Is homosexuality unnatural?

[Cedars]

My comments weren't directed at you. They were directed at the source you used to support your point that an appeal to Jimmy Carter is invalid because he is a hypocrite.

 

I didn't think Ms. Lipstadt was very convincing in her article.

 

Jimmy Carter did not provide one speck of proof Wilson is a racist either. But you didnt take the time to correct that did you? You didnt point out the flaws in Jimmy Carters statement.

 

So of Course it was directed at me.

 

Alan Dershowitz: The World According to Jimmy Carter

[plumber]

Was that a question or an agenda?

[Cedars]

Was that a question or an agenda?

 

What do you think the answer is?

[plumber]

In great humility I will answer your question:hihi:

Of course it is natural. So is everything else around us. The real question is...oh. We are still on your question sorry. Can you tell me what has been the social halmark and defining attribute of every great nation of people...right before it's demise? No one likes the full body of world history. wonder why that is?

[HydrogenBond]

Animals data shows that homosexuality is natural for many animals. But does natural always mean natural human? For example, it is natural for many animals to kill other animals for food or to invade or defend a territory. Does this means that killing is also natural human and humans should be allowed to kill, as long as they eat their victim? Rats have been shown to cannibalize, making that natural. Hyenas are scavengers who will steal the hard earned efforts of other animals. Stealing is natural. Should we punish and discriminate against humans who steal, since this can be shown to be natural? Some animals have been shown to eat their own feces, this is completely natural.

 

The real question should be, there are many natural animal behaviors throughout nature. Are all these natural for humans?

 

Relative to Jimmy Carter, his comments used an effect, similar to the above. Natural is the left hand and natural human is the right hand. If we wave the left hand, natural and show, "nothing up the sleeve" the hope is we will distract from the right hand. The racist comment shifts attention to the left hand, so we ignore the right hand. The magician can then use the right hand to complete the trick. The debate shifted to Carter and racism and health care tricks gets lost in the shuffle. We discuss natural and natural human is distracted so the right hand can complete the trick.

[Cedars]

In great humility I will answer your question:hihi:

Of course it is natural. So is everything else around us.

The question was is homosexuality unnatural, not whether it is natural.

[Cedars]

Animals data shows that homosexuality is natural for many animals.

 

So far, I have not found the data to be all that compelling (ie natural). But that could be partly semantics.

 

But then, I wouldnt doubt a bit that much of this 'homosexuality' being attributed to animals is simply false.

 

I know dogs use scent a lot. It is well known young dogs secrete scent signals when they are being challenged by a higher pack member via small drops of urine, which cause the dominant animal to stop the challenge. Its an "I surrender" signal. Without swabs and samples and laboratory analysis, the assigning of 'sexual behavior' is simply assumption of the field observer.

 

This is not to say it doesnt happen on occasion, but so far the data seems to be its 'uncommon' and often bias related (an unnatural condition).

 

I also know certain behaviors in a pack (or a herd) can indicate health issues. Urinary tract infections WILL cause mounting behaviors in cattle. Same with dogs. When our neutered cat begins to attempt to mount our spayed female, we test her blood. Shes diabetic and changes in her always trigger apparently sexual reactions in the neutered male. So far, most of this is within acceptable margins, but we have had to bring her in twice because the change was too great.

[HydrogenBond]

The point I was making is natural is a huge set of observations. What is natural human is a subset of this. I conceded homosexuality as being natural to speed up the process so we can focus just on the subset of natural called natural human. Whether homosexuality is natural or not in some animals, keeps the focus on the wrong hand of the discussion.

 

Like Jimmy Carter, if he can shift the focus to racism, the original complaint of lying about illegal immigrants and free health care is lost. President Carter is a bright guy and is taking the heat of enemy fire, so others can try to outflank the opponents.

 

I am not saying homosexuality is natural human or not. But if we try to define natural human, maybe the answer will pop out of the logic.

[Moontanman]

Homosexuality has been shown to be natural through out this thread. Homosexuality occurs through out the animal kingdom, human homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, the genetics backing this up have been found as has been shown in this thread. If debate is going to take place again please read the entire thread and address the actual data. If you can refute it please do so, but refute what has already been shown, please do not ignore it. Try to stay on topic, Jimmy Carter may or may not be an influential figure but his take on racism has nothing to do with this thread.

[Cedars]

The point I was making is natural is a huge set of observations. What is natural human is a subset of this. I conceded homosexuality as being natural to speed up the process so we can focus just on the subset of natural called natural human. Whether homosexuality is natural or not in some animals, keeps the focus on the wrong hand of the discussion.

 

I am not saying homosexuality is natural human or not. But if we try to define natural human, maybe the answer will pop out of the logic.

 

The natural position of human sexuality is heterosexual. That seems obvious from the statistics alone (which vary between 90 and 95% of a population depending on the sample method used). Until we isolate the "gay genes" and figure out when they are turned on/off, we really cant say for sure that x amount of the people are naturally hetero/homosexual. Otherwise 100% of identical twins would be either homo or heterosexual. There there is that other in utero (sp?) influence question that is still outstanding (as far as I know).

 

Naturally some people are born trans-gender. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born epileptics. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born albino. But this is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born pedophiles. But it is an unnatural condition.

 

Naturally, there are genetic variations in people. Some of these variations get repeated via inheritance, some are mutations. It is possible that in the wide world of dna, the 'homosexual gene(s)' will not become extinct, but it seems they are recessive (in my incomplete understanding of genetics and inherited traits).

[Moontanman]

The natural position of human sexuality is heterosexual. That seems obvious from the statistics alone (which vary between 90 and 95% of a population depending on the sample method used). Until we isolate the "gay genes" and figure out when they are turned on/off, we really cant say for sure that x amount of the people are naturally hetero/homosexual. Otherwise 100% of identical twins would be either homo or heterosexual. There there is that other in utero (sp?) influence question that is still outstanding (as far as I know).

 

 

Naturally, there are genetic variations in people. Some of these variations get repeated via inheritance, some are mutations. It is possible that in the wide world of dna, the 'homosexual gene(s)' will not become extinct, but it seems they are recessive (in my incomplete understanding of genetics and inherited traits).

 

I think we need to decide what the word "Unnatural" means in this context. To me homosexuality would be unnatural if the person who is homosexual chose to be homosexual against all his natural instincts to the contrary.

 

Naturally some people are born trans-gender. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born epileptics. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born albino. But this is an unnatural condition.

 

While these things might be less than optimal, or not normal, to say they are unnatural I think is a mistaken idea.

 

Naturally some people are born pedophiles. But it is an unnatural condition.

 

I would like to see some evidence for this.

[REASON]

Naturally some people are born trans-gender. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born epileptics. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born albino. But this is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born pedophiles. But it is an unnatural condition.

 

People are naturally born unnatural?

 

This is a contradiction.

 

It seems to me that it would make more sense to substitute "unnatural" with "unusual" or "infrequent."

 

Or maybe "undesirable" would fit with what you're trying to convey. But then that would be a bit of a judgement, wouldn't it?

[Cedars]

People are naturally born unnatural?

 

This is a contradiction.

 

It seems to me that it would make more sense to substitute "unnatural" with "unusual" or "infrequent."

 

Or maybe "undesirable" would fit with what you're trying to convey. But then that would be a bit of a judgement, wouldn't it?

 

It would be if I had written that.

 

However, the use of the period between separates the two statements.

 

Naturally: (adv) naturally, of course, course (as might be expected) "naturally, the lawyer sent us a huge bill"

 

Naturally, SOME snakes are born with two heads.

But this is an unnatural condition.

 

Did that help you some? Reality is you knew full well it was a legitimate use of naturally. But you chose to become the enforcer; unleash the grammer cops (related to the spelling nazi's) With Link:

Linguistic prescription - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

A punt IMHO

[pamela]

lets be fair here cedars. You could have simply stated those points without the use of the word naturally preceding them.You naturally assume that reason could read your mind and apply it to your type.I can guarantee he was not the only one who read it that way.

As far as your two headed snake goes, that is naturally occurring.No one grafted that extra head on.

[Cedars]

lets be fair here cedars.

Lets be fair? Fact is this wouldnt be occurring if I was nodding my head agreeing with the social agenda, ignoring the bad science (animal homosexuality) and just marching along with the crowd.

The natural position of human sexuality is heterosexual. That seems obvious from the statistics alone (which vary between 90 and 95% of a population depending on the sample method used). Until we isolate the "gay genes" and figure out when they are turned on/off, we really cant say for sure that x amount of the people are naturally hetero/homosexual. Otherwise 100% of identical twins would be either homo or heterosexual. Then (fixed typo) there is that other in utero (sp?) influence question that is still outstanding (as far as I know).

Crickets chirping

Naturally some people are born trans-gender. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born epileptics. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born albino. But this is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born pedophiles. But it is an unnatural condition.

Target of response

Naturally, there are genetic variations in people. Some of these variations get repeated via inheritance, some are mutations. It is possible that in the wide world of dna, the 'homosexual gene(s)' will not become extinct, but it seems they are recessive (in my incomplete understanding of genetics and inherited traits).

Crickets chirping

 

You could have simply stated those points without the use of the word naturally preceding them. You naturally assume that reason could read your mind and apply it to your type.I can guarantee he was not the only one who read it that way.

As far as your two headed snake goes, that is naturally occurring.No one grafted that extra head on.

 

You (and others) have an obvious bias regarding this topic. I pointed out the flaw in the interpretation and immediately the blame is shifted to me because I should have known you would skip over the period separating the statements.

 

Definition of Unnatural (one of several ways the term unnatural can be used legitimately):

abnormal: not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm

 

It is abnormal for snakes to be born with two heads is interchangeable with it is Unnatural for snakes to be born with two heads. It is an Unnatural condition.

 

So if I toss about the word naturally in ways the bias crowd finds acceptable, you interpret that fine. If I use unnatural in a context that grates against the social agenda, it is I who should bear remember your not a mind reader, ignoring the fact that the Period separated the sentences and it was the readers skimming of the content that resulted in the flawed interpretation?

 

True or false, Reason distorted the sentence in his response (running together two sentences to try to ridicule my statement):

People are naturally born unnatural?

 

This is a contradiction.

So, lets be fair, pamela.

 

Somewhere I read to keep a two headed snake alive you have to feed both heads.

[Moontanman]

The natural position of human sexuality is heterosexual. That seems obvious from the statistics alone (which vary between 90 and 95% of a population depending on the sample method used). Until we isolate the "gay genes" and figure out when they are turned on/off, we really cant say for sure that x amount of the people are naturally hetero/homosexual. Otherwise 100% of identical twins would be either homo or heterosexual. There there is that other in utero (sp?) influence question that is still outstanding (as far as I know).

 

This has been answered already in this thread. There are no "gay" genes, homosexuality is not an off on thing any more than heterosexuality is an off on thing. It has been found that certain combinations of genes can cause a human to be more likely to be homosexual. "Gayness" has many causes, some of which can be traced to hormonal imbalances in the womb. I am the father of a homosexual man. My son and I have had many long conversations about homosexuality. I think this gives me an insight into homosexuality that many people do not have. To say he is unnatural is simply not true. Just because homosexuals are a smaller part of the human race than heterosexuals doesn't make them unnatural. nor doe sit make albinos unnatural. Unnatural is the guy who has horns grafted on his head or the woman who bleaches her hair out , or a tattoo. Yes a broad definition of the word unnatural would seem to include albinos or epileptics or anyone who is different. does that mean a black person with blue eyes is unnatural? Does than mean size 0 women are unnatural? Does than mean that shaq is unnatural because he is so tall? Just because a word like unnatural can be used to describe certain things doesn't mean it's accurate. The word blue can describe a color or a mood, does that mean a depressed person is actually blue in color? Or that a blue object is depressed? Used in the context we are talking about the word unnatural would mean out side of natural, not occurring naturally. Using it to describe an unusual or not often occurring thing is not accurate in this context.

 

 

Naturally some people are born trans-gender. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born epileptics. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born albino. But this is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born pedophiles. But it is an unnatural condition.

 

Naturally, there are genetic variations in people. Some of these variations get repeated via inheritance, some are mutations. It is possible that in the wide world of dna, the 'homosexual gene(s)' will not become extinct, but it seems they are recessive (in my incomplete understanding of genetics and inherited traits).

 

Yes I would agree that your understanding of genetics is somewhat incomplete.

 

Somewhere I read to keep a two headed snake alive you have to feed both heads.

 

Not true cedars, the two headed snake only has one digestive tract.

[pamela]

Lets be fair? Fact is this wouldnt be occurring if I was nodding my head agreeing with the social agenda, ignoring the bad science (animal homosexuality) and just marching along with the crowd.

bad science?? woah cedars, you have successfully made me speechless here and that has only occurred 4 times in my life, 'cause ya know i am always chirping about something

Crickets chirping

 

Target of response

 

Crickets chirping

yeah man, i am like the one that gets into your room at night, always gnawing at you and preventing sleep-much like an unsettled conscience

 

 

You (and others) have an obvious bias regarding this topic. I pointed out the flaw in the interpretation and immediately the blame is shifted to me because I should have known you would skip over the period separating the statements.

bias? has nothing to do with bias, sweet aromatic tree, it is about facts. Should have known? it was the unnatural that caught my eye

Definition of Unnatural (one of several ways the term unnatural can be used legitimately):

abnormal: not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm

normal is subjective

typical merely follows a pattern with probabilities

usual depends on the observer

regular is subjective

conforming is something i never do, despite your assessment of me and again the norm is subjective

 

It is abnormal for snakes to be born with two heads is interchangeable with it is Unnatural for snakes to be born with two heads. It is an Unnatural condition.

really? got some numbers on this? ya know those 2 headed snakes might just be tasty food for the moms and hence they might not be observed that often

So if I toss about the word naturally in ways the bias crowd finds acceptable, you interpret that fine.

really cedars, you do me a great injustice here, by assuming that i simply follow group thought.I do not.i follow facts and evidence and make my own assessments based upon them

If I use unnatural in a context that grates against the social agenda, it is I who should bear remember your not a mind reader, ignoring the fact that the Period separated the sentences and it was the readers skimming of the content that resulted in the flawed interpretation?

considering that your posts are well thought out cedars, you chose that word carefully.Now since i cannot read your mind, i wonder if you knew the outcome might be similar to what has been said

True or false, Reason distorted the sentence in his response (running together two sentences to try to ridicule my statement):

false. Reason does not ridicule, he questions.

So, lets be fair, pamela.

i am cedars, but are being fair in your assessment of myself and reason?

Somewhere I read to keep a two headed snake alive you have to feed both heads.

now that was just too cute and by far food for my biased thought;)