NationStates Jolt Archive

I have seen, many times, claims that homosexuality is "unnatural". I think this article should give some idea of why those claims are doubted: "Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained" (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996519)

The article is saying that the purpose of the gene that makes men attracted to other men is to make women with the gene have more children.

Edit: This topic is here to draw attention to, and create debate about the aforementioned article. If you don't want to read it, don't post.

Homossexuality is unnatural? O.o Then i should kill my dog, he is a fag. YES! DEATH TO SINFUL GAY DOGS! THROW'EM TO THE STAKE!

(i'm being sarcastic, don't shoot me)

Homosexuality is perfectly natural. There is speculation that it may be a strategic evolutionary mechanism to curb population.

10 to 15 percent of animals studied, both in captivity and in the wild, have displayed homesexual or bisexual tendancies. This number is proportionate to the number of humans who identify themselves as homosexual and bisexual.

...
It isn't natural to stick things up your anus.

It causes damage and ruins the sphincter,
because the poopatorium is DESIGNED to
push objects out...

so YES that would be unnatural.

Homosexuality is perfectly natural. There is speculation that it may be a strategic evolutionary mechanism to curb population.

10 to 15 percent of animals studied, both in captivity and in the wild, have displayed homesexual or bisexual tendancies. This number is proportionate to the number of humans who identify themselves as homosexual and bisexual.

It certainly is common to see animals hump anything,
but human beings have a brain to tell them not to stick
things where they don't belong.

...
It isn't natural to stick things up your anus.

It causes damage and ruins the sphincter,
because the poopatorium is DESIGNED to
push objects out...

so YES that would be unnatural.

Homosexuality is the attraction of a creature to another of the same gender, not anal sex, although homosexuals may engage in this act (but so do some heterosexuals).

...
It isn't natural to stick things up your anus.

It causes damage and ruins the sphincter,
because the poopatorium is DESIGNED to
push objects out...

so YES that would be unnatural.

Please provide your sources that it causes any damage. Also, please account for anal sex in heterosexual couples. Also, did you even read this article? What it gives is scientific evidence that it IS natural.


It certainly is common to see animals hump anything,
but human beings have a brain to tell them not to stick
things where they don't belong.


This isn't a case of "animals humping anything". These are cases of, for example, chimpanzees conciously choosing to attempt to mate with a male when a female of breeding age is available.

Actually, the latest theory is that if it's related to genetics it may account for increased fertility of women with a close gay relative.

What I mean is that if a family member is homosexual, the gene/s which projects this character trait, although responsible for homosexuality in men, makes women more likely to get pregnant. Unless you don't belive it's due to genetics. In which case you probably are unswayed by this and still think gay people should burn for eternity. Eh, your loss, because you'll never know some cool people.

Actually, the latest theory is that if it's related to genetics it may account for increased fertility of women with a close gay relative.

What I mean is that if a family member is homosexual, the gene/s which projects this character trait, although responsible for homosexuality in men, makes women more likely to get pregnant.

Yeah, that's what the article is about.

Yeah, that's what the article is about.

Yup, sorry, didn't read the post. I did read the article, though, which is more than could be said for "Well, uh, stickin stuff in your ass is wrong" up there

Please provide your sources that it causes any damage. Also, please account for anal sex in heterosexual couples. Also, did you even read this article? What it gives is scientific evidence that it IS natural.
Damage to the sphincter is inevitable, as sphincters (in general - the word is just an umbrella term for any ringlike muscle) are designed to be relaxed when required to by the body, not forced open by something else.

I'm not saying homosexual activity is abnormal, or anal sex, but saying anal sex does no damage to the body is misleading at best. It does no serious damage, but a result of too much anal sex can be... umm... 'leakage'. Might not be anything life-threatening, but certainly disoncerting and embarrassing. I've no problem with gay people who are actually gay, the people who annoy me are the people who claim to be bisexual just because they've seen one too many episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I blame that show for the massive amounts of fake Wiccans, too, but that's another story.

Please provide your sources that it causes any damage. Also, please account for anal sex in heterosexual couples. Also, did you even read this article? What it gives is scientific evidence that it IS natural.

This isn't a case of "animals humping anything". These are cases of, for example, chimpanzees conciously choosing to attempt to mate with a male when a female of breeding age is available.

So you are looking for the unnatural agenda that connects
two homosexuals but it can't involve sexual acts? :rolleyes:

Well no matter how good of a response I offer, you will continue to ignore it.
So what if heterosexuals have anal sex? You wanted evidence of unnatural
acts, so I gave you that. You INSIST that the evidence has to involve just
the love & companionship of same sex couples.

You don't know that anal sex causes damage, so I have to prove it? It's
pretty common knowledge, but if you need proof then so go ask your doctor.

The idea of what you call homosexuality in animals is what scientists call
dominating behavior. My dogs do this to one another because their instinct
tells them pin the other for domination, and basically I need to get them fixed.

I'd say the thing that most heterosexuals won't say about their "concerns"
against homosexuality is that the act of it simply makes them physically ill,
and they use religion to validate it.

So you are looking for the unnatural agenda that connects
two homosexuals but it can't involve sexual acts? :rolleyes:

Well no matter how good of a response I offer, you will continue to ignore it.
So what if heterosexuals have anal sex? You wanted evidence of unnatural
acts, so I gave you that. You INSIST that the evidence has to involve just
the love & companionship of same sex couples.

You don't know that anal sex causes damage, so I have to prove it? It's
pretty common knowledge, but if you need proof then so go ask your doctor.

The idea of what you call homosexuality in animals is what scientists call
dominating behavior. My dogs do this to one another because their instinct
tells them pin the other for domination, and basically I need to get them fixed.

I'd say the thing that most heterosexuals won't say about their "concerns"
against homosexuality is that the act of it simply makes them physically ill,
and they use religion to validate it.

Yeah, it does damage, but it's not true that gay men end up wearing nappies. That was made up by the BNP, or similar.

Also, the whole dominance thing? Yeah, your dogs might actually be gay too, you know. Don't discount it. And what about lesbian animals? They can't exactly 'dominate' without an appendage of some sort.

Sukafitz, if you want a topic about the effects of anal sex on health, create a topic on it. My topic that you are posting in, however, is about the attraction of one person to another of the same sex. It is saying that it is natural to the homosexual in question, as it is caused by their genes, not an outside influence. If you want to talk about something different, please do it in a different thread.

I read the article. I also read an article that showed that about 1 in every 10 people are gay or bisexual. I myself am bisexual, but I dont know of any other gay or bi-sexual people in my family to pass the gene on to me.

From a christian perspective, sinning is natural. If one considers that homosexuality is a sin, then that is natural. From a scientific or a religious perspective, homosexuality being unnatural doesn't make any sense.

I read the article. I also read an article that showed that about 1 in every 10 people are gay or bisexual. I myself am bisexual, but I dont know of any other gay or bi-sexual people in my family to pass the gene on to me.

Well gay people wouldn't, for obvious reasons. The article is saying that the purpose of the gene that makes men attracted to other men is to make women with the gene have more children. Do you come from a large family?

From a christian perspective, sinning is natural. If one considers that homosexuality is a sin, then that is natural. From a scientific or a religious perspective, homosexuality being unnatural doesn't make any sense.

Then I have to ask - do you think that something caused by someone's genes, that they cannot control, that doesn't involve a victim* should be considered sinful?

*i.e. stealing is a sin - the victim is the person whose stuff is stolen, murder is a sin - the victim is the person who gets killed, etc.

Just because it is genetic does not neccessarily mean that you can't control it. You may feel the urge to commit a homosexual act, lie, steal, or whatever, that doesn't neccesarily mean that you will follow through. Irregardless, those are simply my thoughts on the matter, also commenting on the strawman argument that homosexuality is unnatural. It just always kind of bugged me in debates when either side used it. :rolleyes:

That's also not to say that nature is more powerful than nurture, but that's a whole different debate. ;)

Yeah, it does damage, but it's not true that gay men end up wearing nappies. That was made up by the BNP, or similar.

Also, the whole dominance thing? Yeah, your dogs might actually be gay too, you know. Don't discount it. And what about lesbian animals? They can't exactly 'dominate' without an appendage of some sort.

I can't see where anyone has done a study
on why older people are wearing diapers.

I think most people understand that dogs (like any animal) will hump
anything. So I'm just not going to provide a debate out of that.

My dogs do hump each other, but they often break free and seek out
females in heat. Females will hump and grind anything too. There's this
little idea about the way animals behave, when they are in heat, which
causes them to act irrationality. This is a significant seperation between
humans and other animals, but some people do out of the ordinary things
when they are horny too.

Unnatural sexual acts can be defined by several more things other than
pointing out homosexual activity. There are circumstances of heterosexuals
engaging in homosexual acts. Psychology will point out that it is very
common amongst young girls & boys, but it doesn't define them after they
mature. I'm sure alot of people in here have done some gay things when
they were young, but they'll never admit it.

The idea of a man receiving pleasure from another man's appearance is
completely not understood by most heterosexuals. At times the idea
of "unnatural" comes from the opinion of how we define beauty & attraction.

Most guys can't perceive the idea of looking at another man's hairy body
and finding beauty. It isn't any different when a homosexual man looks at
a woman and feels disgusted by the thought of entering her vagina.
The simular idea comes from people who do not like interracial couples.
The problems fall on people who try to validate their opinions.

Well gay people wouldn't, for obvious reasons. The article is saying that the purpose of the gene that makes men attracted to other men is to make women with the gene have more children. Do you come from a large family?

Yes, I come from a rather large family. I have relative all over the US and England, though I dont know most of them, I just know that we are related some how.

Yes, I come from a rather large family. I have relative all over the US and England, though I dont know most of them, I just know that we are related some how.

Then that lends weight to the theory described in the article (assuming male bisexuality is caused by the same gene as male heterosexuality, or one with a similar function).

A gay bloke I know has four sisters and one brother.

Then that lends weight to the theory described in the article (assuming male bisexuality is caused by the same gene as male heterosexuality, or one with a similar function).

A gay bloke I know has four sisters and one brother.

I believe there is are seperate classes of homosexuality.

I can see a genetic side where some were born that way,
and a behavioral side where it becomes a choice.

I've known several women who were lesbian for years
and then eventually married a man.

I've known several women who were lesbian for years
and then eventually married a man.

Maybe they were really bisexuals, but had reasons other than lack of physical attraction for avoiding relationships with men.

Just because it is genetic does not neccessarily mean that you can't control it. You may feel the urge to commit a homosexual act, lie, steal, or whatever, that doesn't neccesarily mean that you will follow through. Irregardless, those are simply my thoughts on the matter, also commenting on the strawman argument that homosexuality is unnatural. It just always kind of bugged me in debates when either side used it. :rolleyes:
Oppression breeds obsession, and those urges will find ways to manifest themselves, especially in men because they are all so horny, regardless of sexual orientation. Instead of enganging in consensual gay sex, they'll try to find other outlets... gang rapes, locker-room horseplaying, WWE Wrestling watching...

Also, I don't think it is genetics only that determines one's sexuality. If my recollection is correct, I read something about Spartan soldiers being all homosexuals (they mated in the dark, and the female had to shave her head and look boyish)... and Athenian philsophers loving little boys... and wide-spread homosexuality during the Renaissance...

Not enough information presented in the article to even conclude that there is a gentic corellation to homosexuality. From the information given the study could as easily be construed to support the contention that family enviroments which are more likely to produce homosexuality in males are more likely to produce females who wish more children. Without knowing if the original study actually considered family enviroment, the study cannot be said to support either conclusion.

Oppression breeds obsession, and those urges will find ways to manifest themselves, especially in men because they are all so horny, regardless of sexual orientation. Instead of enganging in consensual gay sex, they'll try to find other outlets... gang rapes, locker-room horseplaying, WWE Wrestling watching...

Also, I don't think it is genetics only that determines one's sexuality. If my recollection is correct, I read something about Spartan soldiers being all homosexuals (they mated in the dark, and the female had to shave her head and look boyish)... and Athenian philsophers loving little boys... and wide-spread homosexuality during the Renaissance...

Well, I don't think that I ever claimed that genetics were the sole cause of homosexuality, just one of the factors, occasionally the determining factor. Oppression doesn't always breed obsession. Sadly, there are many exmaples of where it does, resulting in the moniker "oppression breeds obsession". Fortunately, all it is, is a moniker.

Referring to your second paragraph, this could be boiled down to a "Nature vs Nurture" debate. Does anyone know of one going on? And if so could they post the thread? Those are always fun, and I seem to be split somewhere down the middle in my opinions in that regard myself.

cheers!

I can't see where anyone has done a study
on why older people are wearing diapers.

I think most people understand that dogs (like any animal) will hump
anything. So I'm just not going to provide a debate out of that.

My dogs do hump each other, but they often break free and seek out
females in heat. Females will hump and grind anything too. There's this
little idea about the way animals behave, when they are in heat, which
causes them to act irrationality. This is a significant seperation between
humans and other animals, but some people do out of the ordinary things
when they are horny too.

Unnatural sexual acts can be defined by several more things other than
pointing out homosexual activity. There are circumstances of heterosexuals
engaging in homosexual acts. Psychology will point out that it is very
common amongst young girls & boys, but it doesn't define them after they
mature. I'm sure alot of people in here have done some gay things when
they were young, but they'll never admit it.

The idea of a man receiving pleasure from another man's appearance is
completely not understood by most heterosexuals. At times the idea
of "unnatural" comes from the opinion of how we define beauty & attraction.

Most guys can't perceive the idea of looking at another man's hairy body
and finding beauty. It isn't any different when a homosexual man looks at
a woman and feels disgusted by the thought of entering her vagina.
The simular idea comes from people who do not like interracial couples.
The problems fall on people who try to validate their opinions.

Human Sexuality requires too much depth to be conversed here on these boards by many people. Most of you are thinking White, Black, and grey. Their is a full spectrum of colors in human sexuality. Sexual Orientation is now the blanket term used by the mainstream populace when regarding issues of hetero/homosexuality. It's not that simple, let me explain...

First, let me talk about the very controversial studies done by Alfred Kinsey. It was Kinsey who discovered that many people who define themselves as heterosexual have had homosexual experiences, and vice versa. Thus, Kinsey et alii have concluded that it is more accurate to view hetero and homosexuality as end points in a continuum, a wide spectrum of sexual and affectional options, enveloping many different possibilities. Although for Kinsey, a seven point scale was created based on his conclusion.

Combined data from 2 of the better large-scale surveys have found that the best guess is 8-10% of the human population is gay. (Conservatives like to say 1-2%, with it likely to be less).

There has been extensive ersearch on homosexual upbringing and child hood experiences which have failed to support environmental causes for homosexuality. 75-90% of highly feminine young boys eventually turn out to be gay. Many gay men and women report that they can trace thier homosexual leanings to early age childhood, before they even understood what sex was about. Many also report that they deny thier sexual orientation.

Studies comparing circulating hormone levels in homo/heterosexuals found only small, inconsistent differences that could not be linked to sexual orientation in any way. Then again, some research suggests that hormonal secretions during what is known as "critical periods" or "stages" of prenatal development may shape sexual development, but is inconclusive at this time.

Further studies show that a study on gay men with either an identical twin brother, fraternal twin brother, or an adopted brother - of that, 52% of identical twins were homosesxual (sharing 100% genetics), 22% of fraternal twins were gay (sharing 50% genetics), and 11 adoptive brothers were gay (sharing 0% genetics). Companion studies done for females showed similar results, all of which suggest there is a genetic predisposition to being gay.

Moving past that, there is the concept of sexual orientation and affectional orientation that must be explained. It is quite possible for one to only be satisfied sexually by a man, and only be able to form an affectional, loving bond with a woman. He would have a sexual orientation of a homosexual, with an affectional orientation as a heterosexual. And so ensure many possiblities for the possible relationship pairings. This explains why there are many bisexual couples who are unable to have an affectional and loving bond with their same-sex partners. That is the simple explanation for that.

Now, people will try and refute the studies because I can't cite them specifically at this exact moment - I will search on my computer and media disks to bring you the exact studies. Some people might go further, though, and try and discredit Alfred Kinsey - citing early reports given after he released his two controversial books that his reports were population biased. Alfred Kinsey's results were then modified, excluding everyone who might have been included by bias as dicated by the reports, and the results were exactly the same. Kinseys reports, while still controversial, are now accepted by the general psychological and psychiatric communities as accurate, and one of the best survey method studies ever completed.

Just because it is genetic does not neccessarily mean that you can't control it. You may feel the urge to commit a homosexual act, lie, steal, or whatever, that doesn't neccesarily mean that you will follow through. Irregardless, those are simply my thoughts on the matter, also commenting on the strawman argument that homosexuality is unnatural. It just always kind of bugged me in debates when either side used it. :rolleyes:

And pretty much all Psychologist and Psychiatrists agree that such behavior causes significant mental anguish that leads to depression, anxiety, and many other mental illnesses.

And pretty much all Psychologist and Psychiatrists agree that such behavior causes significant mental anguish that leads to depression, anxiety, and many other mental illnesses.

And look what happened to some priests when they tried to hide their preference

The idea of what you call homosexuality in animals is what scientists call
dominating behavior. My dogs do this to one another because their instinct
tells them pin the other for domination, and basically I need to get them fixed.

Actually, that's what scientists *used to* say because stating the obvious was forbidden by society. Behavioral scientists are now realizing that homosexuality, bisexuality (in almost all mammal species), and even transsexuality occur quite commonly in the animal kingdom. Do a little research.

And pretty much all Psychologist and Psychiatrists agree that such behavior causes significant mental anguish that leads to depression, anxiety, and many other mental illnesses.

*sigh* Not everyone suffers mental ainguish because of refusing to give in to an impulse. Just because you feel an impulse to do something, and you decide not to do it, doesn't that you will become depressed anxious or succumb to a mental ilness. That would only happen if one already has some sort of underlying mental ilness.
Let me illustrate my point with an easy societal reference. Most priests often feel the urge to become sexually active at various points during their lives, be it heterosexually, homosexually, or as a pedophile. Those who do become sexually active represent a very small portion of the millions of clergy. (Yes, millions, and that's only considering catholics, not the followers of Islam, Budha, or any other religion). Now, judging from your comment, that must mean that there are hundreds of thousands of depressed, mentally ill priests doesn't it? Of course not, they find solace through prayer and communion with God. Others find solace through meditation, yoga, reading a good book, etc. Those who give into their impulses, are either a) in the case of pedophiles, extremely disgusting, or b) simply giving in to their natural sexual urges. The later find solace through revelling in their natural urges.

This is of course deviating from the original purpose of the thread. I think that a discussion of the mental effects of suppression would be a very interesting one to debate, but another thread should be started up to discuss it. The only purpose that it serves is to become a tangenial discussion running parrallel to the one that was the original impetus for my remarks.

In my original post I was simply agreeing that homosexuality is a natural urge for a significant percentage of the population. I also wished to point out that in order to understand the Christian perspective, one must understand that sinning is viewed as natural. As such, from a theological point of view, homosexuality is a natural urge. And from recent research, homosexuality is revealed to be a natural urge now with scientific proof. I simply find it unsettling to see the idea that homosexuality is "unnatural" being used, as from either a religious or a scientific perspective, it doesn't make any sense.

If one takes religion out of the equation, homosexuality is normal, and there is nothing wrong with it. If you put religion (Christianity in this case) into the equation, then homosexuality is natural, but it is viewed as a sin, and so the impulse should be dealt with like any other "immoral" impulse, sexual or otherwise, with prayer and communion with God. Interestingly enough, it is claimed that prayer works miracles in that regard ;) (Sorry, I couldn't help the pun).

Beannachd Leibh :)