Homosexuality in Nature: Natural or Unnatural?

LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Homosexuality in Nature: Natural or Unnatural?

COLUMN By ELAINE FRIEDMAN
HumanistNetworkNews.org
Nov. 22, 2006

Last week Martina Navratilova supported the right of sheep to be gay.

She condemned taxpayer-funded experiments on "gay sheep" at Oregon State University (OSU) and Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) that seek to manipulate sheep’s sexual preferences and make them heterosexual.

OSU and OHSU researchers are altering the hormones of pregnant ewes to see the effect on their fetuses, dissecting the brains of rams considered "male-oriented" to uncover the hormonal system responsible for homosexual inclination in order to alter it, and implanting estrogen mechanisms into "gay sheep" to "make" them heterosexual.

The researchers have stated their intention to apply their findings to humans. In one researcher's application for public funding from the National Institutes of Health, he wrote "The experiments proposed in this application will furnish important information that is needed to formulate and test novel hypotheses about the biological basis of sexual orientation in higher mammals including humans."

Navratilova claims the experiments could have potentially dangerous implications for gays if the idea takes hold that homosexuality can be "cured."

At the same time that American researchers study the mechanisms behind the "abnormality" of homosexuality, a new exhibition at Norway's Museum of Natural History aims to show that same-sex pairings are perfectly natural -- in more ways than one.

The exhibition "Against Nature?" provides graphical examples of some of the homosexual behavior that has been documented in 500 species, that has been observed in another 1000 and that probably takes place in thousands more. Stuffed animals, models and photos are used to illustrate the common occurrence of homosexual activity in animals from penguins to our simian cousins.

While religious groups are calling the exhibition gay propaganda rather than real science, the Norwegian government and Oslo city council have backed the displays.

"The only reason this exhibition is controversial is that there has been very little research into the topic," stated Petter Bockman, one of the three zoologists who developed the museum exhibition. "The first serious book on the topic wasn't written until 1999 and even for our zoologists it has been a learning experience putting this together."

Until recently, most scientists were unable or unwilling to acknowledge the truth about this aspect of animal sexual behavior. Bockman stated that farmers have been aware of homosexual activity for millennia. "It is a real problem in sheep husbandry ... that some rams (estimated at eight to 10 percent in recent studies) are just not interested in ewes. Instead of doing their business they will stand by the fence looking at the ram in the next yard."

It is precisely this animal husbandry problem that researchers at OSU and OHSU hope to solve. If they can find the means to make "gay" rams attracted to ewes, they will increase the productivity of herds. (Does this smack of agricultural industry influence?)

In fact, Bockman believes homosexuality may provide evolutionary advantages. He believes that the males of sea mammals like dolphins and flock animals like sea birds and apes might have sex with other males to form a bond with them to get access to females in the herd. Same-sex pairing can help child-rearing too; black swans often form successful male-male parenting pairs

"You can say whatever you like about human homosexuality and think what you want about homosexual lifestyles," Bockman stated,"but based on what we now know goes on among animals, you can't say it is against nature or unnatural."

Elaine Friedman is the editor of Humanist Network News, the weekly e-zine of the Institute for Humanist Studies.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Actually, although I can

Actually, although I can understand how doing such a study would cause people who are anti-homosexual to use it in their "cure" arguments, I am still for them conducting such studies because they would give us more of an idea of what it is about en utereo environments that affect things like homosexuality and intersexism. We already know that hormonal environments in the uterus affect the sexuality of the fetus, so the argument that "homosexuality is unnatural" already falls apart there. This kind of a study would give further evidence in that regard. Although, since we're talking about affecting fetuses, obviously the results are not going to necesarily be about a "cure" so much as they are trying to set the fetus up to be heterosexual. Any parent willing to go to such lengths to prevent having a homosexual child is probably the best people to *not* let have a homosexual child anyway.

Another thing is, since the development of genitals, as well as other physical issues can be developed in a fetus due to hormonal environments, I think that is another good reason to let such a study continue. They may be worried about the effects this could have on discrimination, but such a restriction could hinder the studies done on preventing genital deformities, under development, and other related issues that develp as a result of the presence of some of the same hormones.

So ... I disagree with restricting a study based on this (although, it would probably be more practical to do the study on mice before taking it to rams).


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I agree....it's one of those

I agree....it's one of those things that can lead to many philosophical debates about ethics. I really don't think people should feel as if this is a threat to homosexuality. But I can certainly see how the xtain right would use this as a cure against sin. Ironically, however, it's using science...to cure this sin. But since science is evil anyway, hopefully they'd see the hypocrisy of using this as a "cure". I can't believe this is even an issue. blah. my head hurts now. Smiling

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote:I

LeftofLarry wrote:
I agree....it's one of those things that can lead to many philosophical debates about ethics. I really don't think people should feel as if this is a threat to homosexuality. But I can certainly see how the xtain right would use this as a cure against sin. Ironically, however, it's using science...to cure this sin. But since science is evil anyway, hopefully they'd see the hypocrisy of using this as a "cure". I can't believe this is even an issue. blah. my head hurts now. Smiling

Indeed, they would be using the un-natural to cure the ... uh, ... un-natural (now found to be natural)?


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Indeed, they would be

Quote:
Indeed, they would be using the un-natural to cure the ... uh, ... un-natural (now found to be natural)?

It is rather stupid, isn't it? They'd be using technology (which, to them, is indistinguishable from magic) to cure a natural, "god created" state.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Sit back and watch the

Sit back and watch the doublethink. We'll see science go from irrelevant to relevant to irrelevant again over the span of 12 seconds, and do so several times. Some people can't afford to be honest with themselves. Reality will hopefully sneak up and bite them in the ass eventually.

As for homosexuality, when you see in nature what you previously thought unnatural, you have to change your definition of "nature".


Asmoday
Asmoday's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2006-11-20
User is offlineOffline
I think everyone is born as

I think everyone is born as a bi-sexual individual.

Time passes, things change, the person makes choices.

What causes these hormonal changes? Thought? Thought which is caused by the environment....

If it is thought, clearly, being a homosexual is a choice away from our natural state of bi-sexuality.

I believe that being a homosexual is a choice, hormone levels, anything measurable that seperates heterosexuals from homosexuals is simply the product of that choice.

We are born as bi-sexuals.

"Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside awakens."

-Carl G. Jung


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm not a biologist, but I

I'm not a biologist, but I don't think that's exactly the way it is. Somebody else will have to link some real scientific info on this, but I'm pretty sure there's never been an established bi-sexual state in fetuses.

In any case, if this research were going on in a sane country, I'd probably not have too much of a problem with it. Since it's going on in The United States of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I'm sure it's going to be directed towards further hatred of homosexuals, even if the researchers don't intend that to happen.

Leave it to Christianity to take something natural and make it into the worst possible thing.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I think the information is

I think the information is important, but it is my opinion that it could easily prove dangerous.

Since parents are in complete charge of a minor child's medical treatment, I can just see parents lining up to "fix" homosexual children via surgery.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


FundamentallyFlawed
FundamentallyFlawed's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-02
User is offlineOffline
I find these studies

I find these studies interesting. I certainly think there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality, but that really doesn't matter when all is said and done.

Even if homosexuality were a choice, it would still be that individual's right to make that choice. I really cannot understand why everyone is so damn concerned with what consenting adults do with their genitals.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Like Sam Harris said to

Like Sam Harris said to Christians: "Your primary concern seems to be that the creator of the universe will take offense to something people do while naked."

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Genesis c22v12
Genesis c22v12's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-11-26
User is offlineOffline
If homosexuality is caused

If homosexuality is caused by an abnornal hormone environment, then it is Satan workd, since all things that go wrong in this world is the result of his work, introducing sin in the world.

Since technology can be used to deal with things that go wrong, a believer could say it is indeed a weapon to fight Satan, but a God given one (through our God given intelligence)

Fixing fetues' sexual preferences would be like taking penicilin.

I think this is eugenics and I don't like it. Maybe homossexals are really important and we should not mess with that, for the time being.

Disrespectful of Religion


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Genesis c22v12 wrote:since

Genesis c22v12 wrote:
since all things that go wrong in this world is the result of his work

Take notes kids, this is the mark of every true believer. All things wrong in the world are the result of Satan, the Illuminati, Mexican immigrants, etc. Who they blame is how you know whether they're a true Christian, a true conspiracy theorist, or a true nationalist bigot. Sometimes they're all three and several more things as well.

But my joking aside, what makes you think everything wrong in the world is Satan's fault? All Satan does is tempt people, I don't recall him doing anything else. God is the one that takes action to change the world, destorying Sodom and Gemorrah and whatnot. If the Bible is any indicator, it can't be Satan's fault, it can only be God's fault if it's anyone's fault.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Asmoday wrote:think everyone

Asmoday wrote:
think everyone is born as a bi-sexual individual.

I think most people are born asexual, actually, and that environments in the uterus predispose individuals to particular sexual attractions when they hit later hormonal changes in life. I think this based on the evidence that I have seen on sexual development and corrolations between hormonal uterus environments and particular sexual developments and behaviors.

Quote:
Time passes, things change, the person makes choices.

I'm just guessing here, but, are you bisexual? And at what point did you choose to be a bisexual? What kinds of motivations would there be for an individual to choose homosexuality? Since homosexuality is a reference to attractions, which is based on arousal responses in human beings and since most human beings are unable to exert complete control over their arousal responses to stimuli, how can it be that people are "choosing" homosexuality?

Quote:
What causes these hormonal changes? Thought? Thought which is caused by the environment....

Thought as in a cognitive process? What about animals that are incapeable of such? A ram can't look across a fence and say, "damn that guy sure has some sexy phallic horns over there, I'd like to dip my stick into his brownie!" They don't have the cerebral capacity to do such, and I think that it is a safe bet that the same thing goes for humans.

Quote:
If it is thought, clearly, being a homosexual is a choice away from our natural state of bi-sexuality.

it is thought by whom? Now to me, for issues such as personal rights and opportunities, I don't think that it should matter if it is a choice, however, I don't think it is. Also, what information are you using to support the notion of bisexuality being the natural state?

Quote:
I believe that being a homosexual is a choice, hormone levels, anything measurable that seperates heterosexuals from homosexuals is simply the product of that choice.

Based on what evidence? You think a fetus sitting in a womb made a conscious decision and thus changed the fetal hormonal environment?

Quote:
We are born as bi-sexuals.

How does an infant express their sexual preferences?


Asmoday
Asmoday's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2006-11-20
User is offlineOffline
The sight of a beautiful

The sight of a beautiful woman turns me on. Within seconds I have a serious hard on. It’s not like that for me with men. However, I did accomplish masturbating thinking about Mohammad fucking Jesus Christ in the asshole. That was probably the best masturbating session I've ever had, it was definitely the most rewarding relief I have ever had. I suggest everyone masturbate to that thought, Mohammad the prophet butt fucking Jesus Christ, the fag... it’s fulfilling. I feel sexually free after such an experience.

Physically, I don’t I want a cock in the ass or vice versa, it just doesn't turn me on. I think that humans shouldn't exclude anyone sexually. If people want to fuck each other who are you to judge and condemn? It's sexually freedom. It's all about sex, orgasm, and feeling good. Not a, "you are wrong I am right mentality."

This is why I BELIEVE we human beings are born as a bi-sexual being.

What are the motivations for someone choosing homosexuality? Companionship? Orgasm? Love? Acceptance?

How can it be that people are choosing homosexuality? Because they choose to act on their arousal? They choose to pursue the same sex, whether they are aroused or not, they choose to pursue it.

The whole idea of choice to me indicates that there is a wrong choice, and a correct choice. Which is stupid to apply to sexuality, when we are bi-sexual beings. It's like one side is trying to make the other side wrong, when both are legitimate choices. I only have a problem with exclusion. Division.... indifference, hatred.

About thought. Well, I heard from a guy that studied neuroscience that by thinking about a certain area of the body, you actually increase the blood flow to that specific area. If this concept interests you, look for some studies that show this? Now that I think about it, I realize how foolish it is to think thought can change hormone levels...Maybe it has a small affect somehow?

What information am I using to support the notion of bisexuality being the natural state? I believe I addressed this above. Choosing to have sexual relations with the opposite sex or the same sex is a natural choice to make? Who is to say of those choices is the correct choice while the other the wrong choice? Simply because there is nothing wrong with either of those choices is enough information for me to conclude that humans are bi-sexual beings.
You can study the brains of bisexuals, homosexuals, and heterosexuals till the end of our existence and in the end it makes no difference. If you want to have sex with the same sex, you are correct in wanting that, if you want to have sex with the opposite sex, you are just as correct as the other choice. The act of being aroused by the same sex means nothing, if anything that alone proves to me that humans are bi-sexual beings.

One is aroused by the same sex, the other is not, what more information does one need? Now we want to know what’s the "biological problem?" Sure that’s an interesting academic study but there is no problem, whoever thinks it is.

Being homosexual is a choice? Maybe it isn't, I am probably wrong because I have no good reason to believe thoughts at such a young age can affect hormone levels. All I know is what I was told ... when thinking about an area of the brain or body, you can increase blood flow to that area... so why cant thoughts during that rapid developmental stage affect hormone levels? ??

I don’t think an infant has a sexual preference. They are in their own consciousness, in my opinion, equally masculine, and feminine. Which is bi-sexual enough for me... Puzzled

It is only through childhood when conditioning takes place do these consciousness' get the " I am right, you are wrong mentality” in which they are taught to be masculine if male, and feminine if female? It’s just a thought?
Imagine the thought process of the child. "Ohh, really? Well then, I wont let that happen again." And thus the imbalance begins. One side of their self the feminine side, or masculine side becomes ignored, buried, forgotten, while the other side slowly but surely begins to dominate. And from here, an only here do we get these problems... some people cant handle the imposed moral RESTRICTIONS placed onto them.... Find out what pushed Jeffrey Dalmer to do what he did. It’s the perfect example of what's wrong with restriction, with the, "we are right, and you are wrong mentality."

Understand the overall message I'm trying to get our here, and then share some of your thoughts with me, I would appreciate it...

"Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside awakens."

-Carl G. Jung


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Well if you just change a

Well if you just change a few words you can make a case that people are bisexual polygamous zoophiliacs by nature, and only choose to have homo/heterosexual monogamous homospecies relationships.


Asmoday
Asmoday's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2006-11-20
User is offlineOffline
a friend of mine had this to

a friend of mine had this to say... when I asked about love leading to sex?....

"if u did love someone u may want to share ur sexuality with them
..
but if u feared being homosexual u would not do this if the person was a man "
...

zoophiliacs... hmmmm ROTF

If you just changed a few words you could make a case for that? so whats your point about the message I was sending?

"Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside awakens."

-Carl G. Jung


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I just wanted to see what

I just wanted to see what you had to say about that fact and whether you'd stand by it after it had been pointed out.

I mean, I couldn't care less about bisexual polygamous zoophilia. Not my personal taste but to each their own.


Asmoday
Asmoday's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2006-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:I just wanted

Zhwazi wrote:
I just wanted to see what you had to say about that fact and whether you'd stand by it after it had been pointed out.

I mean, I couldn't care less about bisexual polygamous zoophilia. Not my personal taste but to each their own.

Interesting...

And I do stand by what I said, im not saying im perfect but I beleive what I said is true. I am aware that I make some assumptions that turn out to be wrong, but its not like im doing it on purpose.. I think what I siad is true.

The only thing unnatural about homosexuality/heterosexuality is the fact that one choice thinks the other choice is "wrong", when in fact, it isn't wrong no matter how many fags brains are examined.

An argument?
Since when does reproduction have anything to do with sexuality? Opposite sexes were meant to be together they say. They produce a child, it's natural. yeah, through the act of intercourse they can produce a child. So what? That's reproduction. Is reproduction the crucial aspect that determins what kind of sexuality is "natural"? If so, I think that is ridiclous.

Love knows no bounds., right?

I think I know now why some people are so upset about cloning,..... human cloning. It is reproduction minus the rape. Maybe these people would be ok with human cloning if the scientists are being jerked off while in the act of "cloning".That would make the whole human cloning deal legit?... i know thats lame and makes little sense, but wtf? Im 100% for human cloning.

zoophilia.... HAHAHAHA... i mean, if you want to fuck an animal, thats one thing, but if you actually do.... it could be considered rape in some cases..............and that is a clear violation of INNOCENSE..... so.. its ......unnatural....
At least homosexuality involves consenting adults....

"Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside awakens."

-Carl G. Jung


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
It's kinda embarassing to

It's kinda embarassing to say this while using a dolphin as an avatar (don't get the wrong idea about me), but dolphins have been known to actually start it with people. If that's not a display of consent, I'm not sure what is. And I guess while I'm at it, dolphins are bisexual polygamous and don't show much species-prefrence, so I guess if animals in nature are what determines "natural" a case could be made for bisexual polygamous zoophilia being natural that way too.


Asmoday
Asmoday's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2006-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:It's kinda

Zhwazi wrote:
It's kinda embarassing to say this while using a dolphin as an avatar (don't get the wrong idea about me), but dolphins have been known to actually start it with people. If that's not a display of consent, I'm not sure what is. And I guess while I'm at it, dolphins are bisexual polygamous and don't show much species-prefrence, so I guess if animals in nature are what determines "natural" a case could be made for bisexual polygamous zoophilia being natural that way too.

ROTF
hahaha, excellent......

stepping away from sexuality and animals......
I beleive the humpbacked whale has one of the most complex communications systems known to man. Or maybe that's the dolphin?
Withen nature what is the most complex communication system?

I think thats pretty interesting to learn about, how well animals communicate with eatch other, especially whales. and then compare it to how we communicate to each other..

"Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside awakens."

-Carl G. Jung


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I don't know exactly how

I don't know exactly how you'd define "complex".

I read a convincing piece that said that dolphins communicate based on frequency to form words instead of what we use, what we would call "voice" (ah vs ee is actually a change in the shape of the sound wave) and what the writer called the "time-domain". It would explain how dolphins have been known to communicate extremely complex ideas so quickly, because they can hear and create such a wide range of frequencies that they have much more "bandwidth" available. I'm not sure if it's the most complex but it's complex enough to be worth putting out there.

Really this is a bit off-topic though. Thread was kinda about sexuality. If you wanna keep talking about animal communication we could start another thread.


Golden Toad
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
The evidence however from

The evidence however from all of psychology does not bear you out there. Nor does my own personal experience as a homosexual. The sorts of changes we see in the brains of homosexuals are the sorts of changes that take place not during one's life, but during sex differentiation in the brain. This takes place at key stages in gestation, but is not COMPLETE until age 4 (although the path it takes is predetermined during gestation last I checked)

We are not born "gay" "straight" or "bisexual" we are born with a masculinized, feminized, or intermediate brain, which then effects what we are attracted to when we hit puberty.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Asmoday wrote:The sight of a

Asmoday wrote:
The sight of a beautiful woman turns me on. Within seconds I have a serious hard on. It’s not like that for me with men. However, I did accomplish masturbating thinking about Mohammad fucking Jesus Christ in the asshole. That was probably the best masturbating session I've ever had, it was definitely the most rewarding relief I have ever had. I suggest everyone masturbate to that thought, Mohammad the prophet butt fucking Jesus Christ, the fag... it’s fulfilling. I feel sexually free after such an experience.

Well, I've met many many experimental heterosexuals ...

Quote:
Physically, I don’t I want a cock in the ass or vice versa, it just doesn't turn me on. I think that humans shouldn't exclude anyone sexually. If people want to fuck each other who are you to judge and condemn? It's sexually freedom. It's all about sex, orgasm, and feeling good. Not a, "you are wrong I am right mentality."

Indeed, although anal sex on men is not a strictly homosexual thing, and homosexuals don't strictly have sex anally. Heterosexual men often experiment with their anus and homosexuals often resort to oral sex, mutual masturbation, etc. Female homosexuals often perform tribidism. In fact, there's probably as many homosexual sexual positions and options as there are heterosexual.

Quote:
This is why I BELIEVE we human beings are born as a bi-sexual being.

But that's a non-sex-quitor. Just because you think people shouldn't exclude others sexually doesn't mean we're all born bisexual. In fact, I highly doubt that is the case. Infants, though they do have some forms of sexual expression as they enter their toddler years, don't seem to express sexual preferences. Nor do they seem to have arousal reponses based on people around them. This leads me to believe that they are not bisexual, but are asexual, and that certainly makes more sense, and is supported by data on child sexual development.

Quote:
What are the motivations for someone choosing homosexuality? Companionship? Orgasm? Love? Acceptance?

First thing is first - you can't answer such questions without first proving that homosexuals choose homosexuality.

Quote:
How can it be that people are choosing homosexuality? Because they choose to act on their arousal? They choose to pursue the same sex, whether they are aroused or not, they choose to pursue it.

On the contrary, many homosexuals don't choose to persue anything in regards to their homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn't necesarily describe who you persue, it describes who you become aroused by.

Quote:
The whole idea of choice to me indicates that there is a wrong choice, and a correct choice. Which is stupid to apply to sexuality, when we are bi-sexual beings. It's like one side is trying to make the other side wrong, when both are legitimate choices. I only have a problem with exclusion. Division.... indifference, hatred.

I agree with the animosity towards bigotry, but I disagree with how you're getting there.

Quote:
About thought. Well, I heard from a guy that studied neuroscience that by thinking about a certain area of the body, you actually increase the blood flow to that specific area. If this concept interests you, look for some studies that show this? Now that I think about it, I realize how foolish it is to think thought can change hormone levels...Maybe it has a small affect somehow?

I have not heard of a study on neuroscience that shows that concept of blood flow, and I'm a bit skeptical of such. If you have a reference, please let me know. I only ask that you find the reference because it is your claim, and not mine.

On thoughts changing hormones ... well, that is a bit more complex. In reality your brain, your thoughts, and all these hormones that we talk about are all a part of a very complex set of chemical reactions that occur in our brains and bodies. You don't really have much control over it overall. However, there does seem to be some indicate that a few of these reactions can be influenced by things you do. Not very many of them can, but just a *few* can. For example, when you think about sex, there is going to be a release of hormones that affect your physiological responses to arousal, that tell you what feels "good," that increases hormones that effectively increase your feelings of trust and affection towards another, and that relate to a variety of other reactions that you typically would experience from sexual stimulation. There are other systems in your body that can be affected similarly, but after each one your body "recovers" or tries to restore something called "homeostasis," your body tries to restore the typical hormonal balance of your body. This creates a kind of "high" then "low" then normalization of the body. Hence, when you are sexually stimulated, you have a large arousal response and you feel that throughout your body, then after orgasm it is like the body/brain lags (a refractory period is often associated with this, but some people will just experience a relaxed phase), and then after that your body slowly goes back to whatever state it was in before. So, yeah, your thoughts can affect hormone levels in a sense, but not in the way that you were implying.

Quote:
What information am I using to support the notion of bisexuality being the natural state? I believe I addressed this above. Choosing to have sexual relations with the opposite sex or the same sex is a natural choice to make?

You seem to be confusing sexual acts with arousal responses. These are not the same thing. Homosexuals have an arousal response towards people of the same sex only. They don't have to have sex with people of the same sex for this to occur.

Quote:
Who is to say of those choices is the correct choice while the other the wrong choice? Simply because there is nothing wrong with either of those choices is enough information for me to conclude that humans are bi-sexual beings.

Knowing that sexuality is not a right/wrong dilemma doesn't automatically imply that people are bisexual.

Quote:
You can study the brains of bisexuals, homosexuals, and heterosexuals till the end of our existence and in the end it makes no difference. If you want to have sex with the same sex, you are correct in wanting that, if you want to have sex with the opposite sex, you are just as correct as the other choice. The act of being aroused by the same sex means nothing, if anything that alone proves to me that humans are bi-sexual beings.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Arousal responses are what determines sexuality.

Quote:
One is aroused by the same sex, the other is not, what more information does one need? Now we want to know what’s the "biological problem?" Sure that’s an interesting academic study but there is no problem, whoever thinks it is.

I don't think it is a biological problem at all - but studies in sexuality can be important in understanding the reasons why some things are, and may even give us some insights on human health and sexuality issues. In the case of the study that is being considered on Rams, it is being done in order to improve the reproductive capacity of animals that we use for food.

Quote:
Being homosexual is a choice? Maybe it isn't, I am probably wrong because I have no good reason to believe thoughts at such a young age can affect hormone levels. All I know is what I was told ... when thinking about an area of the brain or body, you can increase blood flow to that area... so why cant thoughts during that rapid developmental stage affect hormone levels? ??

The more that you mention this blood flow study, the more I'm wondering if some study was misinterpretted and you're getting the results of that misinterpretation. In general, though, it isn't a good idea to just accept when people tell you those things. Finding a reference and going from there would be helpful.

Quote:
I don’t think an infant has a sexual preference. They are in their own consciousness, in my opinion, equally masculine, and feminine. Which is bi-sexual enough for me...

That doesn't make sense. I don't think that infants are bisexual (which is a sexual preference in the context of talking about humans) and I don't think they are equally masculine and feminine, either. Their physical traits other than their genitals are indeed very similar, however, their genitals do an ok job of differentiating them from each other. Unless we're talking about a hermaphrodite ... then perhaps there is more of a case towards an equally masculine and feminine person.

Quote:
It is only through childhood when conditioning takes place do these consciousness' get the " I am right, you are wrong mentality” in which they are taught to be masculine if male, and feminine if female?

Actually, conditioning can take place en utero ... Aside from that, though, more likely than not there is a combination of factors that lead to the male/female cultural separation that we see in people now. It is true that cultural memes play a role in how we perceive those who are sexually different, but it isn't necesarily entirely so. Studies done on hormones and how they affect people do seem to indicate that people with particular gender differences and who happen to have particular hormonal compositions will have reactions specific to those hormones. For example, it has been shown that oxytocin increases trust and bonding mechanisms - oxytocin is a hormone that is increased in women who are pregnant, are going through labor, and/or are breastfeeding. The higher levels of oxytocin in women probably does make their behaviors somewhat different than a man's. We also know that the hormone testosterone, in higher levels (which occurs in some men) is corrolated with more aggressive behavior. So femininity and masculinity is not *just* due to conditioning or environmental factors. There is, however, a natural tendency for humans to behave in manners congruent with those who are around them. Sometimes this means they attempt to alter innate behaviors in order to be like other people (like homosexuals trying to train themselves to be heterosexual) - but that is often counter-productive. Thus, we know that some environmental factors can affect behavior, and some environmental factors cannot change behavior.

Quote:
It’s just a thought?
Imagine the thought process of the child. "Ohh, really? Well then, I wont let that happen again." And thus the imbalance begins.

Most conditioning is not conscious conditioning.

Quote:
One side of their self the feminine side, or masculine side becomes ignored, buried, forgotten, while the other side slowly but surely begins to dominate. And from here, an only here do we get these problems... some people cant handle the imposed moral RESTRICTIONS placed onto them.... Find out what pushed Jeffrey Dalmer to do what he did. It’s the perfect example of what's wrong with restriction, with the, "we are right, and you are wrong mentality."

Dahmer had a psychological disorder. After his crimes were uncovered there was evidence that came out of the investigation that showed that he was probably disturbed from childhood - not because of social restrictions, but because something was wrong with his brain.

Quote:
The only thing unnatural about homosexuality/heterosexuality is the fact that one choice thinks the other choice is "wrong", when in fact, it isn't wrong no matter how many fags brains are examined.

The point of examining "fags brains" is not to determine if one side is right or if another is wrong. In fact, it isn't unlike finding the area of the brain that is related to what tastes we find reinforcing. We learn about it to learn about the brain and how the brain works.

Quote:
An argument?
Since when does reproduction have anything to do with sexuality?

Since sexual drives are what makes us have sex and having sex is what enables reproduction. While it is true that reproduction shouldn't matter in regards to sexual preferences, sexuality itself does have some things to do with reproduction.

Quote:
Opposite sexes were meant to be together they say. They produce a child, it's natural. yeah, through the act of intercourse they can produce a child. So what? That's reproduction. Is reproduction the crucial aspect that determins what kind of sexuality is "natural"? If so, I think that is ridiclous.

Technicallly, yes reproduction does determine what kind of sexuality is natural. No matter if you're from the camp that thinks homosexuality is genetic, or the camp that thinks it is due to hormones, or the camp that thinks it is some combination, it still seems to be the case that the evidence points to the reproductive process as the source for homosexuality. In regards to homosexuality and sexual rights issues, it shouldn't matter if that is the case, but as a side-laying tidbit of information, that is the way it seems to be.

Quote:
Love knows no bounds., right?

Well, in that love is not a cognitive being itself, but is rather a neurological state of being, then love can't, by itself, know bounds. In the sense of people loving others the reality of the situation is that love does have bounds. There is no such thing as unlimited, unconditional love. Let me elaborate here before I get verbally mutilated for saying such ... Even in the case of what is often considered the most powerful of loves, a parent towards their child, the love is still conditional. My daughters are loved by me because they are my daughters - were they not my daughters, I might not love them. In fact, love is conditional even if the only condition is the knowledge of the target of love. There is also limits to love. It may seem to be the case that love is overwhelming for people, but in reality your brain can only process so much of the hormones associated with love - this incapacity is a limit, a boundary. So, although it is very romantic and sweet to think of an unlimited love ... it is a more realistic notion to realize that love is indeed limited by the capabilities of our brains.

Quote:
I think I know now why some people are so upset about cloning,..... human cloning. It is reproduction minus the rape.

Are you implying that standard human reproduction necesarily involves rape? Why did you use the word rape there?

Quote:
Maybe these people would be ok with human cloning if the scientists are being jerked off while in the act of "cloning".That would make the whole human cloning deal legit?... i know thats lame and makes little sense, but wtf? Im 100% for human cloning.

I'm for human cloning to the extent that it benefits the overall health of individuals. Outside of that, I think we have a large enough human population that we don't really need to clone humans to add to the populace. Cloning human parts, though, that makes sense ...

Quote:
zoophilia.... HAHAHAHA... i mean, if you want to fuck an animal, thats one thing, but if you actually do.... it could be considered rape in some cases..............and that is a clear violation of INNOCENSE..... so.. its ......unnatural....

Actually, animals can't give informed consent. It isn't necesarily the case that they are innocent. Animals have sexual drives and urges too and do just about as many sexual things as humans do. It is also not necesarily unnatural for a human to want to have sex with an animal, it is simply maladaptive for them to want to.

Quote:
At least homosexuality involves consenting adults....

Indeed, which is really all that should matter.


Asmoday
Asmoday's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2006-11-20
User is offlineOffline
thanks for setting me

thanks for setting me straight regarding my misconceptions....

and....

About your view on love, I think the viewpoint you have on love is a product of your own conditioning while growing up...

The children shouldn't just be the parents responsibility, they should be the community's responsibility. Everyone's responsibility... Humans should love each other unconditionally, it is possible. and I really think it is quite foolish to think otherwise.

With the current conditioning society raises us up in, it is not possible. But it can be possible, it should be possible, and I hope one day it will be that way. I would like to think the human race has that potential, and we are not doomed with repression, oppression, indifference, exclusion. and... conditional love. Conditional love is a form of evil.

If you love someone based on a condition, whatever that condition may be, that's a form of evil.

Look at your child and understand that she/he is a beautifull human being, and you are blessed enough to be able to care and raise that child. I do not think your love for that child only exists because you are the one raising it, or for the reason that you gave birth to him/her. Is the fellowship there only because its your offspring.... or is it really there because you are both beautifull human beings who both share the same world? If you cut through it all, I think you will find the real reason for the fellowship to be the latter. Genetics is important to keep track of for obvious reasons, however, I think it is really pathetic that your love for your child is based only apon genetics. I think thats very shallow/lame....

Next time you walk by a stranger on the street, adult child, whatever age they may be, realize they are human beings just like you, in almost every way shape and form, you are no better nor worse then they are, and that they too deserve as much love from you as you give your children..... (of course you will have certain attributes to bring to the table that otehrs may not, and vice versa, which does not mean you nor they are better nor worse...)

I beleive that it is your duty as a human being to love every human being unconditionally. It is literally their loss if the love is not resiprocated.

Love:2 : warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion -love of the sea-
3 a : the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration -baseball was his first love- b (1) : a beloved person : DARLING -- often used as a term of endearment (2) British -- used as an informal term of address
4 a : unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1) : the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2) : brotherly concern for others b : a person's adoration of God

An example that this unconditional love does exist is when a stranger rushes to the aid of someone who finds theirself in dire need of help. People save strangers from death all the time, why is that? I'm sure they aren't consciously thinking, "I love this person, therefore I must save them"... For some people its just an automatic reaction to save a fellow human being. What that says to me is, since the beginning we humans loved each other all unconditionally, not just our offspring, I think it's well within our genetic history to love all humans unconditionally. The communiity/tribal unity i think we have quite clearly lost. Where entire community's raised the children, not just a single parent or a single family at the very least as its done today. hell, a lot of children are raised in orphanges?..MANY CHILDREN being raised within a single building within a community. We have definately lost our way as a species. Unconditional love has been replaced by conditional, and you think its RIGHT.....

Then of course there are others who will do nothing, who would rather watch the person die, instead of risking their own life to save the fellow humans. to me thats the result of conditioning. The result of thousands of years of conditional love. The result of an unloving society.

The Progenitor looks down apon us and says, "Little children, Love one another."

Love has become taboo has it not? it has become so conditionalized that it seems "stupid" to love everyone unconditionally? If this is what some people think. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

"Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside awakens."

-Carl G. Jung


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Asmoday wrote:thanks for

Asmoday wrote:
thanks for setting me straight regarding my misconceptions....

No problem.

Quote:
and....

About your view on love, I think the viewpoint you have on love is a product of your own conditioning while growing up...

The children shouldn't just be the parents responsibility, they should be the community's responsibility. Everyone's responsibility... Humans should love each other unconditionally, it is possible. and I really think it is quite foolish to think otherwise.

Even though it would be great if communities had an interest in children's well-beings, it isn't the case that this is so. This is why it is a good idea to be leary about a child's interactions with people and to focus yourself on what that child needs to learn, rather than expecting others to. As for if noticing the limits of love is foolish - I don't think it is, I think it is realistic. Our brains aren't unlimited - it is because of this that any function that takes place in the brain is also not unlimited, even love.

Quote:
With the current conditioning society raises us up in, it is not possible.

No, when I am talking about conditioning, I am talking about something your brain is doing as a response to environment - not necesarily because of something society does. Even with the best conditioning, though, you cannot increase the capacity of the brain to experience an unlimited emotion in any regard at all.

Quote:
But it can be possible, it should be possible, and I hope one day it will be that way. I would like to think the human race has that potential, and we are not doomed with repression, oppression, indifference, exclusion. and... conditional love. Conditional love is a form of evil.

No, conditional love is simply one aspect of human beings. Not being able to experience or have unconditional love does not mean that suddenly everyone is oppressed. Me being incapeable of loving those that I don't know is completely normal and is ok and reasonable, it is hardly evil.

Quote:
If you love someone based on a condition, whatever that condition may be, that's a form of evil.

Of course not - everybody that any human loves experiences that love due to conditions surrounding them. I love my children, my friends, my family all because of conditions in my life. Had I been raised by a different family, I would probably love them and not the one I have now. It isn't evil to realize that, its completely rational. It is also rational to recognize that everyone's brain (the source for the emotion 'love') is limited and so cannot experience an unlimited emotion.

Quote:
Look at your child and understand that she/he is a beautifull human being, and you are blessed enough to be able to care and raise that child.

I agree that it is fantastic, and indeed the most wonderful opportunity that I have in life to be able to raise my daughters. They are both very wonderful and bright children and I absolutely adore them. That doesn't mean that my love is unconditional, though, even if the condition of my love is based upon them being my daughters.

Quote:
I do not think your love for that child only exists because you are the one raising it, or for the reason that you gave birth to him/her. Is the fellowship there only because its your offspring.... or is it really there because you are both beautifull human beings who both share the same world?

Well, technically, it would be all of the above, really. If they weren't a part of this world, of course I wouldn't be able to love them - I wouldn't even know about them!

Quote:
If you cut through it all, I think you will find the real reason for the fellowship to be the latter. Genetics is important to keep track of for obvious reasons, however, I think it is really pathetic that your love for your child is based only apon genetics. I think thats very shallow/lame....

I didn't say it was *only* based on genetics - but I did admit that it was based on conditions about their relationship to me, my experiences with them, etc. That isn't shallow, that is the reality of the way the human mind works. Let me explain this a little better for you. There's billions of people on this planet and somewhere in china there's a theif who steals food because he doesn't have enough money to feed his family. This theif has a life like many others who happen to live in China, but unless you are aware of his existence, you have no way of knowing about him or feeling an emotion one way or the other towards him. It is possibly that you have some emotive response to this hypothetical person, but it isn't likely that you even gave them the remotest amount of neurological space in your brain before I mentioned them. You couldn't possibly have loved that person, much less loved them unconditionally previous to my statements about them.

The same limitations exist in everyone.

Quote:
Next time you walk by a stranger on the street, adult child, whatever age they may be, realize they are human beings just like you, in almost every way shape and form, you are no better nor worse then they are, and that they too deserve as much love from you as you give your children..... (of course you will have certain attributes to bring to the table that otehrs may not, and vice versa, which does not mean you nor they are better nor worse...)

I can easily recognize that other people are indeed people and are human like me - I have no problem with making such determinations about people. I don't consider myself "better" or "worse" than them either (although I may consider myself to be better at particular tasks than they). Knowint this about others and about myself doesn't change the limits of my brain and everyone else's brain in regards to how they love.

Now, from there I think you are assuming that people "deserve" love. Love happens, it isn't unlimited, though. I guess a good way to describe it is that it is like water - everybody *needs* water, but water isn't always available. I can no sooner provide water to people that I am unaware of than I can provide love to them. Love is something that we develop. It isn't something that comes out of thin air or fall from the clouds.

Quote:
I beleive that it is your duty as a human being to love every human being unconditionally. It is literally their loss if the love is not resiprocated.

I disagree - I am not obligated nor is it even physiologically possible for me to love every human being unconditionally. I can't love something that I can't be aware of.

Quote:
An example that this unconditional love does exist is when a stranger rushes to the aid of someone who finds theirself in dire need of help.

Altruistic acts don't equal love. Indeed, they are related to concern, empathy and compassion, but that doesn't mean that it is the same as love.

Quote:
People save strangers from death all the time, why is that?

Because people are capeable of empathy.

Quote:
I'm sure they aren't consciously thinking, "I love this person, therefore I must save them"...

Of course they don't think this - because it probably isn't the case.

Quote:
For some people its just an automatic reaction to save a fellow human being. What that says to me is, since the beginning we humans loved each other all unconditionally, not just our offspring, I think it's well within our genetic history to love all humans unconditionally.

It says to me that it is something other than love that motivates them.

Quote:
The communiity/tribal unity i think we have quite clearly lost.

No, we still have tribal thinking, although it often takes place on a much larger scale. We can even point to examples of tribal thinking in society, remember after 9/11 when everyone bought flags and then people were driven into a war? That's tribal thinking, nobody questioned because everybody was driven to do the same thing. In fact, tribal thinking is actually a good support for the limits of the human capacity to expand their emotive responses - because people are more likely to respond to those they most closely identify with emotionally than those outside of it.

Quote:
Where entire community's raised the children, not just a single parent or a single family at the very least as its done today.

Single parent families and single families are not new to the human race, they have existed for thousands of years...

Quote:
hell, a lot of children are raised in orphanges?..MANY CHILDREN being raised within a single building within a community.

Orphaned children are not new, historically, either.

Quote:
We have definately lost our way as a species. Unconditional love has been replaced by conditional, and you think its RIGHT.....

Unconditional love never existed - it has always been the case that love has been restricted by conditions surrounding it.

Quote:
Then of course there are others who will do nothing, who would rather watch the person die, instead of risking their own life to save the fellow humans. to me thats the result of conditioning. The result of thousands of years of conditional love. The result of an unloving society.

To me it is the result of human behaviors that have existed for thousands of years, and even before modern homo sapiens sapiens. It isn't conditioning that lead people to have that kind of response, we see it in other animals as well.

Quote:
The Progenitor looks down apon us and says, "Little children, Love one another."

Love has become taboo has it not? it has become so conditionalized that it seems "stupid" to love everyone unconditionally? If this is what some people think. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

No, it is simply a fact of our state of being that love has to be conditional. There's no way around it, no way to expand your neurological capacity to go beyond that. It isn't stupid either way you go ... heck, it would be great to be capable of loving everyone - but the problem is it is not possible. I'm not ashamed of knowing this.