.

Well, I didn´t know that. Thus far nobody had complained to me about that.
I just took it over from my language where it is common to use that in the internet (instead of: Hello, Dear, to..., e.g. to adress the other person - taken from the e-mail addresses @).
It didn´t want to go on your throat, though. Sorry about that.

There's other things that are much worse and require much more attention than this issue.

I agree to this last statement. However I respectfully disagree with the rest of your statement.

There is actually a danger in trying to prove Homosexuality is genetic. Religeous types and arseholes in general will not suddenly chnge their minds and accept gays. They will most likely start looking for a 'cure' and and demanding the right to screen their babys for 'gay genes'.People have already mentioned that in this same thread. People were saying that if they could find gay genes in their kids, they'd just abort them. Ridiculous.. :P

perhaps yes, you know. humans were born with the inclination to sin. we lie, steal, threaten, hate by nature, why not homosexuality?

BUT, that doesn't mean that homosexuality is not wrong. it IS wrong. just like lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, hating is wrong. they are all by nature, but they are all wrong.

Whether it can be avoided then is another question. But in other to answer that more research is required.
Now do you see my point? This simpleton would be more than happy to 'avoid' the existance of gay people altogether. the answer is not somedodgy 'gay gene' arguement, it is accepting who people are, however they got that way.

I agree to this last statement. However I respectfully disagree with the rest of your statement.Meaning you believe that the grandparents should have a larger say over whether or not their children reproduce than the actual two people involved?

perhaps yes, you know. humans were born with the inclination to sin. we lie, steal, threaten, hate by nature, why not homosexuality?

BUT, that doesn't mean that homosexuality is not wrong. it IS wrong. just like lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, hating is wrong. they are all by nature, but they are all wrong.That would be true, of course, if you were stating from a naturally Christian religious base. Assuming you believe in the Christian idea of sin. And assuming that the Christian system is the correct one.

I don't agree that homosexuality can even be likened to stealing, lieing, and hating. By what you're saying, it's just as wrong to hate homosexuals as it IS to be homosexual, so NO-ONE's winning. Which is what I think you're trying to get at, but by claiming that everyone is wrong, you're not making any progress on the issue. We can't just say both sides are wrong and move on. And we have to look at things outside the Christian bubble as well.

That would be true, of course, if you were stating from a naturally Christian religious base. Assuming you believe in the Christian idea of sin. And assuming that the Christian system is the correct one.

I don't agree that homosexuality can even be likened to stealing, lieing, and hating. By what you're saying, it's just as wrong to hate homosexuals as it IS to be homosexual, so NO-ONE's winning. Which is what I think you're trying to get at, but by claiming that everyone is wrong, you're not making any progress on the issue. We can't just say both sides are wrong and move on. And we have to look at things outside the Christian bubble as well.

yes, yes, all the assumptions. i'm not paid to think outside the bubble. if i was you'd all be redundant cuz i hold all your viewpoints, see? of course it's wrong to hate the homosexual, but it's certainly justified to hate homosexuality.

from the Christian point of view, yes, true, everybody IS wrong - only way to redeem yourself is through Jesus.

i dunno, really, cuz it's 00:49 and i'm not in bed.

perhaps yes, you know. humans were born with the inclination to sin. we lie, steal, threaten, hate by nature, why not homosexuality?

BUT, that doesn't mean that homosexuality is not wrong. it IS wrong. just like lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, hating is wrong. they are all by nature, but they are all wrong.

Lying is not wrong. Lying can be very noble. Watch Casablanca.
Stealing is not wrong any more than ownership is wrong. If food was available to all, noone would have to steal it, right?
Hating is not wrong. Hate is a strong emotion, like love, that serves a valid purpose.

Hummm, wrong for three for three so far...

And Homosexuality is wrong because... why?

You don't like it?

You read that in a book once?

I don't think so. for a species to survive it must mate. Homosexuals would have died out if it were natural. There is nothing different in the chemical or physical homosexual or straight person, there is nothing different in the brain waves. I think it is just a state of mind that people choose.

The question of mating is simplistic at best.

People are born without the ability. Are they unnatural? Obviosuly not.

Homosexuality is just something that happens.

A species is hardly threatened if a few are born without the ability to breed. A species is hardly threatened if a few are born homosexual.

The question homosexual acts in nature is nothing more so show a few chowder head religious people that it is not something somebody simply chooses to do.

It hurts of course. It is hurting the people who are doing since they chose to be outcast of societies. It is hurting their families who some may never have grand children.
It is hurting many people.
So it is perfectly justified to research the causes of homosexuality and the factors which may cause it.
Whether it can be avoided then is another question. But in other to answer that more research is required.

Yet another simplistic justification.

Since when are people guaranteed the right to grandchildren?

Children die before reproducing, children are born without the ability, children get into accidents that destorys the ability.....

perhaps yes, you know. humans were born with the inclination to sin. we lie, steal, threaten, hate by nature, why not homosexuality?

BUT, that doesn't mean that homosexuality is not wrong. it IS wrong. just like lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, hating is wrong. they are all by nature, but they are all wrong.

Maybe there was a commandment against homosexuality on the tablet that mosses dropped!

"I give you fifteen! *chrash* Ten! Ten commandments!" ;)

just a little thought to all your ignorant people, not every gay/lesbian person chooses to be the way they are, and id like all of you to think on this, but some people are born with too much estrogen (the femenine gay men) or too much testastorone (the butch male like women). It is not their fault they are born this way, it is a somewhat of a brain chemical defect if you will. But i shall admit this, there are alot of gays out there who are gay for the hell of it, or got tired of the opposite sex, these are the people who arent natural. But the people born that way are natural, maybe the act of the same sex getting married and having a love life isnt, but because of the chemicals and hormones produced within their bodies and brain is caused them to be more like the opposite sex then what they were born.

just a little thought to all your ignorant people, not every gay/lesbian person chooses to be the way they are, and id like all of you to think on this, but some people are born with too much estrogen (the femenine gay men) or too much testastorone (the butch male like women). It is not their fault they are born this way, it is a somewhat of a brain chemical defect if you will. But i shall admit this, there are alot of gays out there who are gay for the hell of it, or got tired of the opposite sex, these are the people who arent natural. But the people born that way are natural, maybe the act of the same sex getting married and having a love life isnt, but because of the chemicals and hormones produced within their bodies and brain is caused them to be more like the opposite sex then what they were born.

Your explanation is ENTIRELY too simplistic, you probably got the jist of it from some other forum. Even though some people have an influx or deduction of certain hormones there is not certainty that they will come out this way or that. The gays who are gay for the hell of it, maybe its people who like sex, but those who are "gay for the hell of it" i dont think its something you can fake. It's a sliding scale sort of theory, which is the best explanation of human sexuality i have heard of to date. It's fluid and people do what feels right. Being gay most likely arrises from several environmental stresses as well. It is has neither a purely organic basis nor solely an environmental one.

It is not their fault they are born this way, it is a somewhat of a brain chemical defect if you will.

it is NOT a defect, its diversity in the human species. also see my previous post why its not.

it is NOT a defect, its diversity in the human species. also see my previous post why its not.

Well said.

And remember... (this is my version of the thought...)

they killed the Jews on monday, they killed the blacks on tuesday, they killed the hispanics on wednesday. Thursday they killed the homosexuals, friday they killed anyone with a disability, and saturday they killed anyone that had the wrong coloured hair.

Who protects you on sunday, when they come for you.

It hurts of course. It is hurting the people who are doing since they chose to be outcast of societies.

(a) Homosexuals don't choose to be outcast, they are outcast. The choice belongs to the idiot who looks down on them because they don't have the same attractions.

(b) Saying this is like saying. So and so has black skin, therefore they chose to be a minority so of course being black hurts people.

It is hurting many people.

All you have shown is that when society decides to make people outcasts, they are hurt. Homosexuality itself harms noone.

So it is perfectly justified to research the causes of homosexuality and the factors which may cause it.

Research can be justified in just about any area. Human beings want to understand more about themselves. What I do not see justification in is "searching for a cure for gayness." That's just like saying we should find a cure for blue eyes or a cure for people whose favorite color is black.

Ah, but if the causes and factors leading to homosexuality can be identified, it would be possible to offer a better environment for a homosexual child to grow into a well-rounded homosexual adult, since the pressures of living in a heterocentric society can be very damaging to us.

Unfortunately, we're not living in a world where it's advisable or desirable for us to be found and registered before we can self-determine, and protect and stand up for ourselves.

lots of things are natural

but that doesn't make them right

lots of things are natural

but that doesn't make them right

It doesn't make them wrong either. The only criteria we can then use, at least in law, are what harms others. Since being in a homosexual relationship doesn't hurt anyone, it can't be defined as wrong. The society that condemns it is the harmful thing. Religious arguments shouldn't even enter into it.

It's like bringing a child who's the result of rape to term- the child's not evil, the father is. Pump that bastard full of chemicals and slice him up.

It hurts of course. It is hurting the people who are doing since they chose to be outcast of societies. It is hurting their families who some may never have grand children.
It is hurting many people.
So it is perfectly justified to research the causes of homosexuality and the factors which may cause it.
Whether it can be avoided then is another question. But in other to answer that more research is required.

yeah, raymond should go cure his homosexuality so that, Beatrice, his mother, can have a grandchild!

(a) Homosexuals don't choose to be outcast, they are outcast. The choice belongs to the idiot who looks down on them because they don't have the same attractions.
(b) Saying this is like saying. So and so has black skin, therefore they chose to be a minority so of course being black hurts people.

I was unaware the homosexuals are a race??????
As a matter of fact it is a choice whether people lead a homosexual lifestyle. Your can´t chose your color of skin but you can chose whether and with whom you are starting sexual relations with. There is always the option of abstention.

Maybe there was a commandment against homosexuality on the tablet that mosses dropped!

"I give you fifteen! *chrash* Ten! Ten commandments!" ;)

To bad Mony Python can't do a life of moses ;)

I was unaware the homosexuals are a race??????
As a matter of fact it is a choice whether people lead a homosexual lifestyle. Your can´t chose your color of skin but you can chose whether and with whom you are starting sexual relations with. There is always the option of abstention.


"I don't like you. You arn't allowed to have sex! Neah!"


Reeeeeeal mature.

"I don't like you. You arn't allowed to have sex! Neah!"
Reeeeeeal mature.

I don´t speak about allowed or not allowed. I speak about choice. You have the choice whether you have sex or not and with whom.
So nobody is forced to life a homosexual lifestyle. There is another choice as a matter of fact. So people shouldn´t cry about the consequence of their choice. That´s their choice.

And by the way: I state my opinion. I don´t care whether you like it or not.

I was unaware the homosexuals are a race??????

And I never said they were. But is something which is a part of them that they don't choose, just like race, eye color, etc.

As a matter of fact it is a choice whether people lead a homosexual lifestyle.

It is also a choice whether or not to lead a "heterosexual lifestyle." But it is *not* a choice whether to be homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. That is just a part of who you are. Period.

Your can´t chose your color of skin but you can chose whether and with whom you are starting sexual relations with.

But you cannot chose who you *want* to have sexual relations with. That just kind of happens. Why should you be allowed to have sexual relations with who you want, just because they are of the opposite gender?

There is always the option of abstention.

Goes for everyone, doesn't change the fact that you are singling out a specific group and saying - "It's ok for other people to not abstain, but it's not ok for you!!!" You could just as easily say "People who think dooky brown is a great color are unnatural! They should just abstain from ever looking at dooky brown!" The fact that you don't like it does not make it a disease state.

So nobody is forced to life a homosexual lifestyle. There is another choice as a matter of fact. So people shouldn´t cry about the consequence of their choice. That´s their choice.

Nobody is forced to live a heterosexual lifestyle (I assume by "live an X lifestyle" you mean have that type of sex). There is another choice as a matter of fact. Heterosexual people could force themselves to have homosexual sex even though they don't want to and don't find the other person attractive.

See? It works both ways.

I was unaware the homosexuals are a race??????
As a matter of fact it is a choice whether people lead a homosexual lifestyle. Your can´t chose your color of skin but you can chose whether and with whom you are starting sexual relations with. There is always the option of abstention.

Didn't know there was races either.

Yes, you can chose whom you have a sexual relation to. However, controlling what turns you on, you can't pick.

And besides, you can "cure" blackness. Look at Michael Jackson!!

I don´t speak about allowed or not allowed. I speak about choice. You have the choice whether you have sex or not and with whom.
So nobody is forced to life a homosexual lifestyle. There is another choice as a matter of fact. So people shouldn´t cry about the consequence of their choice. That´s their choice.

And by the way: I state my opinion. I don´t care whether you like it or not.

So, if a person only had feelings all his life for the same gender but never had sex with it, you wouldn't call him a homosexual?

So, if a person only had feelings all his life for the same gender but never had sex with it, you wouldn't call him a homosexual?I think that's what they'd refer to as a 'cured' homosexual. ::shudders:: The thought of that scares me to no-end.

I was unaware the homosexuals are a race??????
As a matter of fact it is a choice whether people lead a homosexual lifestyle. Your can´t chose your color of skin but you can chose whether and with whom you are starting sexual relations with. There is always the option of abstention.

A black man can choose whether to greet his friends with " 'sup, my nigga? " and homosexuals can choose to say "Bona to vada your dolly old eek!", but a black man can't choose not to be black, homosexuals can't choose not to be homosexuals. Anyway, the black man can always choose to straighten his hair and bleach his skin. It doesn't stop him being racially negroid, it just stop him being visually black, but we don't expect him to do that in this day and age.

Without heterosexual sex the human specy would die out.

Without homosexuality the human specy wouldn´t miss anything - it would maintain or even be more sustainable.
Therefore homosexuality is clearly unnatural.
Without heterosexuals and heterosexuality people who claim to be homosexual wouldn´t even exist.
The other way around the statement wouldn´t be true.

And that shows the difference between the two. The won is natural and deserves protection - through the posibility of marriage. The other doesn´t - therefore no to gay marriage.

I don´t speak about allowed or not allowed. I speak about choice. You have the choice whether you have sex or not and with whom.
So nobody is forced to life a homosexual lifestyle. There is another choice as a matter of fact. So people shouldn´t cry about the consequence of their choice. That´s their choice.

And by the way: I state my opinion. I don´t care whether you like it or not.

So, what you're trying to say is that there's a choice between embracing being gay and hiding it away for fear of ... Well... People like you being snobbish.

Or are you trying to say that there's something fundamentally different between the way heterosexuals and homosexuals live their daily lives? Maybe that we breathe through our eyelids?

You are right about one thing though, people shouldn't cry about their choices. If someone chooses to live a healthy life and tries his or her best to reconcile being gay with all the stupid-assed things we've got to hear on the radio, TV, and from other people, they shouldn't complain about it. After all, nobody likes a victim complex.

I don't think so. for a species to survive it must mate. Homosexuals would have died out if it were natural. There is nothing different in the chemical or physical homosexual or straight person, there is nothing different in the brain waves. I think it is just a state of mind that people choose.

i don't understand this... if humans are a part of nature then ANYTHING they do is natural. it is imposable for us to do anything that's un-natural. as for those people that say it is un-natural, are you sure your not just being PC and not calling it 'unacceptable' because thats what you mean isnt it?

Without homosexuality the human specy wouldn´t miss anything - it would maintain or even be more sustainable.


Funny then, that nature hasn't gotten rid of it in the many many years it have existed.

Without heterosexual sex the human specy would die out.

Without homosexuality the human specy wouldn´t miss anything - it would maintain or even be more sustainable.
Therefore homosexuality is clearly unnatural.
Without heterosexuals and heterosexuality people who claim to be homosexual wouldn´t even exist.
The other way around the statement wouldn´t be true.

And that shows the difference between the two. The won is natural and deserves protection - through the posibility of marriage. The other doesn´t - therefore no to gay marriage.Hahahaha, funny. Let's go with this logic then. Anything that the human race does that isn't essential to procreating is unnatural and doesn't need to exist. People who gamble? They all need to die, because gambling clearly isn't natural.

Hey, wait a minute, let's just get rid of religion too! Most of the wars that have been fought have been in some relation to religious reasons. The human race would obviously propagate more and be more sustenable that way too. Great ideas! Hell, let's just round up sports, childrens TV, and all the people with body piercings and kill them too because those don't help us procreate! w00t!

Just because we do things that don't help us directly reproduce doesn't mean there isn't a reason or good that will come of having them around. And at the very least, it certainly doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.

First I'd like to point out that the world is over-populated as is. Homosexuality may be nature's way of maintaing population control.

And anyway, these debates never go anywhere because there will always be people who think homosexuality is disgusting and there will always be people who think it's fine.

Either way it'll happen and I don't see why we shouldn't let them live their lives. Even if it turns out to be some kind of sin (which I don't think it is, but I'm too tired to assert anything) I'm sure they're willing to accept whatever consequences.

Someone earlier mentioned that we should detect homosexuality while the fetus is in the womb. I find that an ignorant statement and will continute to find that an ignorant statement until said person takes several years of psychology to understand that sometimes environmental factors play a role in things like this. Stop being determinist and fatalistic.

Let people live their lives the way they want.
It doesn't affect you, it doesn't affect your children and it's not corrupting society, as difficult as it is for you to believe. If you think that shows such as will and grace are ruining the world then there's a simple solution: don't watch it. Put blocks on your TV to keep your children locked up in their own little box. I don't question the way you live your life. Stop question other people's.

Without heterosexual sex the human specy would die out.

Without homosexuality the human specy wouldn´t miss anything - it would maintain or even be more sustainable.
Therefore homosexuality is clearly unnatural.
Without heterosexuals and heterosexuality people who claim to be homosexual wouldn´t even exist.
The other way around the statement wouldn´t be true.

And that shows the difference between the two. The won is natural and deserves protection - through the posibility of marriage. The other doesn´t - therefore no to gay marriage.

War hampers the species ability to survive, does that make it unnatural?

Heterosexuality doesn't need protection. Marriage actually hampers heterosexuality's full expression and the propogation of the species. So, if I may, I'll argue for gay marriage and the abolition of straight marriage.

If we stop this foolish idea of the heterosexual family unit as the base of society, we can go back to the idea of women grouping together to pool resources. Occasionally they'll bring in a suitable man for sex and fertilisation and this female group will raise the children.
Homosexuals will be encouraged to marry and openly show this through rings and medallions, so that heteros don't waste time courting them. This couples/groups will also be able to adopt any children which put excessive pressure on the resources of female groups.
There, men get to fuck around, women get full custody, we get to openly show our homosexuality so you lot don't waste your precious time. Population growth rises substantially.

Some poeple are homosexual and hate being so, likewise for a few heterosexuals, which leads me to believe that it is natural. Furthermore, humans are not the only species to show homosexuality.

Reccessive Genes. Thats why we have sexuality in the first place.

I swear, I'm in High School and I know more about genetics than most of the people here.

I'm a little late in the conversation, but whoever said this is perhaps misguided. Homosexual genes have not as yet been proven to exist (though of course they may). And i think it's perfectly natural, most people who are homosexual are sure they have been since childhood, though aged say 5 or 6 don't know how to express "gay" in their vocabulary. So i think it's just another state of human sexuality, and my theory is that it is nature's (intended) method of birth control i.e. homsexuals can't reproduce, so the population doesn't spiral out of control.

Okay, my turn.

For all those people who keep saying "homosexuality is against God" blah blah blah "sex is just for the baby makin'" blah blah blah ...

My rememberance is that women were labeled as the harbringers of sin. Something about being born of a woman meant that children were born into sin. Sex itself is seen as sinful, women are seen as sinful ... OMG! To have sex (at all, or) with women is sinful too!

Women, back in the old days, were to lay still (kinda like a piece of meat), not make any noise or think of anything sexual (thinking about the Bible was seen as they best choice) and let their partner have their way with them. My grandparents were like this, they have never seen eachother naked. They have 3 kinds. And never ever. Not in over 35 years of marriage. I hear you ask "how did they have 3 kids and not see eachother naked?" ... well, thats easy ... they lights were out, and it was very, very dark, every time. If sex was meant just to be this ... why is there any stimulation at all? Why is there anything to feel? I think God anticipated evolutionary and social change ... he knew his "sex" thing wasnt gonna stay a chore.

As I see it, its sinful to have sex with woman, sinful to have sex with man, sinful to have sex with yourself ... geez, we are doomed.

Last (kinda unrelated note) In the end, homosexuality is natural as waking up in the morning. Not everyone wants to do it, not everyone likes the idea of it, and there is nothing you can do about it ... its gonna happen. The world just kinda has to deal with it, and accept it.

What I wanted to stress is a very simple fact: if all people would be gay the human specy would die out as when all would be heterosexual it would maintain.

Btw, many countries are facing declining populations and the problems that are caused by that. But it are those countries were we are seeing this gay movement issue not those with the high population growth.
This things aren´t happening in the countries with high population growth like in muslim countries in Noth Africa or the Broader Middle East. There you would be stoned to death.

What I wanted to stress is a very simple fact: if all people would be gay the human specy would die out as when all would be heterosexual it would maintain.

Btw, many countries are facing declining populations. But it are those countries who were we are seeing this gay movement issue not those with the high population growth.
This things aren´t happening in the countries with high population growth like in muslim countries in Noth Africa or the Broader Middle East. There you would be stoned to death.

No, humans may be stupid, but not that stupid. If all went gay tomorrow we could reproduce in labratories or just have sexual relations with the oposite gender to reproduce.

Just because you are homosexual doesn't mean you are unable to reproduce or have sex with the oposite gender.

What I wanted to stress is a very simple fact: if all people would be gay the human specy would die out as when all would be heterosexual it would maintain.


No, wrong. If we were all homosexual there would be system pairing couples for donating sperm and surrogacy, and there's always the idea of doing a dyke doggy style with the lights out whilst thinking of one's husband. You're just assuming that people have to be in love and married and heterosexual to reproduce.

No, humans may be stupid, but not that stupid. If all went gay tomorrow we could reproduce in labratories or just have sexual relations with the oposite gender to reproduce.
Just because you are homosexual doesn't mean you are unable to reproduce or have sex with the oposite gender.

If that is the case why are you chosing to be homosexual then??
Wouldn´t it be not so much easier to be heterosexual.

Being gay is ok. If only society wasnt so easily influenced and accepted people the way they are. I'm gay and my family has no problem with it. I am 24 and have a 54 old boyfriend. We are happy together, he cares for me and I care for him. My mother and my stepfather just recently divorced after 16 years of being married - because they distanced themselves from each other and eventually my stepfather cheated my mother and she found out.

My relationship with my friend has been fine for 5 years now and I see no end to it. We still love each other as if it was the first day. I could not live without him and he cant live without me. Due to that, I really dont give a shit what anyone else thinks about homosexuality. I lovemy friend and he loves me, thats all that matters for me.

Oh and for the record, homosexuality is natural and a wonderful "invention" of nature. Only another male truly knows what I like - everyone who doesnt at least get to try same-gender sex loses out on some great experiences :)

I don't think so. for a species to survive it must mate. Homosexuals would have died out if it were natural. There is nothing different in the chemical or physical homosexual or straight person, there is nothing different in the brain waves. I think it is just a state of mind that people choose.

You can not "choose" homosexuality. Nor is it natural. Being gay is liked being mentally retarded. I mean, many homosexuals are "proud to be gay", but that is like being proud of having Autism. I think a really good description of a homosexual is "sexually retarded".

If that is the case why are you chosing to be homosexual then??

Flawed question.

No, wrong. If we were all homosexual there would be system pairing couples for donating sperm and surrogacy, and there's always the idea of doing a dyke doggy style with the lights out whilst thinking of one's husband. You're just assuming that people have to be in love and married and heterosexual to reproduce.

Please, I don´t want to hear all the details of your lifestyle. You are just only confirming all the general opinions about gays: promisque and not bound two a partner but changing around.

As a matter of fact: the danger of getting secually transmitted deseases is almost ten times (or even more) higher when you are gay. Just look at the statistic in Western countries about the groups affected by AIDS.

What I wanted to stress is a very simple fact: if all people would be gay the human specy would die out as when all would be heterosexual it would maintain.

Kybernetia, I'd e-mail you directly, but I'm afraid your account has disabled that function. I'd like to invite you to a private e-mail debate on this issue, if you don't mind. Simply click on "View Profile" on my account name in the box <-- and send me an e-mail. I'd be very interested to argue this one out on a more personal level.

Please note, I'm a liberal on this issue, though I try very hard to avoid flaming.

This invitation is extended to anyone who holds similar views to Kybernetia (conservative views), or indeed to anyone who feels like knocking this argument about calmly in private. Good typing is appreciated. :)

Gigatron,

that sounds like a father complex. I would just refer to Sigmund Freud who saw a prime reason for homosexuality in that fact. You seem to want to prove him right.

Oh and for the record, homosexuality is natural and a wonderful "invention" of nature. Only another male truly knows what I like - everyone who doesnt at least get to try same-gender sex loses out on some great experiences :)

This is going off-topic, but it would certainly be a much better world if people felt free to experiment, even just from the point of being better able to express their sexual desires by having discussed them with a same-sex partner.

Kybernetica, think about it, if all reproduction was done through donar sperm and surrogacy and the children raised exclusively by a same sex couple, you miss out on the sexist custody courts. The world is simplified much.

Its called an "electra complex," not a father complex.

Though, like the oedipus complex, I very much doubt its a very ... Um... Real... Mental health issue.

Please, I don´t want to hear all the details of your lifestyle. You are just only confirming all the general opinions about gays: promisque and not bound two a partner but changing around.

As a matter of fact: the danger of getting secually transmitted deseases is almost ten times (or even more) higher when you are gay. Just look at the statistic in Western countries about the groups affected by AIDS.

Erm, how is it promiscuous to have to couples paired up? 3 sexual partners is not promiscuous. In any case, it's not our lifestyle, it's a suggestion for a viable system of reproduction in a totally homosexual society.

We do tend to have consumate relationships sooner and this leads to a higher risk. This is mostly because of supply and demand, and also because with 2 men you have two imputs of possible disease-carrying substance. However, gay women have some of the lowest infection rates of all. If we weren't so vilified by society, perhaps we wouldn't be rushing into sex with the first man we find. I may be afraid of AIDS, but I'm more afraid of my precious mind wasting away inside a shell of flase imagery.

I am gay - have been as long as I can remember - its not something I "chose" to be, equally its not something I could choose "not" to be either.

I dont consider the fact that I am gay to have an overtly powerful influence on my life - the only thing I do differently to anyone else is who I spend my time in bed with and frankly if someone dislikes me because of what I do in bed - they are spending way too much time thinking about my sex life - and to me thats just weird.

Im not straight acting (how straight can you be with a dick in your mouth) but by the same token, I dont wear pink and scream loudly everytime something remotely exciting happens - I know people who fall into both categories and some of them I like and some of them I dont - not because of who they are but for what they bring to my life.

Who cares who I am sleeping with - is that something anybody should be thinking about except me?

Of course it's natural. It's not like you need weird chemicals or implants or something to be gay. Besides, haven't you heard all the studies about gay sheep and birds and lizards and everything else?

.
.
.

If you're asking about whether it's morally right or wrong, or whether it's chosen or unchosen, even whether it's "normal" or anything else, ask that. But don't hide behind a undebateable question in the hopes that people will misinterpret it as what you really want to talk about. It makes you look like a coward, if you can't even ask what you mean.

Please, I don´t want to hear all the details of your lifestyle. You are just only confirming all the general opinions about gays: promisque and not bound two a partner but changing around.

As a matter of fact: the danger of getting secually transmitted deseases is almost ten times (or even more) higher when you are gay. Just look at the statistic in Western countries about the groups affected by AIDS.

Funny, I don't think they were stating facts about their own lifestyle, simply offering hypothetical alternatives to procreation in a homosexual society.
Permiscuity runs rampant in all areas of sexuality. In fact, I've found heterosexuals to be involved in more rampant infidelity than homosexuals.

As for homosexuals being in higher risk of getting diseases, that's clearly a misinformed or simply uneducated statement. You might want to research such things before you post them as fact.

p.s. I heterosexual.

If that is the case why are you chosing to be homosexual then??
Wouldn´t it be not so much easier to be heterosexual.

There is no choice. Either you are or you ain't. Else there wouldn't be any homosexuals that wished they where hetrosexual cause then they would be hetrosexuals. I have not made a choice to be either bi-, hetro- or homosexual. So wnhy would anyone else had?

What I wanted to stress is a very simple fact: if all people would be gay the human specy would die out as when all would be heterosexual it would maintain.

That doesn't make it wrong, though. It just means we wouldn't die out without it. We wouldn't die out without blue-eyed people. We wouldn't die out without blondes. We wouldn't die out without people with 6 toes on each foot. We wouldn't die out if there was no one in the world who liked the color brown. No one here is arguing that heterosexuality is "wrong" so what exactly is your point?

Btw, many countries are facing declining populations. But it are those countries who were we are seeing this gay movement issue not those with the high population growth.

Declining populations (generally in very developed countries) are due to the fact that people in developed countries generally have less children. The majority of people in these countries don't need 10 children to help take care of the family and get jobs to support them. Thus, most people have fewer children. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing, since the total population on Earth is 6 billion people.

Either way, it has little, if anything, to do with homosexuals.

This things aren´t happening in the countries with high population growth like in muslim countries in Noth Africa or the Broader Middle East. There you would be stoned to death.

Fun Fun! Let's go out and stone all the gays! Oh, wait, let's not.

You can not "choose" homosexuality. Nor is it natural. Being gay is liked being mentally retarded. I mean, many homosexuals are "proud to be gay", but that is like being proud of having Autism. I think a really good description of a homosexual is "sexually retarded".

It's not good to be proud of being an idiot, but people like you seem to enjoy it.

Please, I don´t want to hear all the details of your lifestyle. You are just only confirming all the general opinions about gays: promisque and not bound two a partner but changing around.

As a matter of fact: the danger of getting secually transmitted deseases is almost ten times (or even more) higher when you are gay. Just look at the statistic in Western countries about the groups affected by AIDS.

What he just say doesn't make him gay, so don't jump conclutions. Think you have done so on two people now in 30 mins or even less.

Anyway, are you saying that that's uniqe for homosexuals? Do you know the average amount of sexual partners people in western countries have? And don't blame this on the homosexuals cause it isn't thier fault.

Yes, that's mainly because of the ignorance of STDs in the 70s and 80s. And actually, I can't come up with a way homosexuals can have sex that hetrosexuals can't. So that's just twisting staticts to fit your means.

Gigatron,

that sounds like a father complex. I would just refer to Sigmund Freud who saw a prime reason for homosexuality in that fact. You seem to want to prove him right.

Women whos partner happen to be a man that is older then her has this complex aswell then? And this is bad because..?

Please, I don´t want to hear all the details of your lifestyle. You are just only confirming all the general opinions about gays: promisque and not bound two a partner but changing around.

As a matter of fact: the danger of getting secually transmitted deseases is almost ten times (or even more) higher when you are gay. Just look at the statistic in Western countries about the groups affected by AIDS.

See, in your own post you acknowledge your flawed interpretation of the data. While the rates of AIDS in Western countries may center more on homosexuals, this doesn't mean homosexuals are inherantly more prone to get AIDS. There are lots of other factors in the mix than pure sexual orientation. And with the rise of AIDS in Westernized regions and countries, such as the UK and Eastern Europe, and the fact that the new cases are not nearly as one sided in their demographics, your reasoning is flawed. Indeed, all you have to do is look at AIDS spread in emerging countries to see that there is no inherant preference for the disease.

This is almost as silly as saying because women get Chlamydia nearly three times more often as men, that means because you are a women, you have an automatic higher chance of contracting Chlamydia than a man. It's a risk factor, perhaps, but certainly not the only one or the deciding one.

No one here is arguing that heterosexuality is "wrong"

How could I have let that one slip? Here goes, and I'll only use the Bible:

In the Ten Commandments it states that there is one God, and one God only. You are allowed no idols equal to God or higher than human beings.
In Genesis we are told that man is made in God's image.
Therefore, if we, as the image of God, partake of an act of union with something significantly different to ourselves, we are blaspheming by implying that the Almighty Lord God is not whole and complete in and of itself.


L a L a Land, Kybernetia's right in assuming I'm gay. Well, partly right, I'm bisexual. Anyway, my having a name like Homocracy(i.e. rule by homosexuals) sort of gives the game away.

In the Ten Commandments it states that there is one God, and one God only. You are allowed no idols equal to God or higher than human beings.
In Genesis we are told that man is made in God's image.
Therefore, if we, as the image of God, partake of an act of union with something significantly different to ourselves, we are blaspheming by implying that the Almighty Lord God is not whole and complete in and of itself.

Funny. Of course, if God is both male and female, then we can partake of an act of union with any other consenting human being and not be blaspheming, right? =)

L a L a Land, Kybernetia's right in assuming I'm gay. Well, partly right, I'm bisexual. Anyway, my having a name like Homocracy(i.e. rule by homosexuals) sort of gives the game away.

The thing that annoyed me is that he/she kind of declared both you and me as gay on the basis of our views rather then anything else. :)

Funny. Of course, if God is both male and female, then we can partake of an act of union with any other consenting human being and not be blaspheming, right? =)

No, because only man was made in God's image- woman was created from man, not in God's image. Read what it says in the Glossy of Genesis: http://www.thesisters.demon.co.uk/bible/
Anyway, God is consistently referred to as being male. Even in the Polari translation, the furthest they go is applying feminine characteristics, like motherly love, the ability to give life and the name Gloria(But that's just a queeny mannerism).

The only debatable part of that is whether women are sinning, since they aren't made in God's image. I'd say they are, because they are defiling God's image aswell.

The only debatable part of that is whether women are sinning, since they aren't made in God's image. I'd say they are, because they are defiling God's image aswell.

No, no - I have another question. Am I sinning when I sleep with my boyfriend? He's an atheist and doesn't even believe in God, so hasn't he already defiled God's image enough on his own that me being around doesn't matter?

=)

If doctors could see the chemical inbalance while the baby is still a fetus, it should be aborted. I'm Atheist and I loathe homosexuals.
Damn fascist. I'm atheist and I tihnk homosexuality is natural, and that they deserve equal rights. I loathe abortion.

No, no - I have another question. Am I sinning when I sleep with my boyfriend? He's an atheist and doesn't even believe in God, so hasn't he already defiled God's image enough on his own that me being around doesn't matter?

=)

Ah, yes, he's broken the First Commandment already, but that sin rests on him alone. You can have sex with him, unless you're a woman, in which case you're breaking the Second(I think) by sleeping with him, as I've explained.

EDIT Just to clarify, here are the first three of the Ten Commandments:

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Nanti make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any fakement that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the aqua under the earth:
5 Nanti bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Duchess thy Gloria am a jealous Gloria, visiting the codness of the aunties upon the chavvies unto the trey and quarter generation of them that hate me;

So, by partaking of an act of union with a woman, a man is creating a graven image of a being equal but different to God, since he is made in God's image, as stated in Genesis 1 27: So Gloria created homie in his own image, in the image of Gloria created he him; homie and palone created he them.

So, your atheist boyfriend is disregarding the first, if you're a woman you're helping him to break the second, and if he holds you in high regard and you're a woman, he's breaking the third by worshipping you.

This doesn't say anything against women's rights, it just says that it's blasphemy to make a point of man being incomplete without woman. Like man needs food to eat and air to breathe, man needs woman to procreate, but this should be done subtly, through loveless sperm donation, or with the lights out thinking of a man. It's right there in the Bible. Extended heterosexual relationships are blasphemous. So, in the interest of family values, gay couples must form to raise all children.

Studies of identical twins who were seperated at birth and than given up for adoption show that such traits and diseases such as diabetes and homosexuality are linked to genetics. There are kids who show homosexual behavior as young as 4 or 5. Obviously, they have no control and little comprehensive perception of their environment at that age, so it's not like these young kids are buying into a culture, they are doing what's natural to them.

Thank GOD someone has some scientific evidance to add to this thread.

That does indeed make sense.

Here's a question I've pondered - assuming for that homosexuality is natural, and chemically/neurologically based - does that mean that a homosexual child of straight parents is a mutant (according to the scientific definition of mutation)?

Here's a question I've pondered - assuming for that homosexuality is natural, and chemically/neurologically based - does that mean that a homosexual child of straight parents is a mutant (according to the scientific definition of mutation)?

Not necessarily. If one contends that homosexuality is solely due to genetics, then it's simply a phenotype based on a genotype and it's a matter of allelic dominance. A homosexual child is no more a "mutant" than a red headed child is, in this case. Mutation, by a strict genetic definition, is a change in genetic structure that successfully expresses a trait not currently found in the given population. So, if there never were homosexuals before and suddenly, one day, there was one, you could possibly call that a mutation.

PS: please forgive my vulgar language.

Odd question I know, but one I feel that needs to be adressed.

If masterbation is natural, well then you need a trigger to do it, touch yes, but also a bit of imaginiation.

You are who you are, and what causes you to masterbate is not somthing you can control right?

Nor can you control what you masterbate about, what turns you on.

Its yours and you did not have complete control over it.

The same thing that caused whatever turns you on to do that, is the same thing that causes homosexuals and bisexuals to be attracted to the same sex.

Essentially, lets say Bob wanks off, and as he does he pictures a big breasted brunette.

What caused this attraction to occur?

Why a big breasted brunette?

Why not a big hiped blonde?

Why not a Tall black haired male?

Why is he attracted to big breasted Bunettes?

I bet Bob couldn't even tell you.

Least not specifiacally.

You'd get "Their hott,"

"I like breasts"

or

"Brown heads are sexy."

All things we already knew when we learned he was attracted to big breasted brunettes.

Why Does Sally, like Small chested red heads?

She couldn't tell you.

Its because this attraction is as natrual as living, you can't control being Gay or Bi.

You can't explain why you masterbate to somthing and not somthing else.

Attraction is a preferance made by your subconsious. It is a natural reaction by the body, you can't help it.

ummmmm.....

Where the hell did masturbation come into all of this? I think I missed it....

Why does Sally like small-chested redheads? Because redheads are HOT! ;D

ummmmm.....

Where the hell did masturbation come into all of this? I think I missed it....

Why does Sally like small-chested redheads? Because redheads are HOT! ;DThey were using an example. Their point was that people don't know why they're attracted to what they are, they just are. They don't choose it, it just happens. They were just using a lot of examples to get the point across.

Studies of identical twins who were seperated at birth and than given up for adoption show that such traits and diseases such as diabetes and homosexuality are linked to genetics. There are kids who show homosexual behavior as young as 4 or 5. Obviously, they have no control and little comprehensive perception of their environment at that age, so it's not like these young kids are buying into a culture, they are doing what's natural to them.See, that's just bulls@#$ to me. If they have "little comprehensive perception of their environment", explain to me how Johnny 4 year old is showing signs of becoming gay? I mean, anything at that age is exploration, and unless little Johnny is penetrating little Sammy next door, I'm not seeing the connection. Just WHAT are considered homosexual traits? I think scientific input is great and all, but this is totally subjective. We're just listening to someone say that an experiment proved blah blah blah, but we're not asking about the experiment itself. Sounds ridiculous. I don't see how anyone can determine someone's sexual identity aside from hearing it come out of someone's mouth.

I don't see how anyone can determine someone's sexual identity aside from hearing it come out of someone's mouth.

Or, indeed, from seeing what goes into it...

Or, indeed, from seeing what goes into it...>.>;;;

I thought about making that crack, but I decided I'd steer away from it... ::snorts::

>.>;;;

I thought about making that crack, but I decided I'd steer away from it... ::snorts::

"Anything for the joke."--vaudevillian motto

:)

Many years ago in a college class, an individual sitting behind me stated his opinion homosexuality was a choice people made.

So I turned to him and asked him in front of the class, "I'm assuming you're heterosexual?"

"Yes."

"Then tell me, at what age did you decide you were heterosexual, or have you always just been that way?"

Long pause. "I, uh, I've just always been straight."

"Then why do you think it's different for gay people?"

He couldn't answer that. I'm not gay, but I'm not above being completely smug on occasion. :)

I've said it before and I'll say it again - there is virtually no such thing as unbiased scientific research. You always need to look at who is funding the research and where the scientists can expect their next research grant to come from. For every scientific theory, there is another scientist out there who will discredit it if he thinks it will assure his next meal ticket.

Homosexuality has been observed on numerous occasions throughout the animal kingdom - most commonly in primates. Your assertion that there is no difference in chemical makeup is just that - an assertion. Hormones and the biochemistry of the brain is not yet well enough understood for anyone to prove that either way.
Homosexuality can actually be genetically shown in animals, not humans yet.

If you are to take the statistics for animals, and apply them to humanity. Then approx. 1-2% of the population would be gay, and less than 1% would be lesbian.

Unfortunately, this is not why most people are homosexual. Emotional issues and their environment causes them choose to be "different" and we end up with people being homosexual simply by choice.

Can anyone provide a link or source for those studies about homosexuality definitively being linked to genetics? Because the only study I am aware of into homosexuality involving identical twins conclusively proved there was no link, since identical twins have the same genes and for the link to be true both twins in a pair must share the same sexuality.

Well, like I said, I never trust most scientific repoarts unless it can be proven they are truly independent, BUT, the last study I was told about by a friend in the medical community showed that genetic studies on the basal ganglia cells could find no concrete evidence that homosexuality was genetic.

Thank GOD someone has some scientific evidance to add to this thread.

That does indeed make sense.
I've heard of three studies that purported to show homosexuality was genetic. However, all three were done by gay researchers, and the results were later recanted.

I'm still waiting for a reason why people would choose to be gay, and why it is wrong.

I don't think so. for a species to survive it must mate. Homosexuals would have died out if it were natural. There is nothing different in the chemical or physical homosexual or straight person, there is nothing different in the brain waves. I think it is just a state of mind that people choose.

-1 in 6 people are homosexual
-The average straight person still is about 22% homosexual tendencies
-Homosexuality is prevelant in many animal species, especially dogs and geese

-Homosexuals cannot "die out" as they aren't a race.
-There are differences between homosexuals and straight people, which can be seen not only through elementary genetics research but simple observation and steretyping behavior.
-Homosexual behavior, or any other sort of behavior which doesn't lead to more of a species is a buffer. As it is with the number of shameless, selfish, and evil people that have more than 2 children, it's a good thing that about 16% of the world is homosexual. (2.4 net population increase per second)

The question is, is it natural for people to speak without thinking, or worship invisible dieties, especially ones who are deified humans whose ideas are all stolen from previous polytheistic cults [relgions]?

I'm still waiting for a reason why people would choose to be gay, and why it is wrong.

I'd choose to be gay [well, actually bisexual]:

As a hedonist, I'd find it quite thrilling to know how it feels to love someone of the same gender as me.

Unfortunatly, you can't choose whether you are gay, straight, or bisexual.

You can, however, engage in sexual activities with people of the same/different gender without being gay/straight.

The difference is in the actual element of loving someone.

I have this can, it is full of worms. Could someone please open it for me?

I have this can, it is full of worms. Could someone please open it for me?

It's not like there is more than one answer in an issue like this.

Homosexuality is obviously natural, given the aforementioned data that I and others have posted.

Whether it is "moral" or "acceptable" is a multifaceted issue, but has nothing to do with the fact that it is natural and common enough to be natural.

I've heard of three studies that purported to show homosexuality was genetic. However, all three were done by gay researchers, and the results were later recanted.

To my knowledge, no study has ever shown homosexulaity to be simply genetic. One study which was heading in this direction was abandoned after early results clearly showed no simple genetic mechanism(s) involved. The media trumpeted early results of this study in the mid 1990's to say homsexuality was "genetic" and tied to a region of a specific chromosome (Xq238). The 'nurture' camp were quick to point fingers and shout 'intellectual dishonesty' which is quite ironic, imho.

Later genetic studies showed correlation within family lineages and also, in the case of male homosexuality, possibly determined by maternal genetic influence. Vice-versa for female homosexuality. The much quoted 'twin studies' also showed clearly no simple genetic mechanism (IE. Mendelian genetics/ recessive&dominant traits) but does mention pre-natal hormonal exposure affecting neural development. Finally the LeVay study on the brains of deceased gay males showed with 'reliable accuracy' they possessed thicker corpus collossums (tissue linking each brain half) including typically female hypothalamus structure. While LeVay is gay, what bias there may have been was washed away with a rigorous double blind research method.

It's not like there is more than one answer in an issue like this.

Homosexuality is obviously natural, given the aforementioned data that I and others have posted.

Whether it is "moral" or "acceptable" is a multifaceted issue, but has nothing to do with the fact that it is natural and common enough to be natural.

Well yes, but people seem to be unable to debate that point without trying to halfassedly bring morality, religion, and the status quo into it. However I will say after reading more, you people are doing an amicable job of it. I commend you.

Also for the record: Natural. However I'm gay and obviously a subhuman so my votes and such don't count to some people :O

-The average straight person still is about 22% homosexual tendencies


*spits out coffee and then laughs*

You want to quantify that little gem?

Please, explain to me as an average heterosexual, how I may have 22% homosexual tendencies? Let me put it this way-

> 100% of the indivduals I have had sexual encounters with have been of the opposite sex
> 100% of the individuals I fantasise about while masturbating are of the opposite sex

I don't think I am some sort of "uber-hetero", I'd say I'm a pretty average Joe...

Your statistics reek of "madeupedness" ;)

Also, can we clear up this myth of the prevalance of homosexuality in animal species...yes, I myself have witnessed male dogs hump each other. I have never witnessed nor heard of a dog that, given a choice, would choose exclusively animals of the same sex. If I am wrong, please present me with some documented evidence. I'd say there are infinitely more dogs with a predilection to humping human legs than with a predilection to seeking out and copulating with dogs of the same sex.

Same with almost all animal species. Are there animals that engage in homosexual activity? Of course there are. Are there animals that engage exlusively in homosexual sex, given the availability of memebrs of the opposite sex? Probably, but these would are an extremely minute percentage - so rare as to be almost nonexistant. Far more common are animals with the drive to "stick it in anything that moves" (aka pansexual).

Also, I think it is somewhat ludicrous to draw parralels between animal behaviour and human behaviour. Yes, humans are animals too, but our communication skills, sentience and societal structures have warped our natural instincts so far that they are almost completely alien to those of any other animal on the planet.

P.S. This is exclusivley regarding the "naturalness" of homosexuality, not the morality. As a moral issue, I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals.

Are there any animals that are as overpopulated as humans are? That could easily explain away the percentage discrepincy.

I'll leave the rest for people who aren't almost dead from exhuastion.

*spits out coffee and then laughs*

You want to quantify that little gem?

Please, explain to me as an average heterosexual, how I may have 22% homosexual tendencies? Let me put it this way-

> 100% of the indivduals I have had sexual encounters with have been of the opposite sex
> 100% of the individuals I fantasise about while masturbating are of the opposite sex

I don't think I am some sort of "uber-hetero", I'd say I'm a pretty average Joe...

Your statistics reek of "madeupedness" ;)

And I would say you are either lying, or ignoring the parts of your own sexuality that offend you 'maleness'.

You never looked at Johnny Depp, and thought "What an attractive chap?"
You have never been to a sports match, and sweated with the exertion of 'encouraging' a player you like?

Homosexuality is homo-sexuality. Everyone has some characteristics in their makeup that are same-gender-preferential. Just because you have never had sex with someone of the same gender, doesn't mean you have no 'homo-sexual' feelings. (Celibate homosexuals, for example).

The fact that you said "uber-hetero", to refer to your state, kind of does imply that you think you are uber-hetro...

Also, can we clear up this myth of the prevalance of homosexuality in animal species...yes, I myself have witnessed male dogs hump each other. I have never witnessed nor heard of a dog that, given a choice, would choose exclusively animals of the same sex. If I am wrong, please present me with some documented evidence. I'd say there are infinitely more dogs with a predilection to humping human legs than with a predilection to seeking out and copulating with dogs of the same sex.

Same with almost all animal species. Are there animals that engage in homosexual activity? Of course there are. Are there animals that engage exlusively in homosexual sex, given the availability of memebrs of the opposite sex? Probably, but these would are an extremely minute percentage - so rare as to be almost nonexistant. Far more common are animals with the drive to "stick it in anything that moves" (aka pansexual).

Also, I think it is somewhat ludicrous to draw parralels between animal behaviour and human behaviour. Yes, humans are animals too, but our communication skills, sentience and societal structures have warped our natural instincts so far that they are almost completely alien to those of any other animal on the planet.

P.S. This is exclusivley regarding the "naturalness" of homosexuality, not the morality. As a moral issue, I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals.

I don't know about dogs, but I have an issue of National Geographic that quite clearly details Octopi choosing same-sex partners, and even has a picture of two 'gay' octopi.

And I would say you are either lying, or ignoring the parts of your own sexuality that offend you 'maleness'.

You never looked at Johnny Depp, and thought "What an attractive chap?"
You have never been to a sports match, and sweated with the exertion of 'encouraging' a player you like?

Homosexuality is homo-sexuality. Everyone has some characteristics in their makeup that are same-gender-preferential. Just because you have never had sex with someone of the same gender, doesn't mean you have no 'homo-sexual' feelings. (Celibate homosexuals, for example).

The fact that you said "uber-hetero", to refer to your state, kind of does imply that you think you are uber-hetro...

Well, for starters, I have no reason to lie - like I could care less what a bunch of people I will never meet on the internet think of me. Are you asking do I have male friends, or have favourite male actors or sportsmen? Yes, of course. But I've never once fantasised about popping them one. Is it really that hard to believe that a straight guy doesn't think about sex with men one fifth of the time, or at all for that matter.

The term "uber-hetero" was to emphasize the point of how downright silly and groundless the "fact" was. Again I ask - can I have some proof? Even some pseudo-study that says "the average heterosexual has 22% homoseuxal tendencies" will suffice. ;)

It would be easier it it were natural.

If doctors could see the chemical inbalance while the baby is still a fetus, it should be aborted. I'm Atheist and I loathe homosexuals.

You're an idiot. Why do you loathe homosexuals? Because of their aura? Ha! The same kind of reasoning goes with the terms "racism" and "nazism", even though you're (an) Atheist. How do like them apples!

Titanium_Dragon> Hey everyone
Titanium_Dragon> I had a revelation today
Titanium_Dragon> Everyone knows that more intelligent creatures (humans, dolphins, chimps, ect.) tend to have sex for fun
Titanium_Dragon> But some people believe that sex for any reason but procreation is wrong
* Titanium_Dragon never put two and two together

Well, for starters, I have no reason to lie - like I could care less what a bunch of people I will never meet on the internet think of me. Are you asking do I have male friends, or have favourite male actors or sportsmen? Yes, of course. But I've never once fantasised about popping them one. Is it really that hard to believe that a straight guy doesn't think about sex with men one fifth of the time, or at all for that matter.

The term "uber-hetero" was to emphasize the point of how downright silly and groundless the "fact" was. Again I ask - can I have some proof? Even some pseudo-study that says "the average heterosexual has 22% homoseuxal tendencies" will suffice. ;)

I didn't think you were lying. Far more likely you just accept, blanket or ignore everyday activities that lean towards a homo-sexual inclination.

You jumped straight back in to the penetration thing again... "fantasised about popping them one"... but homosexuality isn't just about sex.

I'm not of the camp that believes that all transvestites are gay, or that if you like shopping you're gay (but, apparently some people DO believe that stuff). But, it is quite possible that there aspects of your personality that are of 'homosexual' nature. Like my 'hero worship' example.

To be totally honest - I don't believe in 22% homosexual tendencies either. I don't really think anyone is "totally straight" or "totally gay". I think even the straightest individual can have tendencies towards their own gender, and even the gayest individual can have tendencies toward the opposite.
That doesn't mean you sleep with them... or even that you want to.

I guess it's like statistics. I guess - you like the people you like, but there's always the chance that that perfect someone will come along...

I was unaware the homosexuals are a race??????
As a matter of fact it is a choice whether people lead a homosexual lifestyle. Your can´t chose your color of skin but you can chose whether and with whom you are starting sexual relations with. There is always the option of abstention.

what about gay priests? Clearly it doesnt depend solely on SEXUAL RELATIONS. Get your head out of your ass and face the facts!

The won is natural and deserves protection - through the posibility of marriage. The other doesn´t - therefore no to gay marriage.

not allowing gay marriage isn't going to stop people from being gay. the bigotry in your posts makes me shudder, i hope you can live to be open minded

What I wanted to stress is a very simple fact: if all people would be gay the human specy would die out as when all would be heterosexual it would maintain.

Btw, many countries are facing declining populations and the problems that are caused by that. But it are those countries were we are seeing this gay movement issue not those with the high population growth.
This things aren´t happening in the countries with high population growth like in muslim countries in Noth Africa or the Broader Middle East. There you would be stoned to death.

stoning now thats an effective way to deal with people! in some countries in africa and the middle east, people are STILL opressed, look at women... it doesnt make it right. Many of these countries dont bring up gays because they refuse to see it, because it's a different culture. It's better to shut up about it there than speak out cuz you'll be opressed or worse yet killed. Thats why all the women haven't been able to show their face in public!

You can not "choose" homosexuality. Nor is it natural. Being gay is liked being mentally retarded. I mean, many homosexuals are "proud to be gay", but that is like being proud of having Autism. I think a really good description of a homosexual is "sexually retarded".

perhaps one of the most uninformed people yet. go read a book!

Please, I don´t want to hear all the details of your lifestyle. You are just only confirming all the general opinions about gays: promisque and not bound two a partner but changing around.

As a matter of fact: the danger of getting secually transmitted deseases is almost ten times (or even more) higher when you are gay. Just look at the statistic in Western countries about the groups affected by AIDS.


what about AFRICA? what about britney spears, is she bound to her partner. heterosexuals are just as promiscuous, and dont believe the stereotype because thats what it is, a generalization

stoning now thats an effective way to deal with people! in some countries in africa and the middle east, people are STILL opressed, look at women... it doesnt make it right. Many of these countries dont bring up gays because they refuse to see it, because it's a different culture. It's better to shut up about it there than speak out cuz you'll be opressed or worse yet killed. Thats why all the women haven't been able to show their face in public!

The women are covered to prevent the men from commiting the sin of lust. Homosexuality is looked upon differently in the middle east. The "pitcher" is seen as doing what is natural while the "catcher" is seen as the sinner. Marraige is not the same there as it is here. Men have to be successful in order to afford to get married. Women cannot work so it can be very expensive to support them. Having spent more than a couple of years in various countries in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq and UAE) I have seen how workers live and interact with each other. Sex between men is very common since they are forbidden to associate with women who are not their wives. Marraiges are arranged and wives are basically "bought" with dowry's.

So, while homosexuality is not natural in the sense that humans are "naturally" homosexual (we would obviously die off after 1 generation) it is a natural response to certain conditions and I am sure that for those who are homosexual it is natural for them. Live and let live and lets all get along and respect each other....

As a matter of fact: the danger of getting secually transmitted deseases is almost ten times (or even more) higher when you are gay. Just look at the statistic in Western countries about the groups affected by AIDS.

Statistically, AIDS was spread more via heterosexual prostitution and drug abuse than it was homosexuality.

Yes, even the Catholic Church believes it's natural.

See, that's just bulls@#$ to me. If they have "little comprehensive perception of their environment", explain to me how Johnny 4 year old is showing signs of becoming gay? I mean, anything at that age is exploration, and unless little Johnny is penetrating little Sammy next door, I'm not seeing the connection. Just WHAT are considered homosexual traits? I think scientific input is great and all, but this is totally subjective. We're just listening to someone say that an experiment proved blah blah blah, but we're not asking about the experiment itself. Sounds ridiculous. I don't see how anyone can determine someone's sexual identity aside from hearing it come out of someone's mouth.


thats what studies over long term periods do. read one! when you follow a large group of people for 20-30 years or even 10-15 you can trace and identify certain traits which are linked to homosexuals.

Is it just me that finds the central question posed here to be irrelevant? Does it really matter if homosexuality is 'natural' or 'unnatural'? Perhaps someone could explain what it matters either way?

Well, like I said, I never trust most scientific repoarts unless it can be proven they are truly independent, BUT, the last study I was told about by a friend in the medical community showed that genetic studies on the basal ganglia cells could find no concrete evidence that homosexuality was genetic.

thank you! All they can say is that it may involve genetics. correlation, not causality

Statistically, AIDS was spread more via heterosexual prostitution and drug abuse than it was homosexuality.

Yes, while that is true, AIDS among homosexual men is rising. The only group that this is occuring in. Risk factors such as intravenous drug use and multiple partners are one thing that increase everyones risk. Prostitutes, being what they are constitute a natural conduit for the disease to spread.

Yes, while that is true, AIDS among homosexual men is rising. The only group that this is occuring in.


You seem to believe that AIDS is not still 'rising' in heterosexuals and homosexual women - really?

thank you! All they can say is that it may involve genetics. correlation, not causality

But then science is by definition totally unable to prove causality in anything.

so im thinking about this:

what if a lesbian and a gay man have a baby-- would the baby be more gay or less.

hmmm... we DONT FREAKIN KNOW! because you can't predict if a child is going to be gay or not. There hasnt been one conclusive bit of evidence to show that its a choice, or that its purely genetic. it just happens, so if you dont like it, shut up about it, keep it to yourself, and if you have children, i hope none of them are gay because i would hate to see what happens if they grow up in an oppressive, ignorant and bigoted environment.

You seem to believe that AIDS is not still 'rising' in heterosexuals and homosexual women - really?

I guess I worded that wrong....it is rising FASTER in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community. This has been reported in many news items. 60 minutes interviewed several homosexual couples last year and they said that they, along with most of their friends had given up on condoms and other forms of protection and resigned themselves to a life with AIDS. Very sad interview really. A completely preventable disease and these men have given up.

Yes, while that is true, AIDS among homosexual men is rising. The only group that this is occuring in. Risk factors such as intravenous drug use and multiple partners are one thing that increase everyones risk. Prostitutes, being what they are constitute a natural conduit for the disease to spread.

Seriously... I'm really interested... are you making it up, or just really really badly informed?

I was under the impression that, statistically speaking, the frequency of AIDS cases in homosexuals was falling. (In my country anyway). I have been looking for some sort of documentation, but cannot find it. If anyone can provide a link to some relevant information, i would be grateful as I would like to read it myself.

(I know that the conversation has gone a little off topic, but I am curious now)

I guess I worded that wrong....it is rising FASTER in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community. This has been reported in many news items. 60 minutes interviewed several homosexual couples last year and they said that they, along with most of their friends had given up on condoms and other forms of protection and resigned themselves to a life with AIDS. Very sad interview really. A completely preventable disease and these men have given up.

Seriously... I'm really interested... are you making it up, or just really really badly informed?...

wait, that sounds like what I had to say to that other guy....

no wait... same guy, just more crap...

But then science is by definition totally unable to prove causality in anything.

essentially yes. things are biased.

many studies on this have had a small sample, and a limited one at that. the more people you have, the more times you get a certain outcome, then it is most likely that it is showing a cause.

for instance:

women who take birth control have a higher incidance of cervical cancer. is it because of the birth control specifically. not necessarily, because women who are on birth control also have more sexual partners. so there is more than one explanation. am i making sense?

I was under the impression that, statistically speaking, the frequency of AIDS cases in homosexuals was falling. (In my country anyway). I have been looking for some sort of documentation, but cannot find it. If anyone can provide a link to some relevant information, i would be grateful as I would like to read it myself.

(I know that the conversation has gone a little off topic, but I am curious now)

i am fairly certain that the largest group of people who spread AIDS and HIV are heterosexuals. Look at Africa- thats exactly what is happening.

Noone can define what is Natural!

many studies on this have had a small sample, and a limited one at that. the more people you have, the more times you get a certain outcome, then it is most likely that it is showing a cause.

Indeed a strong correlation in a sufficiently large sampling strongly suggests that a causal relationship exists, but it does not indicate whether X causes Y, Y causes X, or the two are actually both caused by Z - or that this is merely a chance co-occurence repeated throughout the sample.

Indeed a strong correlation in a sufficiently large sampling strongly suggests that a causal relationship exists, but it does not indicate whether X causes Y, Y causes X, or the two are actually both caused by Z - or that this is merely a chance co-occurence repeated throughout the sample.

yes absolutely i agree, strong correlation suggests cause. i think we are saying the same thing

No, what Bodies W/out Organs is trying to say is that although correlation may suggest *a* cause, it tells us nothing about what the cause *is.*

No, what Bodies W/out Organs is trying to say is that although correlation may suggest *a* cause, it tells us nothing about what the cause *is.*

which is what im saying.

Does it matter? Humanity is based around unnatural things: religion and morality for example, so why do people complain about one thing they believe is unnatural and adhere to the rules of things that are more unnatural than any sexual orientation.

Of course, that's depending on nature actually existing as a set of rules, and not just an idea. Actually, the idea of nature is probably unnatural, when you think about it.

Since when do any debates go anywhere? It's just people saying there opinions back and forth
cheers to tat. i think being gay is natural. i mean its not like people wake up one day and say i think ill be gay, nah its just the way they are.

for a species to survive it must mate. Homosexuals would have died out if it were natural.

Sorry for my French, but your argument is crap to begin with. So people who don't mate die of unnatural causes? Neanderthalians died because of genetic incompatibilities with the Sapiens, not because they were faggots, Canadians or just plain ugly-looking (no offense to anyone). They were genuine products of Mother Nature, yet their very sad extinction was totally natural. They would have made damn fine citizens here!

Is it just me that finds the central question posed here to be irrelevant? Does it really matter if homosexuality is 'natural' or 'unnatural'? Perhaps someone could explain what it matters either way?

Since this keeps getting asked and I haven't seen much of an answer, I'll give it a shot. In the western world, this is most likely caused by Leviticus 18:22, which in my NIV reads "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Christians want to believe that these words are straight from the mouth (or pen) of God to them. They also want to believe that God isn't capricious and spiteful. This means that if God is telling you that something is detestable, then He wouldn't allow you to be this detestable thing without you having a choice. So, then, one of the three following must be false:

1. The Bible is the Word of God
2. God is good
3. People have no choice about whether they are homosexual or not

It seems that the best way for most people to convince themselves of something is to convince other people of it, too -- truth by consensus. If I can convince a whole room of people that homosexuals choose to be homosexual because they're horrible sinners, then I can believe it too and kick back and think about how good God is to have given us His Word to live by. So, the question comes up. For those that care which two of the three previous assertions are true, the question itelf is important. Everybody else goes home and watches lesbian porn (which God digs, too; you'll notice how careful He was about only specifying men).

If two people of the same sex are attracted to each other and are loyal to each other, then who is to say that a gay and or lesbian relationship is abnormal. :fluffle:

In the western world, this is most likely caused by Leviticus 18:22, which in my NIV reads "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

I understand and follow the way you are explaining the Judaeo-Christian argument, but nowhere is there a connection between "abhorrent to God" and "unnatural".

Merely drawing a simple connection between "natural" and "God's Will" doesn't work, because that would mean that such miracles as the resurrection/feeding of the 5000/whatever then fall into the category "natural", as they were caused by the Will of God, and so cease to be miracles... if you follow me.

Everybody else goes home and watches lesbian porn (which God digs, too; you'll notice how careful He was about only specifying men).

In this way God is like Queen Victoria, who was responsible for the illegalisation of homosexual acts between men, but not women as she did not believe that the fairer sex would ever do such degrading things.

If two people of the same sex are attracted to each other and are loyal to each other, then who is to say that a gay and or lesbian relationship is abnormal. :fluffle:

A statistician? Throughout the world the majority of relationships/partnerships are heterosexual, therefore they are by definition 'normal', any minority forms of relationship/partnership are by definition 'abnormal'.

Of course, if most relationships/partnerships were between same-sex couples, then the reverse would be true.

My point being - "abnormal" doesn't carry an ethical value, it is merely a statement describing a deviation* from the norm.


* unfortunate term in this context, but hey...

Throughout the world the majority of relationships/partnerships are heterosexual, therefore they are by definition 'normal', any minority forms of relationship/partnership are by definition 'abnormal'.

My point being - "abnormal" doesn't carry an ethical value, it is merely a statement describing a deviation* from the norm.


normal has the conotation of conformind to nature, in this case it would be normal for homosexuals to exist because they are conforming to patterns found among other animals, that some part of the species will be homosexual. as far as "abnormal" not carying an ethical value i competely agree- otherwise what are all the depressed, schizophrenic and manic people to do?

normal has the conotation of conformind to nature,

I don't think I really agree with this - it is currently 'normal' for human beings to sell their labour in exchange for abstract tokens which allow them to carry out exchanges for goods or services, but we are the only species that does so. There are some human beings that do not operate in this way and so are 'abnormal' in their economic practices.

Here there is no idea of conformity to nature being expressed, and many other examples could be given without resorting to empty sophistry.

I don't really think that 'normal' usually equates to 'natural' in most cases.

EDIT: hmm. so you assert that "abnormal" does not conotate "unnatural", but "normal" conotates "natural"... I'll have to think about that for a while...

I understand and follow the way you are explaining the Judaeo-Christian argument, but nowhere is there a connection between "abhorrent to God" and "unnatural".

Merely drawing a simple connection between "natural" and "God's Will" doesn't work, because that would mean that such miracles as the resurrection/feeding of the 5000/whatever then fall into the category "natural", as they were caused by the Will of God, and so cease to be miracles... if you follow me.

For what it's worth, I was trying to characterize the argument as it usually gets put to me while also implying that I reject it. The argument is mainly that God wouldn't create something as "natural" that He also finds abhorrent. It seems to me that the original question was for those reasons because it also asked about homosexuality being "wrong" in the same breath. The disconnect is when people can't believe that something that is "natural" is also "wrong". Part of my argument also certainly belies my own prejudices; any reason that I can imagine someone having a visceral reaction that homosexuality is "wrong" has to be tied to "faith" rather than rationality. People then want the visceral reaction to be justified rationally. It's more difficult to reconcile how homosexuality could be both natural and wrong at the same time than it is to simply assert that homosexuality is unnatural.

The reason that I feel that it has to be tied to the Will of God (or, more accurately, the defense by Christians of their understanding of the Will of God) is that the reaction to homosexuality is SO powerful. I could understand "don't be gay because then I won't have grandchildren," but it's generally more like "don't be gay or you'll BURN WITH THE UNWED MOTHERS IN HELL!"

A statistician? Throughout the world the majority of relationships/partnerships are heterosexual, therefore they are by definition 'normal', any minority forms of relationship/partnership are by definition 'abnormal'.

Of course, if most relationships/partnerships were between same-sex couples, then the reverse would be true.

My point being - "abnormal" doesn't carry an ethical value, it is merely a statement describing a deviation* from the norm.

While I agree about heterosexual relationships being in the majority, and homosexual relationships being in the minority, I think your use of the words 'normal' and 'abnormal' is somewhat misguided. According to Princeton's Wordnet, abnormality is

"adj 1: not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm"

No definition I have ever seen equates normal/abnormal with majority/minority. Just because something is in the majority, does not always mean it is the 'norm'. Take for instance individual countries - is a white Jamaican abnormal simply because he/she is in the minority? No, he/she is merely a variant, as are homosexuals in heterosexual cultures. In Ancient Greece, it is now thought heterosexuals were in the minority (one of the few instances in known history) - does that make heterosexual citizens of Ancient Greece abnormal? Again, no. In Ancient Greece homo and hetero sexuality were variants of human sexuality, in same way that it is today, only the majority/minority is reversed.

Regarding your use of the word 'deviation' the definition of 'deviant' is (also from Wordnet)

"adj : markedly different from an accepted norm"

Just because something is accepted as the 'norm' does not make it right, natural or even in the majority. Normal and abnormal are very emotional terms with so many moral and ethical associations I don't think they have any place in the discussion of homosexuality. I am also autistic, and the two terms are avoided, because autism is not abnormal, it is merely the posession of a brain that works differently to the vast majority of people on this planet.

Analgesica

PS "Love, and do what you like" St Augustine

I think your use of the words 'normal' and 'abnormal' is somewhat misguided. According to Princeton's Wordnet, abnormality is

"adj 1: not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm"



Why don't you follow through and look up the definition of 'norm' if we are going to start throwing dictionary definitions at each other?

norm n. 1 standard, pattern, or type. 2 standard amount of work etc. 3 customary behaviour etc. [Latin norma carpenter's square]

There is no ethical implication.

I didn't think you were lying. Far more likely you just accept, blanket or ignore everyday activities that lean towards a homo-sexual inclination.

You jumped straight back in to the penetration thing again... "fantasised about popping them one"... but homosexuality isn't just about sex.

I'm not of the camp that believes that all transvestites are gay, or that if you like shopping you're gay (but, apparently some people DO believe that stuff). But, it is quite possible that there aspects of your personality that are of 'homosexual' nature. Like my 'hero worship' example.

To be totally honest - I don't believe in 22% homosexual tendencies either. I don't really think anyone is "totally straight" or "totally gay". I think even the straightest individual can have tendencies towards their own gender, and even the gayest individual can have tendencies toward the opposite.
That doesn't mean you sleep with them... or even that you want to.

I guess it's like statistics. I guess - you like the people you like, but there's always the chance that that perfect someone will come along...

OK, so I can have homosexual tendencies without having sexual or romantic feelings towards men...hmmm...OK...

And apparently admiration for anyone of the same sex is some form of homosexual tendancy also? Silly me, I thought I admired them for their status or achievements...

Sorry, I'm afraid I have to disagree with both of those points. I'm certain there are people out there with both homo- and hetero- tendencies...I believe they may be called bisexual? ;)

I can't vouch for others, but personally I have felt no sexual or romantic feelings towards another man. Unless you class friendship or admiration as some form of sexual or romantic attraction, which I most certainly do not. Starngely enough, I also have female friends who I have neither romantic nor sexual feelings towards! Imagine that!

Hang on, wait, I love male members of my family. That must be those homosexual tendenices shining through...hmmm, but I also love female members of my family...curious...

Sorry, but I think that alleged statistic is a lot of rot...

Why don't you follow through and look up the definition of 'norm' if we are going to start throwing dictionary definitions at each other?



There is no ethical implication.


I never said the ethical implication were official or recognised by most dictionaries - I meant the emotional and moral associations with being normal or abnormal that have evolved as society (especially in western countries) becomes increasingly homogenized.

For what it's worth, I was trying to characterize the argument as it usually gets put to me while also implying that I reject it. The argument is mainly that God wouldn't create something as "natural" that He also finds abhorrent.

I had followed that you were merely stating the argument, instead of endosing it. However, traiditonally God didn't create all things - he created the world and set it in motion after giving us free will - thus we can 'decide' to do things which are 'Abhorrent to god' due to our freewill, but this does not mean they are unnatural.

You know what we need to do? We need to dig up every single argument against homosexuality, make a list, and THEN I can go refute them. With everything coming up piecemeal - it's hard to keep up. Especially when many of the arguments are the same and have already been addressed.

I guess I worded that wrong....it is rising FASTER in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community. This has been reported in many news items. 60 minutes interviewed several homosexual couples last year and they said that they, along with most of their friends had given up on condoms and other forms of protection and resigned themselves to a life with AIDS. Very sad interview really. A completely preventable disease and these men have given up.

Actually, the studies I have seen place the highest rate of acquiring AIDS in straight black females right now. Unfortunately, statistically, they are less likely to convince their partners to wear condoms.

I never said the ethical implication were official or recognised by most dictionaries - I meant the emotional and moral associations with being normal or abnormal that have evolved as society (especially in western countries) becomes increasingly homogenized.

Strange that such a long-standing implication hasn't made it onto the pages of continually updated dictionaries... but I don't really want to argue about dictionary definitions as that always just descends into irritating pedantry. It may be that you believe there is a judgemental overtone automatically attached to the use of the terms 'normal' or 'abnormal' such that the normal is held to be the good, and the abnormal to be the bad, but I do not.

Just because something is accepted as the 'norm' does not make it right, natural or even in the majority.

Could I have an example of a norm which is in the minority?

I am also autistic, and the two terms are avoided, because autism is not abnormal, it is merely the posession of a brain that works differently to the vast majority of people on this planet.

The term does not seem to be avoided by the renowned and scholarly "Jounal of Abnormal Psychology" which is published by the American Psychology Association. This is in no way intended as an attack on you or your condition, by the way, and should not be read as such, but rather an example of 'abnormal' being used without ethical/moral judgement so as to mean 'contrary to the way things work in most cases'.

Homosexuality is not natural b/c it would bie out the population. who ever said that some species survive like that well we aren't that species. myab that species could do it but not humans. and don't tell me about ube babies b/c i think that is jus plain wrong. god meant us to b friutful w/ man and woman, not woman to woman or man to man. homosexuality is WRONG!

homosexuality is WRONG!

Most of your attempt at typing following standard spelling and granmar was also "WRONG!" - this may be due to a decision to be careless on your part, or it may be to do with an actual condition such as dyslexia. Neither of these are ethically wrong or 'unnatural', so why do you claim that homosexuality is?

Your one strand of argument seems to be that if everybody was exclusively homosexual, then the human race would die out. Why is this ethically wrong in the great scheme of things? Was it ethically wrong when the dinosaurs got wiped out?

Care to explain why test-tube babies (assuming that that is what you mean by 'ube babies') is 'jus plain wrong'? Are heterosexual couples that seek fertility treatment also 'jus plain wrong'?

(Not just a spelling flame, as such)

Homosexuality is not natural b/c it would bie out the population. who ever said that some species survive like that well we aren't that species. myab that species could do it but not humans. and don't tell me about ube babies b/c i think that is jus plain wrong. god meant us to b friutful w/ man and woman, not woman to woman or man to man. homosexuality is WRONG!

There are over 6 billion humans on the planet at this very moment. So far the biggest destroyers of human life have been war and disease. Somehow, sexual orientation has little to do with the fact that we have grown in population since the Biblical days.

The human species is quite well off with a few homosexuals in it and can survive quite well.

I guess I worded that wrong....it is rising FASTER in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community. This has been reported in many news items.

actually, you are totally wrong on that count. the fastest growing demographic for AIDS infection in the United States is young black heterosexual women. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that "Sisters" account for more than half of the new HIV infections among women.

in Europe, the fastest growing group of infectees is heterosexual men under 30, with heterosexual women being the next fastest.

in Africa, women are more likely to have AIDS than men period, regardless of sexual orientation. among young people (15-24) this ratio is as much as 2.5:1. women are contracting AIDS much more quickly than men because of misinformation telling people that condoms don't protect against HIV, or that condoms are laced with HIV, leading men with HIV to avoid using condoms with their wives. since young women are usually married off to older, more sexually experienced men, such women are contracting AIDS at alarming rates.

in Asia, the WHO reports that young, married women are the fastest growing group of infectees, due to the fact that marital infidelity is pretty much just expect on the part of the man. women are expected to be virgins when they wed, and thus have limited sexual experience and don't know to insist on condoms. one spokesperson at an AIDS treatment center said, “More than 90 percent of the HIV cases that we have been providing assistance to…are infected by their partners or husbands."

Most of your attempt at typing following standard spelling and granmar was also "WRONG!" - this may be due to a decision to be careless on your part, or it may be to do with an actual condition such as dyslexia. Neither of these are ethically wrong or 'unnatural', so why do you claim that homosexuality is?

Your one strand of argument seems to be that if everybody was exclusively homosexual, then the human race would die out. Why is this ethically wrong in the great scheme of things? Was it ethically wrong when the dinosaurs got wiped out?

Care to explain why test-tube babies (assuming that that is what you mean by 'ube babies') is 'jus plain wrong'? Are heterosexual couples that seek fertility treatment also 'jus plain wrong'?

(Not just a spelling flame, as such)


Yes, humans need to die out.
Their bad for the environement.

You know what we need to do? We need to dig up every single argument against homosexuality, make a list, and THEN I can go refute them. With everything coming up piecemeal - it's hard to keep up. Especially when many of the arguments are the same and have already been addressed.

why dont you dig it up and refute it, then i can argue against your logic. start a new thread, stop being lazy

thats what studies over long term periods do. read one! when you follow a large group of people for 20-30 years or even 10-15 you can trace and identify certain traits which are linked to homosexuals.I don't know if I still buy that. I don't think that all homosexuals have certain traits and things that they do than people of other sexualities. They may be more inclined to things, sure, but I don't think you can say that all homosexuals will have this trait, and show signs of it at an early age. I don't know if I even like the idea of saying that HAVING this trait at an early age is a precursor to being gay.

I don't think I really agree with this - it is currently 'normal' for human beings to sell their labour in exchange for abstract tokens which allow them to carry out exchanges for goods or services, but we are the only species that does so. There are some human beings that do not operate in this way and so are 'abnormal' in their economic practices.

Here there is no idea of conformity to nature being expressed, and many other examples could be given without resorting to empty sophistry.

I don't really think that 'normal' usually equates to 'natural' in most cases.

EDIT: hmm. so you assert that "abnormal" does not conotate "unnatural", but "normal" conotates "natural"... I'll have to think about that for a while...


ok so i got a little lost in all this. and i see your point. I think that the words can be twisted. I agreed to what you said that abnormal bears no ethical value, its just a descriptive word, and its just that, a word. i guess to a certain extent abnormal can be both natural and unnatural. but personally i prefer not to think in those terms because they are usually heavily biased. I also think that in this argument its not particularly pertinent, i think what i had been talking about refers to a more biological level. but i see how my previously stated argument could be wrong.

thanks

I don't know if I still buy that. I don't think that all homosexuals have certain traits and things that they do than people of other sexualities. They may be more inclined to things, sure, but I don't think you can say that all homosexuals will have this trait, and show signs of it at an early age. I don't know if I even like the idea of saying that HAVING this trait at an early age is a precursor to being gay.

nothing can be generalized to ALL people! I NEVER said that. but when you have a large body of evidence the appropriate conclusions can be stated with more certainty. Stop speculating and read any large longitudinal study.

I don't know if I still buy that. I don't think that all homosexuals have certain traits and things that they do than people of other sexualities. They may be more inclined to things, sure, but I don't think you can say that all homosexuals will have this trait, and show signs of it at an early age. I don't know if I even like the idea of saying that HAVING this trait at an early age is a precursor to being gay.

You are right, for the most part. It's impossible to say "all will have this, this, and this" at the moment.

Human sexuality (not just homosexuality) lies on a scale more than clear-cut gay, straight, and bi, and it may actually change throughout the person's lifetime.

But in our never-ending quest to find rhyme and reason to the world, scientists have studied children and found that some do seem to have tendencies that lean significantly to one side or the other. It's not exactly a checklist of things, but "signs" that indicate a leaning.

You're simply dismissing them out of hand. These studies analyse behaviour which indicates homosexual behaviour. Anyway, follow someone's progress up to 15 and they'll usually tell you if they're gay or not. If you're maintaining this isn't enough, surely the studies under report homosexuality?

nothing can be generalized to ALL people! I NEVER said that. but when you have a large body of evidence the appropriate conclusions can be stated with more certainty. Stop speculating and read any large longitudinal study.Is it possible for you to end a statement without a condescending command? People might be more willing to listen to you then. Thanks.

You're simply dismissing them out of hand. These studies analyse behaviour which indicates homosexual behaviour. Anyway, follow someone's progress up to 15 and they'll usually tell you if they're gay or not. If you're maintaining this isn't enough, surely the studies under report homosexuality?I'm not dismissing them. I want to know what they are, and if it really applies to people. I'd love to know what traits I've been displaying since I was 5 that indicated I was going to go over and play for the other team. If you have any links, I'd be happy to read them. I'm not comfortable with the idea that I've been displaying homosexual patterns for most of my life, and that other gays are identifiable at that age too. I think there's more to it than that.

Is it possible for you to end a statement without a condescending command? People might be more willing to listen to you then. Thanks.

fine fine fine FINE!!! This thread just hits close to home, and i am just getting aggraveted by certain people. Im sorry i am being a b*tch. i was on a roll

I'm not dismissing them. I want to know what they are, and if it really applies to people. I'd love to know what traits I've been displaying since I was 5 that indicated I was going to go over and play for the other team. If you have any links, I'd be happy to read them. I'm not comfortable with the idea that I've been displaying homosexual patterns for most of my life, and that other gays are identifiable at that age too. I think there's more to it than that.

Ok most of these studies i have read in scientific journals, thus i cant provide a link as most of them you have to pay for to get access (Thankfully i go to college :) ) but one of the signs, is boys who play with dolls. It's true, but its a linkable trait. HOWEVER, let me issue a warning, taking dolls away from boys will NOT make them not gay if thats what they will turn out as. By giving boys dolls to play with, you won't make the child gay either. there are also MANY environmental factors. I have seen it first hand. The diathesis-stress model explains this quite well.

fine fine fine FINE!!! This thread just hits close to home, and i am just getting aggraveted by certain people. Im sorry i am being a b*tch. i was on a rollIt's alright, I understand your feelings on the matter. But getting angry isn't going to make anyone listen any better, and I think you have a lot of good things to say, so I'd like to get as many people to listen you as possible. :)

if it wasn'y natural , it wouldn't exist . anywaz i don't hear any blokes complaining about lesbiens

Look i dont care what you say, it is a nastty whoredom, and no I dont think its natural

I'm not dismissing them. I want to know what they are, and if it really applies to people. I'd love to know what traits I've been displaying since I was 5 that indicated I was going to go over and play for the other team. If you have any links, I'd be happy to read them. I'm not comfortable with the idea that I've been displaying homosexual patterns for most of my life, and that other gays are identifiable at that age too. I think there's more to it than that.

First, you have to understand that those studies can't be applied to everyone. You might not have exhibited any traits that scientists would consider indicators. I'm pretty sure I didn't until high school.

I think most of what they look for is who you interact with and how. From my experience, most blatantly/comfortable gay males tend to be drawn towards the female gender. They tend to act more feminine i.e. talk about things rather than get physical, tend to join the more feminine activities (gymnastics, swimming, choir). Note this is my personal experience because I haven't been able to find anything to link to.

Look i dont care what you say, it is a nastty whoredom, and no I dont think its natural

You can always tell the unreasonable people apart.

Look i dont care what you say, it is a nastty whoredom, and no I dont think its naturalWow, what a mature, thoughtful diatribe on the thought. Gay people are not any more promisucuous than straight people. Sorry. I have no idea why you're so rabidly against it.

It's alright, I understand your feelings on the matter. But getting angry isn't going to make anyone listen any better, and I think you have a lot of good things to say, so I'd like to get as many people to listen you as possible. :)

*Blush*

Look i dont care what you say, it is a nastty whoredom, and no I dont think its natural

why should we care what you have to say since you wont care to listen to anyone who doesnt agree with you. do us all a favor either come back with personally unbiased evidence or leave

a nasty whoredom? haha. really, that's just charming.

y'all can think whatever you want about homosexuality. as it's been around for, well, let's just say awhile, i see no reason to believe it's just gonna die out.

it used to be unnatural for women to be considered the equals of men. it used to be unnatural for minorities to be considered the equals of whites. hate to break it to y'all, but general acceptance of homosexuality is inevitable, no matter how hateful you are in your speech against them till the day you die.

that's all i have to say on this subject.

Why does this subject always come up everywhere I go? It just ends up pointless and hurting people's feelings. *sigh* Well here is my two-cents. I voted for natural. It may not have been at the beginning of time because two of the same sex couldn't mate-but as the human race grew and evolved so did our way of thinking. The gay folks are a minorities and I doubt anybody wants to be gay, it just happens and they got to live with it. So everyone else needs to live with it and stop trying to ban it. Sheesh.

who ever said that some species survive like that well we aren't that species. myab that species could do it but not humans. and don't tell me about ube babies b/c i think that is jus plain wrong.

well, it's a fact that the human spieces could survive due to just have sexual relations to breed a future generation or make them in labratories and other then that, every human would be 100% homosexual. Even if you think it is wrong it hardly changes that fact.

it used to be unnatural for women to be considered the equals of men. it used to be unnatural for minorities to be considered the equals of whites. hate to break it to y'all, but general acceptance of homosexuality is inevitable, no matter how hateful you are in your speech against them till the day you die.

that's all i have to say on this subject.

the only problem is that some still havent accepted women as equals to men nor minority races as equals to whites. the problem with this issue is that you arent dealing with a huge % of the population. I dont know the statistics on minorities but i do know when at least 1/2 the country (the female half anyway) is trying and lobbying for acceptance its a different story. There is a lot more money and personal interests involved. as opposed to the gay issue. it makes me feel rather hopeless sometimes.

it is a nastty whoredom


A 'nastty whoredom'? You are Geoffrey Chaucer, sending us a message through a time-modem from the 14th century, and I claim my £5.

Look i dont care what you say, it is a nastty whoredom, and no I dont think its natural
Ha, ha :p You really are simple-minded, now aren't you? That is one of the dumbest statements I've seen in a couple of minutes. 'nastty whoredom'? Neither of those words are even in the dictonary. Aye, but I respect your opinion as I'm not a one to scream at people with a different opinion from mine... because well I don't want them screaming at me.

Look i dont care what you say, it is a nastty whoredom, and no I dont think its natural

Look, I don't care what you say, you can't spell, punctuate or capitalize correctly.

See, everyone has their own opinions about what's important.

Look i dont care what you say, it is a nastty whoredom, and no I dont think its natural

No, actully, it isn't. It's just your opinion. My opinion are that it isn't. Can you prove yourself right? Then, do so and then say it is. If you can't, then add "imo" or something to the statement.

You can always tell the unreasonable people apart.

How? Well, the low (sub-5 even) postcounts are a hint. For some reason, they never last long.

the only problem is that some still havent accepted women as equals to men nor minority races as equals to whites. the problem with this issue is that you arent dealing with a huge % of the population. I dont know the statistics on minorities but i do know when at least 1/2 the country (the female half anyway) is trying and lobbying for acceptance its a different story. There is a lot more money and personal interests involved. as opposed to the gay issue. it makes me feel rather hopeless sometimes.

Well, actually I think that the gays and lesbians make up for about 10% of the whole population. I think that number comes back in most western countries if not all, no matter if they are really influented by some religion or not. And 10% is quite a few. I don't think there are that many things that ties people together and get over 10%. Sadly, it seams like in some parts beeing anti-gay get over 10%. Or they have more power/influense then they should.

Look, I don't care what you say, you can't spell, punctuate or capitalize correctly.

(S)He does have a certain creative flair when it comes to language though - I have to admit that I quite like the phrase "nastty whoredom", and am currently fighting the temptation to spam the forum with the sentence "it is a nastty whoredom" in response to everything with which I disagree.

(S)He does have a certain creative flair when it comes to language though - I have to admit that I quite like the phrase "nastty whoredom".

Well, given, but I thought this whole thread was about punishing non-conformity. And I have to ask: Is there any such thing as "not so nastty whoredom?" I mean, from a conceptual level, whoredom is generally pretty nastty.

And I have to ask: Is there any such thing as "not so nastty whoredom?" I mean, from a conceptual level, whoredom is generally pretty nastty.

The "nastty" could be there as emphasis, rather than just as tautology.

"natural" is one of those nasty words with such a vague definition that it really ought to be avoided in proper philosophy.

is homosexuality "natural"?

do you mean "does it occur in nature?" for which the answer is a resounding yes.

do you mean "is it normal?" for which the answer is, not for everyone, but for some.

do you mean "is it moral/legal/justifyable/good?" for which the answers are, it depends on your morality, it depends on where you are, as long as it is between consenting mature individuals, and... i don't want to have sex with a man, but i suspect that gay men enjoy homosexuality as much as i enjoy heterosexuality.

so avoid "natural" in the future, ok?

Well, if we take natural to mean inherent - not caused by an outside interference, then we can look for an answer.

Natural to a person - yes, if they were not somehow "programmed" to be gay (v. unlikely)

Natural to humanity - yes, unless gays are nonhumans introduced into human society (equally unlikely)

The "nastty" could be there as emphasis, rather than just as tautology.

Hmm, I hadn't considered that. So, if something is really, really nasty, you can incert a pseudo-italianate double T for added emphasis with a slight frickative pause in the same place to indicate said emphasis in speech?

Cooll.

Strange that such a long-standing implication hasn't made it onto the pages of continually updated dictionaries... but I don't really want to argue about dictionary definitions as that always just descends into irritating pedantry. It may be that you believe there is a judgemental overtone automatically attached to the use of the terms 'normal' or 'abnormal' such that the normal is held to be the good, and the abnormal to be the bad, but I do not.

I should point out now that I'm in the UK, not America, and abnormal has incredibly judgemental overtones here - not too far from the (even worse in my opinion) 'subnormal' in fact. It is an insult that is thrown around at schoolkid level and is often coupled with 'freak' in my own personal experience (which being gay, autistic, labelled 'hyper-intelligent' and at the time considerably overweight are somewhat more intense than those of most people).


Could I have an example of a norm which is in the minority?

Depends on what you consider the 'norm' in a situation. If you percieve being healthy as a 'norm' then that 'norm' is in the minority in a fair amount of Africa as a result of AIDS, which by the way is declining in gay men and increasing in straight men and women. In 2000 49% of AIDS cases were homosexual, whereas 51% were heterosexual, just to clear that up (I think that's from the World Health Organisation, but don't quote me on it)


The term does not seem to be avoided by the renowned and scholarly "Jounal of Abnormal Psychology" which is published by the American Psychology Association. This is in no way intended as an attack on you or your condition, by the way, and should not be read as such, but rather an example of 'abnormal' being used without ethical/moral judgement so as to mean 'contrary to the way things work in most cases'.

See my first point. The term accepted by the Autistic community in the UK(including scientists studying autism, pyschiatrists such as the one that diagnosed me, as well as people on various places on the autistic spectrum) is 'neurologically typical' (NT) and normal/abnormal are avoided like the proverbial plague, because of the connotations those words have in this country. This is not something I believe in isolation; there are numerous UK written books on the subject, such M. Stanton, L. Wing etc and they advocate the use of NT/autistic above normal/abnormal.

Analgesica

I understand and follow the way you are explaining the Judaeo-Christian argument, but nowhere is there a connection between "abhorrent to God" and "unnatural".

Actually, I think it's just the interchangeability of the language/difference in translations. I'm pretty sure that the word "unnatural" is, in some texts, used in place of "detestible" - "it is an abomination" is also used.

If not, then it's likely an offshoot of the story of Sodom and the "unnatural urges" that the people were given over to. Either way, it is, indeed, a crappy argument that's been debunked numerous times. It's astounding how ignorant people are in this day and age. For some, it must take a great deal of effort.

Heres a question. Using my bad knowledge of genetics, surely the genes come from the mum and dad. Now, 23 chromosones from each parent. Here is the question, How can someones child be homosexual, if there is no record of anyone directly related to the child being gay, the gene cant just appear. It could be a mutation in one or two people, but millions of people around the world are gay, so it cant be purley genetic.
Ok, good luck if you understand that.

Next thing.
I think people have their own ideas of the meaning natural and so for one person to say it is unnatural is not enough, they must explain why and what their definition is.

Heres a question. Using my bad knowledge of genetics, surely the genes come from the mum and dad. Now, 23 chromosones from each parent. Here is the question, How can someones child be homosexual, if there is no record of anyone directly related to the child being gay, the gene cant just appear. It could be a mutation in one or two people, but millions of people around the world are gay, so it cant be purley genetic.
Ok, good luck if you understand that.

The same way a red head is born. Even if homosexuality has a partial basis in genetic determination, it's not like there's one gene coding for one protien that makes someone homosexual. There's an obvious cascade going on and, as sexuality seems to operate on a sort of bell curve distribution, this would suggest that any genetic relationship that exists is not an "either/or" dominant/recessive expression, but a partial dominance. It may be that basic sexual attraction is caused by the progress of genetic expression through this cascade. If, during development or whenever the cascade is initiated, it completely expresses, pehaps that would be the "pure heterosexual" and one's attraction for the same sex depends on where the cascade stops in expression. Please note, I'm not making a value judgement here or implying that, if this is indeed how it works, incomplete expression in any way implies "incorrect" expression.

It is incorrect, however, to label it a "mutation", from a strictly genetic point of view, even if the parents can trace their genetic history back, conclusively, to the dawn of time and show, again conclusively, that there has never been a homosexual in either of their gene lines.

Yeah, having one single gay gene as the sole cause is logically unfeasible, since numbers would then drop with each generation, since a lower proportion of homosexuals are going to breed.

However, if some genes cause a level of pre-disposition, like some people are pre-disposed to being intelligent or developing breast cancer, that makes more sense. Now, there's evidence that hormonal imbalances in the womb have the most dramatic effect, since this helps determines brain structure in a big way, and since sexuality is bit pliant(Not from pole to pole, but there's a little lee-way) environment probably has an influence. But there's no evidence of much, or any, significant shift after early childhood, the causes are pretty much irrelivent.

*Streaks into thread*
*Stops and starts doing jumping jacks*
1, 2, 3, yes
1, 2, 3, yes
1, 2, 3, yes
1, 2, 3, yes
1, 2, 3, yes
1, 2, 3, yes
1, 2, 3, yes
1, 2, 3, yes
1, 2, 3, yes
1, 2, 3, yes
*Streaks back out*

Without reading all this bullshit, I'll just post some examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

As reported on Switzerland's major news website, a homosexual flamingo pair remained partners for life in a Zurich zoo.
As reported in Yahoo! News:
In a colony of wild macaque monkeys in Japan, female same-sex partners rejected the pursuits of males in favor of their existing partner 92.5% of the time.


As reported in BBC News:
Studies show that between 6 and 10% of rams are attracted to males rather than females.


From SouthBank University (UK) website:
In Bruce Bagemihl's book "Biological Exuberance," he's found through looking at the research of other scientists that at least 1 in 20 pairs of humboldt penguins are homosexual. He's also found that among king penguins, "some birds show a preference for same-sex mates even when unpaired birds of the opposite sex are available."


On the Columbia University website, it mentions a male homosexual penguin couple in a New York aquarium who have been a couple for 8 years, and haven't been with anyone else. It also mentions that in a New York zoo, zookeepers tried to forcefully separate 4 pairs of male homosexual penguins in order for them to breed. Only of the 8 bonded with a female, the rest went back to same sex relationships, not necessarily with the same partner.


About 98% of bonobo apes, humans' closet relative, are bisexual. That is, they have sexual relations with both sexes.

*Streaks back into thread*

By the way, homosexuality is more natural than wearing clothes

*Streaks back out again*

Without reading all this bullshit, I'll just post some examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.


Very charitable of you to grace us with your presence and to assume that we are automatically talking bullshit. So, if you can't be arsed hearing what we have to say (which happenstance is probably in agreement with your position, as discussion is now focused on the meaning (both semantic & philosophical) of natural/unnatural, rather than any moral judgement on homosexuality)... why the hell should we be interested in what you have to say?

I'm not completely certain I want to see anyone named "Crabcake Baba Ganoush" naked...

I'm not completely certain I want to see anyone named "Crabcake Baba Ganoush" naked...

*Streaks back into thread*
*Does the Humpty Dance*
*Streaks back out*

rofl humpty dance

Very charitable of you to grace us with your presence and to assume that we are automatically talking bullshit. So, if you can't be arsed hearing what we have to say (which happenstance is probably in agreement with your position, as discussion is now focused on the meaning (both semantic & philosophical) of natural/unnatural, rather than any moral judgement on homosexuality)... why the hell should we be interested in what you have to soy?

I tried reading it, and what I read was bullshit. :)

I've only read the last page of this whole 32 page arguement because I'm on vacation and thus get to access a computer for about an hour at random points (usually every three or four days) during my relaxing, but here's "things you would have learned in school, had you been paying attention."

Two of Darwin's observations on species are that
A: there is a tendency towards over-reproduction. This means that, most species produce many more young than survive to adulthood (reproductive age).
B: Population sizes tend to remain stable.

He also noticed that the human population has increased exponentially throughout time.

About 100 years later, we put these three points into more complicated terms with "Q and R factors," or amount of offspring (Q) and amount of care per offspring (R). An increase in one leads to a decrease in the other. Insects and other "lower animals" tend to express a massive Q factor, making thousands or millions of eggs, fertilizing them, and then more or less abandoning them. Most mammals express a higher R factor, having one kid at a time, at least on parent caring for the offspring until they can care for themselves, and reaching menopause one generation before natural death. Humans, who have expanded faster than anything else, tend to have both parents care for them until well into reproductive maturity, often until the children have children of their own to deal with.

And, non-reproductive partners, involved in a relationship, means that you would have a third parent. Another overseer to take care of the offspring, giving it at least half again the chance of surviving until adulthood. As long as homosexuality is a minority, it increases the overall reproductive ability. This is called "the uncle effect," as it is most advantageous to the genes to protect something containing copies of themselves. There's also some deal of "reproductive altruism," which means the exact same thing but sounds a lot more technical.

The existence of this decreases the Q (fewer babies) while increasing R (more parental care per child), but, as I said, as long as it's a minority (less than or equal 1/3rd the population being exclusively homosexual), it's helpful biologically.

If anyone wants to argue with this, see you on the 5th.

As for Doujin's animals, you forget C. Uniparens, the species of lizards existing entirely of lesbians. Which has absolutely no bearing on this subject, but is very entertaining nontheless.


This whole arguement suddenly became clear one day when someone arguing a strawman said "Fine! You want me to say I'm forcing gay marriage on everyone? That's it, I really believe that all existing marraiges should have one man added to them immediately."
I admit I'm not a genius with biology, but this is pretty damned obvious, folks.

I am a Christian but I find that it is naural simply because I don't think many sane people who choose to live such a controvesial, ridiculed lifestyle if there was no reward. No, people are born gay, hetro or bi and they can try to be others but in the end, they have natural urges that bring them back to what they were born like. I'm hetrosexual and that feels normal to me, so why should being homosexual feel any different. Also, you can't compare animals who do what they need to to survive to humans, who do plenty of things that don't help them survive at all and infact may impare them.

It is natural but not common. There is other species that do mate within the same gender and when a human begins to form it starts out as a female and there may be genes intercrossed between the evolution of the embryo. It's not 'unatural' and it can't be 'cured'. Don't listen to the religous bullshit and do it if you want to.

I have made a conclusion during this thread. First I thought examples from other animals was a great proof of it beeing natural. But now, I can't say that I think so. Cause to my knowledge we can't meassure if the animals are sexually atracted to opposite gender only, same gender only or both genders. As I see it, homosexuality is the urge to have sex with someone of the same gender and not feel this urge towards the opposite gender, not to have sex with the same gender and only the same gender. I mean, did i have to have sex with a girl before I could say I was heterosexual?

I personally dont believe genes have anything to do with it, but that's my opinion... (and you know what they say about opinions.. they are just like arseholes.. everyone has one, and they usually stink)

I have my own theory on homosexuality. (Being heterosexual you can take my theory with a grain of salt) Scientists have attempted to determine what "turn's a woman on" by studing brain wave patterns via cat scans and comparing them to a mans brain wave pattern when a man was in an obvious state of arousal. They determined what caused the same patterns in women was intimate conversation.. i.e. actually listening to the woman and making her the center of your attention. Now, who better at that than another woman?.. I know as a man, I suck at this.. at least that's what my wife tells me.

Now, as for male homosexuality... Im still working on that theory... maybe in about 20 years ;)


Think about what turns a man on, and think about how good/bad women are at it.

I am a Christian but I find that it is naural simply because I don't think many sane people who choose to live such a controvesial, ridiculed lifestyle if there was no reward. No, people are born gay, hetro or bi and they can try to be others but in the end, they have natural urges that bring them back to what they were born like. I'm hetrosexual and that feels normal to me, so why should being homosexual feel any different. Also, you can't compare animals who do what they need to to survive to humans, who do plenty of things that don't help them survive at all and infact may impare them.
you seem to have a clue, i've had people tell me ALL the gay peopleare being gay to make a statement like martin luther king jr or gandi, that made me want to beat some one with a baseball bat, that msut be one hell ofa cause that millions of peolle are turning gay to work for it

Think about what turns a man on, and think about how good/bad women are at it.
Although I never had sex with a woman (I am male), I think men are better at sex with other men due to the fact that I know my body and what makes it feel good, so I also know what another man needs to feel good. I know where to manipulate to make it feel great, considering that another man is anatomically identical, I know what to do to him to make him feel like he is in sexual heaven :)

Women on the other hand might know better what other women need to feel good. A lesbian woman might be able to answer that.

Although men are sexually more active than women, it is still unfortunate that most dont even experiment, which makes me believe that sexuality is pre-determined. Otherwise, men who try homosexual sex, might find out that it is actually great and reconsider or "chose" to be bisexual. On the other hand, men that actually try homosexual and heterosexual sex may be classified as bisexual from the beginning. Sexuality is a weird thing and as long as there is no way to find out what sexual preference very young children have (if any), it wont be possible to say whether or not it is pre-determined before birth or influenced by the environment and personal experiences.

I have made a conclusion during this thread. First I thought examples from other animals was a great proof of it beeing natural. But now, I can't say that I think so. Cause to my knowledge we can't meassure if the animals are sexually atracted to opposite gender only, same gender only or both genders. As I see it, homosexuality is the urge to have sex with someone of the same gender and not feel this urge towards the opposite gender, not to have sex with the same gender and only the same gender. I mean, did i have to have sex with a girl before I could say I was heterosexual?

There have been animals that scientists have been found to *only* approach same sex partners for sex. And in dolphins, there are never life-long sexual bonds between opposite genders, but there are between two males.

However, the vast majority of the sexual behavior that has been well-characterized is bisexual.

To me, this doesn't make a difference in how I feel about the whole issue because I believe that human sexuality exists on a spectrum, rather than on a one or the other distribution. I think that human beings are inherently attracted to other human beings and through hormonal signals and other cues, we often find ourselves more attracted to one gender or the other. Some people are 99.9% attracted to either the same sex, so that we call them homosexual, or the opposite sex, so that we call them heterosexual. Others are 90:10% or even 50:50%.

Personally, I am mostly heterosexual and am currrently in a long term relationship with a guy. However, I have found myself attracted to some girls in the past. I don't view this as *unnatural* because it felt perfectly natural to me. And I don't view it as against my religion because, well, I believe that my God wants people to find lasting love with another person, and I don't think God cares which gender that love is with. ::shrug::

I have made a conclusion during this thread. First I thought examples from other animals was a great proof of it beeing natural. But now, I can't say that I think so. Cause to my knowledge we can't meassure if the animals are sexually atracted to opposite gender only, same gender only or both genders. As I see it, homosexuality is the urge to have sex with someone of the same gender and not feel this urge towards the opposite gender, not to have sex with the same gender and only the same gender. I mean, did i have to have sex with a girl before I could say I was heterosexual?

Okay, I have a question. Not being confrontational. Do you mean to suggest that bisexuality is the ground state, the uncollapsed waveform of possibility and that, by choosing a single sexual partner, regardless of urges one might feel later, this choice dictates one's sexuality throughout the rest of one's life?

There have been animals that scientists have been found to *only* approach same sex partners for sex. And in dolphins, there are never life-long sexual bonds between opposite genders, but there are between two males.

A recent experiment I read about on Slashdot of all places, even claims to have been able to reproduce the emotion "love" in...er, I think it was lab rats, but it may have been a different species of similar complexity. Their definition of love was basic in the sense that they could manipulate the subject's choice of long-term sexual partner. I need to do some digging and see if I can find that experiment again.

OK, maybe slightly offtopic, but can someone explain this to me: if sexuality is determined genetically, why is homosexuality called a "lifestyle choice"? Is it a misnomer?

OK, maybe slightly offtopic, but can someone explain this to me: if sexuality is determined genetically, why is homosexuality called a "lifestyle choice"? Is it a misnomer?
Its a term used by ill-informed fundamentalists who refuse to accept the possibility that one's sexuality is not a choice.

New Furbaria, it is often a genetic mutation that causes homosexuality. It can though be chosen as a lifestlye choice.

Homosexuality is a genetic mutation that occurs in nature. Why it happens is chance that a gene will be mutated to cause a chemical imbalance which makes a creature attracted to the same sex.

OK, maybe slightly offtopic, but can someone explain this to me: if sexuality is determined genetically, why is homosexuality called a "lifestyle choice"? Is it a misnomer?


Ahem...

Here's why "lifestyle choice" is thrown around, esp. by the religious right.

life·style also life-style or life style ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lfstl)
n.

A way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group: “It was a millionaire's lifestyle on the pocketbook of a hairdresser” (People).

Usage Note: When lifestyle became popular a generation ago, a number of critics objected to it as voguish and superficial, perhaps because it appeared to elevate habits of consumption, dress, and recreation to categories in a system of social classification. Nonetheless, the word has proved durable and useful, if only because such categories do in fact figure importantly in the schemes that Americans commonly invoke when explaining social values and behavior, as in Rachel Brownstein's remark that “an anticonventional lifestyle is no sure sign of feminist politics, or indeed, of any politics at all.” Fifty-three percent of the Usage Panel accepts the word in Bohemian attitudes toward conventional society have been outstripped and outdated by the lifestyles of millions of young people. An even greater numberfully 70 percentaccepts the word in Salaries in the Bay Area may be higher, but it may cost employees as much as 30 percent more to maintain their lifestyles, where the context requires a term that implies categorization based on habits of consumption.

Any homosexual stimulation can be given by the opposite sex, but we've made it cool to be gay. Now everybody wants that shock value of being a homosexual, it's just attention seeking pathetic people. In time, being a straight will become in and magically all these feelings that can't be explained and that are part of them, will vanish.

Let me take you back a few years:

It's 1992, and the science behind all of this is just starting. Homosexuality is allowed, and is flamboyantly shown in sitcoms everywhere.
Scientist believe that they may be able to find a gene that is present in homosexuals, proving it to be a natural condition from birth.

This idea was easily a latch for the media, and has been taken to heart, but science has yet to actually find this speculative gene.

As for darwin, what do you think he'd say? If all homosexuals were practicing, they would not be able to continue their genetic existance

And don't be Prance and say that Now is the only time that homosexuality has been open. It was openly practiced in ancient times, even before Rome was the center of the world. Some nations encouraged it above a heterosexual relationship. (Sparta is a good example of both)

Now if you ask Fraud, he'd probably give you some bunk theory that doesn't make sense to us, but in the end, he would say that Homosexuality is a mental condition, not a physical one. This one makes much more sense, although it is difficult to prove- since the mental state of one person is always different from the next one.

So there you go. Homosexuality is not physicaly natural

*sets thread on fire*

Runs like hell.

I don't think so. for a species to survive it must mate. Homosexuals would have died out if it were natural. There is nothing different in the chemical or physical homosexual or straight person, there is nothing different in the brain waves. I think it is just a state of mind that people choose.

Then how do you explain homosexuality in animals?

As for darwin, what do you think he'd say? If all homosexuals were practicing, they would not be able to continue their genetic existance
Although Darwin gave us a lot of information. His theories were still lacking quite a bit of information. Hell he didn’t even know about the gene. After all his work was published some time before Mendel published his finding. Even after Mendel published his finding it would take another thirty years before anyone actually started doing anything with it.

New Furbaria, it is often a genetic mutation that causes homosexuality. It can though be chosen as a lifestlye choice.

Homosexuality is a genetic mutation that occurs in nature. Why it happens is chance that a gene will be mutated to cause a chemical imbalance which makes a creature attracted to the same sex.A genetic mutation? Have you been reading this thread? We have had NO proof about any experiement conclusively proving that genes have any relation to homosexuality. The closest we've had is some experiments that might prove that you can track homosexual traits from a young age, and that in itself is a bit sketchy, but nothing has proved that there are specific genes or 'mutations' behind homosexuality.

If you disagree with me, send me some proof about your statement. This thread has had a lot of unfounded statements and generic assumptions, and it's starting to annoy me.

I think that homosexuality is just a function of predisposition and environment. Some people have a predisposition to heart diseases and other conditions, but that doesn not necessarily mean that they will develop it. Likewise, if a person lives in an enviroment where food contibutes negatively to the heart, they might have a bad heart. This whole thing goes to the nature vs. nurture debate. If a person's brain is formed with a certain balance, could it be tipped by certain events in that person's life? These need not be negative, either. Why has this debate been an either/or issue?

Homosexuality could not be a choice, then. I don't understand these ignorant fundamentalists who believe in dinosaurs, and then say that everybody choses a life of eternal damnation.

What does this debate have to do with anything?

and I'll quote Voltaire, "A long dispute means neither side is correct."

For the record, whoever thought that homosexuality is a genetic mutation.... are any gay person's parents gay? no. therefore you're retarded. :sniper:

We are all so ego-involved that we will never achieve concensus.

Any homosexual stimulation can be given by the opposite sex...

Umm, that has to be one of the most ludicrous statements so far. Precisely what is "homosexual stimulation" and whatever it is how could it be performed in an heterosexual encounter to make it definitively homosexual???

Any homosexual stimulation can be given by the opposite sex, but we've made it cool to be gay. Now everybody wants that shock value of being a homosexual, it's just attention seeking pathetic people. In time, being a straight will become in and magically all these feelings that can't be explained and that are part of them, will vanish.Hahaha, that's amusing. You know why? Because that's what happened back in the early 90's and what everyone was saying then. It suddenly became cool to be 'bi'. And that makes more sense to me, because you're not officially changing your orientation, you're just open to experimentation. But still, the whole idea of choosing gay for shock value? That's crap. If I wanted shock value, I could dye my hair, become a goth, pretend to be a satanist, and do a lot of other things. Why would I want the shock value of something to extend into my personal life behind closed doors? Your argument is ridiculous. People wouldn't put up with gay sex for shock value. That makes no sense at all. A lot of people who are gay don't even openly display it or flaunt it, which makes the shock value a completely worthless trait. I think you're way off on your speculation. I think as time goes on, and homosexuality (hopefully) becomes more and more accepted, you'll see more people openly admitting who they really are. But not until a lot of changes in society occur.

Whenever people bring up the argument that homosexuality isn't natural due to evolution, I feel the need to remind that evolution didn't just stop at human beings. It's still going. We aren't perfect. And so you don't get the impression that homosexuality is a gene that needs to be weeded out, I also need to point out that it may be impossible to see the benefits of this gene until we reach some higher level. In other words, homosexuality may very well be benificial to the species, but we just don't see how yet.

Personally, I think that people who try to label homosexuality as unnatural are the same people that tried to blame AIDS on it. They're also the people that want to limit the rights of gays and dykes the same way that they wanted to limit the rights of blacks before the civil righte movement. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.