Homosexuality is natural?
Offline
I bet this has the potential to be a hot topic... I have nothing against homosexuality. I believe in freedom of choice. The reason that brought me to discuss this it's because many people don't actually believe in freedom of NOT to choose... and in my experience many homos are champions at this. People who have the arrogance to think they know what is best for you and want to control you, really piss me off sometimes...
Let's see why I say homosexuality is not natural...
- When I say that homosexuality is not natural I am merely saying that it is a deviation from one of the key purposes of life - reproduction and species perpetuation. Homosexuality may be the individual's nature but it's not the species nature or intent. I'm not condemning.
One thing is certain: we are programmed by nature to be drawn to the opposite sex so that the species can continue.
There are those who state that homosexual behavior is observed in animals too. However many of these accounts if not all refer to bisexualism. Moreover sporadic homosexual behavior is not homosexuality! We can only compare animals to humans to a certain extent.
For example: In the classical era homosexual behavior was maybe more common that it is today... But was there more homosexualism? We have to distinguish between sexual behavior and sexual bonds or emotional bonds.
I believe that, if conditioned, most of us, if not all can be sexually aroused by any sex. However contrary to common knowledge, sexual experiences don't define our sexual orientation! What defines our sexual orientation is to which sex we rather share our lives, our bodies and our beings for the rest of our lives! This is what defines our sexuality!! Not our one time or two time experiences!!
A gay said to a friend of mine that a man who tries a homosexual experience would enjoyed it so much that he'd turn gay... incredibly she believes this!!
- What makes an homosexual? Is he born that way or is he conditioned that way? I think both.
There are many evidences that homosexuals are born that way. But there are also cases were environment seems to play a role.
Some anecdotal evidence seems to show that men who can have any woman they please sooner or later turn gay! Why?! Tired of women?!
The second part of this post is more like a relief from the crazy stuff many people say nowadays…
I know several homosexuals and EVERY one of them say to me that I can’t say I dislike being with a man until I've tried it. This is arrogance! For me this is the same as saying: "I can't say I dislike eating shit since I never tried it".
Many people today say that we have to experience something so we can have the right to speak of it or give an opinion. This is wrong for many reasons:
- First of all a reasonable intelligent person can learn from others!
- We have a limited lifetime so we have to make priorities. These priorities are for the things we want and enjoy according to our nature.
- For some things we have nothing to gain in experience them (death, smoking, eating shit, sexual behavior against our nature, etc)
From what I know of male homosexuals they are more promiscuous than heterosexuals and thus seem to focus sex in a more instinctive way rather than building emotional attachments… I may be wrong in this but that’s what people surrounding me seem to show…
- Login to post comments
Buuuuut ?
Every one of them, eh ? Sure. Okay.
So have you considered the possibility that they were just yanking your chain ?
Gosh, what a charming comparison.
So by your logic, a heterosexual man telling a gay man he can't dislike being with a woman untill he's tried it (and they usually have, btw), is an equally arrogant person who might just as well be telling this gay man, that he can't badmouth eating shit untill he's actually tried it ?
Something tells me you haven't thought this through.
Humans, in their wild state, and no doubt influenced by nature and nurture, are sometimes gay. That sounds natural enough to me.
Given natural selection works against homosexuals, yet they exist, it seems to me this is a pretty normal human sexual paradigm.
Perhaps a more pertinent human variable is whether people are jackasses or not.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I wouldn't call it a "purpose" or "intent," merely a process. These words imply that nature possesses some "will" to "do" things. Only individual organisms strive to survive and reproduce because organisms who don't possess these traits do not pass on their genes.
I definitely agree.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Conditioned ?
How does that work ?
Ok, then the next time you see an albino you should condemn them too because they are not in the majority.
Not being in a majority does not make something unnatural. Considering the world's population is mostly uneducated, poor and reproducing at an alarming rate much higher than the death rate, it would be better if the world had more gays and less birth.
It isn't that homosexuality isn't natural, it is YOU who find it yucky. So the fuck what. Get over it. Your dick wont fall off.
10% of all mammalian species exhibit same sex interaction. Homosexuality like heterosexuality and bisexuality is a range, not a black and white issue.
You are merely swallowing the xenophobic crap trying to use the word unnatural to demonize a minority.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I gave him the benefit of the doubt and interpreted "conditioned" as conditions in the womb as well as the person's environment after birth. I would say that our sexual preferences are primarily genetic, but certainly not entirely. The other factors here are also important. For instance, people who grow up in a conservative religious environment where they are taught that homosexuality is a sin, etc. would be less likely to be homosexual. I don't think that simply less of them express themselves as homosexuals or they are just "in denial," although that is often the case. After the Christian tells himself 1 billion times that he's not gay, he might just become not gay. Just like if a Christian really wants to believe that the atrocities in the Bible are justified and not immoral, eventually he can really believe it.
On the other hand, there might be factors that make a person more likely to be homosexual. Maybe their community has too few members of the opposite gender. Maybe they had bad experiences with the opposite gender. Maybe they were sexually abused, repressed, etc. etc. I'm not saying any of these factors necessarily make a person gay or that they're even important factors, but they are definitely factors; I just think there's a lot of psychology involved, and it's not black and white whether a person is homosexual or not. It seems logical that there would a continuum of sexual preferences. Everyone is born somewhere on this continuum, and our environment can shift you on the continuum to an extent.
Edit: Oh, I left out the womb thing...
Edit: Okay, I'm pretty sure he's saying the same thing I am after reading this part.
This OP wasn't too bad. After he stops anthropomorphizing evolution and states that he supports gay rights, I'll be happy.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
By "become not gay", do you mean he will actually turn heterosexual ? Simply because he really really wants to ?
So a guy who has sex with guys only because there are no women available is a homosexual ?
Sure, psychological trauma can mess you up. I'm sure it can even mess up your sexuality. But these are just factors, you say. So can one of these factors be the sole reason for someone's homosexuality, or does it just make them...uh...more gay ?
I guess.
Btw, let's say you were chatting up a person of the opposite sex, who turned out to be gay, and you later overheard this person describe the experience of being romanced by you as "being asked to eat shit". Would your reaction be something like, "Fair enough. I suppose having sex with me would be just as unpleasant as eating shit. How very insensitive of me to not realise that"
Or would it be more like : "That guy/gal is a jerk who needs to get over him/herself"
by this logic religion is not natural as religion has and still is doing more to end our species than almost anything else.
This is a horrendous definition of natural. a better one would be any biological activity with evolutionary origins
NO! NO! NO! that is WRONG. Heterosexuals are programmed by nature to be drawn to the opposite sex while gays are programmed BY NATURE to be drawn to the same sex. It very likely has some genetic basis or occurs very early in the development of the fetus or both.
having a homosexual experience or even being able to extrapolate about what a homosexual experience is like is completely unnecessary to any discussion of gay rights. I don't have to learn about what it is like to be black to know that discrimination based on race is wrong. I dont have to spend any time thinking about how enjoyable a homosexual experience is or learn about it from gays to be able to determine that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong.
I Am My God
The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence
WOW, so to counter an ignorant statement you equate homosexuality to eating shit?
It isn't arrogance. I do think it is ignorant of a homosexual to say "how do you know unless you try". Because that assumes, JUST LIKE HETEROSEXUALS assume, that sexuality is a choice.
Our brains and bodied are a RANGE and it is not fixed anymore than all humans have blond hair or green eyes.
I don't like obese women. I have never had sex with an obese women. I don't have to have sex with one to know that is not my taste. BUT there are men who like that.
The gays that say that to you may be trying to "flip" you in facing you with a real sexuality you might be oppressing because off the bullshit society demonizes gays with. But that isn't always the case which makes that just as ignorant as if you said to someone gay, "If you just have enough heterosexual sex you're homosexuality can be cured".
Sexuality is not fixed as "either or". It is a range and it is ignorance for gays or heterosexuals to pull that crap.
If you find men yucky and are a man, all that means is that you are not attracted to men, just like I find obese women unattractive.
There are other men AND women who are sexually attracted to BOTH sexes. There are people who are only attracted to the opposite sex. There are people who are attracted to blonds, and others who are attracted to Assians.
I don't like broccoli, it tastes like shit to me, but other people love it and do not think it tastes like shit. NEITHER are right or wrong.
Why don't you worry about what you do with your own private parts and your own relationships and keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms. No one is going to force you to suck dick, I promise. But just because you might find it yucky, doesn't make it wrong for the people who do enjoy it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
This is no different than the same bad logic that people with kids have in questioning me because I don't want kids. Wanting kids and not wanting kids IS A RANGE, I am not going to have a kid simply because others say I should have one. Just like it is stupid for gays or heterosexuals to say "how do you know unless you try".
NEITHER is wrong.
What is wrong is black and white thinking that life is a black and white dichotomy when it is a RANGE with lots of shades and variants. Being gay is natural just like being albino is natural, just like being left handed is natural, just like not wanting kids is as natural as wanting kids. Life is a range, not an absolute.
The only thing shitty in this thread is your bad logic.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Unnatural would be farting a Lamborghini out of your ass. Unnatural would be the earth being created in 6 days. Wanting to suck dick or eat pussy is part of the range of human sexuality.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong, it just means you don't like it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Thank you for your answers.
Just to be clear: I am for gay rights (as long as they ALSO respect me)
I'm so liberal that I don't cry "devil" even on bestiality or the woman that married the Berlin wall... as long as people are happy and not harming others (animals included), I'm ok with it.
I know they are... this was what hit a nerve!! What is the best answer to a person who argues this? What is the best answer to a person who insists that you have to experience drugs, smoking, or same sex relashiponships, or whatever, to be a real adult and to know life?? We don't have to try everything we don't feel confortable with!
I used exaggeration to prove a point! I don't want to try gay sex because it disgusts me, and I don't feel any sort of attraction for it, so no forecefull experience is necessary!
NO! I said I don't condemn! I'm only saying that it is a deviation that doesn't beneficts the species perpetuation. Please don't use words like "condemn" or "demonize"... I don't want to make judgments of value. I'm merely stating that homosexuality is not in the species best interest, whether it's the human species or not.
Butterbattle, I couldn't agree more with your posts. I only want to say that when I say nature has a "purpose" or a "will", is the same as saying that gravity has the "purpose" of pulling things together...
To be "in denial" is a funny thing because it seems to go one way only... I think there are homosexuals that can also be in denial! If someone has a traumatic experience with the opposite sex and chooses to be gay as a lesser of two evils they could be in denial.
Remember what I've said: In my opinion homosexual behavior doesn't make one a homosexual, what defines your sexuality is your deep feelings of love, commitment, honesty and comfort with a gender.
It was the OP who made that comparison.
Wow! Thanks! your arguments are good! Brian37 completely missed my point but that's ok... I forgive him
Still... I can imagine a gay saying: "Ok but you can only choose between 2 things if you know them in first person. So to choose between gay or straight, impartially, you have to taste them both"
It's these kind of statements that make me mad...
Edit: oops! I missinterperted Brian37... Sexuality is NOT a choice... well I agree, though some say it could be...
Likewise, liberatedatheist, a black person could say: "Yeah sure, but you can't really know unless you are in my shoes"
*sigh*
By "yanking your chain" I meant they were joking. None of them were seriously suggesting you would turn gay simply by trying it. If they were, then they were quite stupid, and an adequate response would be to tell them so.
And I don't want to try straight sex because I'm not attracted to people of the opposite sex, not because it "disgusts" me.
Which one of us is over-reacting ?
Abstinence doesn't benefit the species either. It's actually a choice.
To borrow from 2 the Ranting Gryphon "If homosexuality is a choice, then it is a choice that everyone can make. So you do it! I want you to make a conscious decision to be attracted to some one of the same gender."
Good luck with that.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
And I can imagine a straight person saying all kinds of stupid things as well.
So what ?
Bullshit,
Evolution isn't about perfection, that variant is merely in a minority. Nipples on men don't help men but that doesn't make them unnatural. But because nipples on men don't produce milk, doesn't make them useless, they DO provide men with sexual stimulation.
If anything MORE homosexuality would be better at this point based on our population growth rate. We have more babies being born than old people in the world dying. Keep that up and our species won't have any space. We already have too much pollution coming from 6 billion people, that alone, even if we have enough space, is causing problems.
Homosexuality DOES provide a benefit to humanity because it is a counterbalance to production, unfortunately since there is no divine intervention, evolution isn't perfect.
I can stick my penis in a woman's ass, that also doesn't produce a kid. I can stick my penis in a woman's mouth and ejaculate in her mouth. That too won't produce a kid.
You are cherry picking what is or is not natural when I am telling you RANGE in sexuality is natural, even the stuff you find yucky.
I think blow jobs are natural. I think anal sex is natural, and I think homosexuality is natural. It is just that humans have a NATURAL range of sexuality.
If you are going to pull that bullshit argument then tell me that my not wanting a kid is not natural. NO my not wanting a kid is simply one variant amongst many variants.
You falsely assume that evolution seeks perfection when the reality is that it produces a RANGE, not perfection.
Which makes the false assumption that heterosexuality is always beneficial. If it were then why are their so many starving babies and social diseases that produce horrible environments?
Only gays spread sexually transmitted diseases? All heterosexual parents produce babies they can take care of?
You are masking your bigotry and trying to pass it off as science, nothing more. Maybe you are unaware of it, but that is being kind to you if I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
ALL of biological life, even outside the human species, IS A RANGE of variants. Some variants outnumber others and none of it is about perfection.
Male female sex in humans just happens to be the only way our species can reproduce, BUT IT IS NOT THE ONLY VARIENT. There are plenty of insects and sea life and worms and other life that produces a-sexually and some even switch sexes.
Some biological life doesn't have sex at all to reproduce.
You have a very narrow view of evolution which is why you say what you say.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
On the contrary, I believe evolution is about perfection... but please don't put any ethical sense here... It evolves to more complex structures and better systems to cope with environment challenges and competition from other species.
Your argument for MORE homosexuality is only circumstantial since it was not applicable in the XVIII century and before.
You can say I'm a bigot and you have that freedom, despite being false. I'm not going to play your game though and attack you personally. I'm not masking anything. My logic is clear. Life HAS the purpose of reproducing itself, it's a defining quality. Homosexuality goes against that (in sexual species). I don't argue against the RANGE theory because it is true. Life is diverse and it has to be so, evolution makes mistakes and it has to do them. Finally (for the 3rd time) don't confuse homosexual behavior (or any other deviant behavior) with homosexuality.
In fact evolution uses "RANGE" to reach "perfection". Although most of the time outliers are just useless... on rare occasions outliers represent a step to perfection.
Not wanting kids is a choice rather than a condition... which happens to go against the purpose of life anywayz
"Starving babies" and "social diseases" are caused by human stupidity and selfishness rather than sexuality... This and other things you’ve said are just changing the subject and had nothing to do with the point.
Cheetahs are becoming sterile… Or to put in another way, the sterile variation is outnumbering the fertile. This could throw the species into extinction.
Cheetahs are a genetic diversity issue. It's inbreeding that's the problem with the cheetah - not homosexuality.
The only point I'm getting from you is "I'm not condemning homosexuals but homosexuality is disgusting and it's comparable to eating feces". This can also be put in its more simpler form. "Homosexuals scare me."
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I was just giving an example... but I will be more specific for the sake of clarification.
If homosexualism outnumbered heterosexualism because of some freak gene mutation. Homosexualism would become a problem for the human species rather than a "cool thing"...
Forget the shit stuff... I have a tendency for overreaction when people don't respect me or don't understand the differences in individual nature. I'm not referring to you, only some talks I had... I came to discuss this here because I needed a rational response to the bigotery I was getting and put my unnatural theory through the test...
Really? Then why do eagles have better eyesight than humans? Why does bacteria outnumber humans? Why do cockroaches outnumber humans? You think those species are "perfect"? Why do men have nipples?
If evolution were about perfection then why is it whales have a hole for breathing separate from their mouths? Why is it humans have the same entry for breathing and eating? And why is human plumbing also in the middle of the entertainment center? You call that "perfection"?
Please wow us all with your understanding of evolution.
If evolution were perfect then why is it possible to insert a penis into a male or female rectum?
You have absolutely no understanding of evolution otherwise you wouldn't make such absurd statements.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
We have plenty of people who come in here fooling themselves into believing that by re-wrapping an old argument that it will make the argument valid.
Homosexuality is merely something YOU as an individual find yucky. That doesn't make it wrong simply because you don't like it.
Please cut the crap. You have the label "theist" under your name. I might be wrong, but I would bet a dollar to a doughnut you would say that your god invented evolution and this god doesn't want people to be homosexual. I bet you can even quote your holy book to try to justify it.
Now, if you really want to be "tested" then don't expect your claims to be treated with kid gloves. There is no bigotry towards you simply because we might say your claims have no validity.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
One could ask... what is perfection?? Evolution means "progressive change" not "regressive change". I think the pinnacle of evolution is us because of cognitive intelligence! If one considers intelligence better than acute eyesight. In fact intelligence can, in theory, improve all those things you consider defects in human anatomy, by releasing us from the chains of evolution... evolution, thus, is capable of transcend itself.
The eagle eyesight is perfection for it's condition (better chance of killing the rabbit)
However we are getting away from the topic here...
Excuse me, but what "bigotery" are you getting ?
yea, that wasn't me who made that statement
I Am My God
The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence
"God did it", got it, been there, not valid, no such thing as a disembodied brain with magical super powers.
There is no purpose to life. I hate to burst your bubble but we are one planet among billions of stars in ONE galaxy, not counting the billions of galaxies in the universe. Most of what we see about life and the universe is kaotic and violent and hostile to life.
Our sun will eventually expand and FRY our planet, but by then our species will in every likelihood be extinct by that point. It would not even shock me in the least if humans do it to themselves needlessly because of their tribal bullshit.
Life will go on after you and I die. Maybe a meteor will hit our planet in our lifetime. Maybe I will die from cancer. Maybe I will die in a car accident. Life is luck and for every one of the 6 billion humans born their are trillions of more sperm that end up being peed out in urine, or ejaculated on boobs, or the floor, or in someone's mouth.
For every tree that makes it to maturity there are thousands of acorns that rot and do nothing.
Life can be pretty and give us a sense of awe, certainly, but there is no purpose to it just because we like some of the pretty things in it. There is far more violence and waste that go into nature than there are "pretty" things.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Sorry, gotta watch where I aim my fangs.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You people are so full of superiority issues that sometimes it annoys me. I see everyone commits the sin of prejudice, even atheists!! You can search all my posts here and never, not even ONCE I've quoted from the "Holy Book". I hate stereotyping. I guess it's hard for you to have a conversation without making personal attacks. Allow me to make your picture too: You must be one of those guys who have it all figured out, there's no such thing as doubt! You already know everything... well good for you!
I am not your "everyday theist", not by a long shot... but I don't have to prove myself to you! Think what you like! See if I care!
You’ve just read it. But it started here:
Okay then.
How many countries do you know of where heterosexuality is punishable by death ?
How many of the world's religions teach their followers that heterosexuality is an abomination, or that a heterosexual's life is worth less than that of a pig ?
I could go on for a while, but I'm hoping you understand that you using the word "bigotry" to describe your situation is yet another exaggeration, and a very big one at that.
So I ask you again, what bigotry are you getting ?
Look it up first.
edit : As for Brian's comments, please note he clearly stated that he "might be wrong".
Bullshit.
Evolution does not require an inventor anymore than a quark requires Thor or Isis to move. And cockroaches are much better suited to survive a meteor strike or nuclear war than a human is. Brains don't equate to survival and our species no mater how much we evolve will not escape extinction, NO LIFE WILL.
Intelligence does not equal survival.
I can be a quantum physics professor with a high IQ and still DIE from a car accident, murder, or bacterial infection. Our species will die no matter how smart we get. The only thing we can do is delay our extinction, but there are thing beyond our control, even if we delay it, something will eventually kill us.
Evolution is merely a result of of adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine and the combos thereof. There was no thought or inventor going into DNA. It was merely a random process and life on our planet was merely LUCK. And our luck will run out some day.
There is no magic to life, good or bad.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
That has anything to do with the case I was trying to make. I VEHEMENTLY CONDEMN anyone who punishes homosexuality.
I have "looked up first". I was trying to say that homosexuality (although a normal and acceptable behavior) is a condition that doesn't promote the species continuation and thus is not a good thing biologically strictly speaking ...
and then instead of a reasonable debate I got personal attacks... that being the case I end this discussion... have better things to do.
So, those same countries ALSO murder heterosexuals for having sex outside of marriage, many of the same ones who murder someone merely because they are gay. Those same countries also marry little girls to adult men who have sex with them.That is not based on evolutionary benefit. That is religious bullshit.
If evolution favored your idea of perfection and monogamy then our sex organs would only work in a one on one relationship with the opposite sex. Why do our sex organs work outside of monogamy? Why is it a penis can fit in a male or female rectum? You call that "perfect"?
Evolution is messy and has no design or purpose to it.
And if you don't want to be called a bigot, I would suggest you not equate homosexuality to eating shit. Just say you find it yucky. Yucky doesn't mean unnatural or wrong. It just means you don't like it. Gays find the opposite sex yucky. Just because heterosexuals outnumber gays doesn't make the minority unnatural, it just means they are a minority.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yes and isn't it wonderful that evolution prevents that extinction while allowing both behaviors? It means homosexuality is not a harmful or unnatural adaptation.
I knew you weren't referring to me. I'm not a homosexual.
Homosexuality only seems to be a problem to those who believe that all sex is inherently evil.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Then we can agree that "bigotry" was yet another exaggeration ?
I'm willing to leave it at that, and not go into why you feel the need for all these exaggerations. You'll have to work that out on your own.
Brian is obviously not attacking you personally. He's attacking your reasoning. If you want to have any kind of conversation with anyone, you're going to have to learn the difference.
Thank you. As I said, sexuality is a RANGE, not an absolute.
And the disingenuous part of this thread is that this person is pretending to be "scientific" yet has the "theist" title under their name and most likely wont cop to their god pulling the strings as to what our purpose is. Much less be willing to quote their holy book that tells them why it is wrong.
If evolution were "perfect" our sex organs would only work during marriage and we would only do it to produce kids. Funny how we can masturbate. I wonder if masturbation is unnatural to this theist?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Never mind.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You aren't disqusted by heterosexual sex? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU! US VS THEM, BLACK VS WHITE, LESS FILLING, TASTES GREAT!
I think it is ok to find something to be yucky without finding it disgusting for others, meaning they have to be like you or me. I don't think others people's attractions to different things is disgusting even if I might find it yucky.
There are variants in all of life and sexuality is merely a range of variants amongst many other factors.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
"Yucky" I can deal with.
Yes. I honestly think it's possible in some cases.
Well, he would be displaying homosexual behavior. Your question is would he actually be attracted to the other men, right? My answer to that is, sometimes, yes that person will eventually be attracted to other men. But again, I don't think it's black and white. Some people more, some people less.
So you agree, to an extent? Perhaps you think these are very rare cases whereas I'm implying that sexual preferences influenced by environment are fairly common?
Eh, it's possible, I guess. I just hate saying that there could be one sole reason though, for a person's sexual preference to change. Generally, it's a lot more complicated than most people make it out to be; there can be so many variables involved.
I admit that there is more evidence for nature than nurture, but there is some evidence, and I do not think my position is unusual. From what I've read in the past, most informative sources are essentially in agree with me on this.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html
In 52% of identical twins, when one identified as homosexual, the other did as well. Since monozygotic twins have the exact same genotypes, except for rare mutations after feterlization, I claim that the remaining 48% discrepancy must be largely due to conditions in the uterus as well as the individual's external environment after being born, especially during early childhood.
Lol. Definitely more the latter.
However, I'm not sure Teralek was implying that having sex with another man was like eating shit. I think the point of the analogy was just to show that you don't have to try something to know that you don't like it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
BINGOO!
This discussion is still closed for me... I just had a laugh at this.
Well, the best way not to imply something is to not mention it twice in your OP. But that's just me.
Also, considering what he experiences as bigotry, I'm pretty sure he meant it. But again, that's just me.
Noted.
Okay, but if you are using it in the sense that "purpose" is just "something it does," then you need to just stop using it altogether. Anthropomorphizing only confuses the issue. Don't say it has a "purpose." Don't say it makes "mistakes." Evolution doesn't make "mistakes." It's not doing anything incorrectly because it's not "trying" to do anything "correctly."
First, case in point, if "purpose" is just "something it does" then I am just as justified in claiming that homosexuality is also a purpose of life because life creates homosexuals.
Second, "going against" is too vague. If homosexuality really dramatically impaired a species' ability to survive, then it wouldn't exist; that is how natural selection works. The phenotype homosexuality must exist because the corresponding genotype is not actually detrimental to the species, at least neutral. For example, a genotype promoting male homosexuality might be passed on because it also promotes female reproduction in some way.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Butterbattle,
It seems like you are trying to draw a fine line between the behavior and the label.
As in, "Oh, he's not a homosexual. He just has sex with men."
Like Roy Cohn in "Angels in America:Millennium Approaches" after he finds out he has AIDS.
"I am a heterosexual man who fucks around with guys"
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
On a massive scale perhaps not but a percentage of homosexuality might be beneficial to the continuation of a species. Overpopulation can be as dangerous to the continuation of a species as underpopulation. Overpopulation leads to faster distribution of disease, lack of food and lack of water. A species that becomes overpopulated, especially within a relatively small ecosystem can run itself into extinction. For example, chronic wasting disease severely depleted the deer population in much of the western US and one of the main reasons it spread so quickly was overpopulation. So perhaps homosexuality is evolutions way of slowing down population expansion. Just a thought. I have no evidence nor the ambition to attempt to find any. Maybe one of the science freaks can tell me if I'm way off base or not.
As for the "you can't dislike it until you tried it" issue. Well, you can't really say you wouldn't enjoy it if you tried it. You can certainly come up with many reasons not to try it, or to predict that you wouldn't like it but you might be wrong. For example, I am pretty adventurous with food and have eaten things that many people would look at and puke. And sometimes it tastes as bad as you would expect. Other times it is surprisingly good. So you really don't know if you like or brains, eyeballs, testicles, snake, bugs etc until you try it. Appearances and preconceived notions can be deceiving. I'm not saying you SHOULD try homosexual sex if you don't want to. It is certainly your business to determine what experiences you want to try and which ones you can happily live you life never trying.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Uh...what ?...Yeah, let's just say I'm glad you added "in some cases" and leave it at that. Seriously, let's leave it at that. I've only gotten angry once on this forum, and I made a complete and utter fool of myself in the process.
No, I was wondering if you thought that behaviour would be permanent. Would he still be attracted to men once women became available ?
"In some cases", right ?
I agree that the trauma of sexual abuse can mess up your sexuality, but it can't turn a straight person gay or vice versa.
Okay.
You have to understand, the idea that some mysterious "environmental factors", if changed, could maybe have turned me straight, seems pretty damn laughable to me.
But I'll look into all that stuff, if I haven't already.
Meanwhile, I'll just wait for science to figure out the mystery that is me.
I don't think they're quite there yet.
So anonymouse, do you believe that a persons sexual orientation can never change? While I have never made the transition from heterosexual to homosexual my sexual tastes have certainly changed drastically over the years as far as what type of women I am attracted to. And in my experience the more in love you are with an individual the more sexually attracted you become to their distinguishing features even though your initial reaction when first dating might be negative to that particular feature. I've never been able to predict which women I fall in love with so who knows, maybe someday I'll fall in love with a guy.
Is it so unbelievable that someone might change from heterosexual to homosexual or vice versa at some point in their life? How does that explain the people who are married in a heterosexual marriage and later have homosexual relationships. Were they only faking it? For 5, 10, 15 years? Maybe. But maybe some actually experienced a real change. I don't see it as impossible.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Are you comparing a shift in the type of women you like to you waking up one morning and choosing to have sex with men?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Well I imagine it would take more than one morning. I'm just saying that sexual preferences change over time. Admittedly heterosexual to homosexual is a bit more drastic but I don't really see it as an all or nothing switch. No law says you must either be homosexual or heterosexual so a gradual change might be possible. Why not? There are a lot of things I like now that I would have hated when I was a teenager. So I can see how it might be extremely rare but I don't see a logical argument why it would be impossible.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Friend of mine tried that. He really really really wanted to change to make his family happy. Tried it all. Tried really hard for as long as he was able. Didn't work. Killed himself.
If there are people who are able to flick that switch, fair enough. But don't tell me it's even remotely possible for everyone.
At this point I should probably mention that I'm 17, and your experience most likely greatly exceeds mine. I don't know everything about love. Maybe you can feel a love so strong for a single individual that gender no longer matters, but that just seems highly unlikely to me, unless someone's bisexual to begin with.
I can't speak for that particular switch, but the other way around ? Not going to happen.
Forget maybe. That's exactly what they were doing.
Like I said, I can't speak for the hetero-to-homo switch, even though I find it highly unlikely. But I'm willing to take your word for it that it's possible.