Is homosexuality unnatural?

[Cedars]

Well, it will be really difficult to sway you if you yourself don't know what would sway your opinion.

 

Interesting response. Its not me who is making the claim that homosexuality in animals is common, occurs often, or any of the other variants being presented in an attempt to associate animal homosexuality with natural (ie normal). The burden of proof isnt upon me.

 

So, perhaps the best way forward is to present studies and we can all argue on the deficiencies and merits of those studies individually? Over time, we could develop a catalogue of scientific evidence for and against "natural homosexuality" and compare the lists to go deeper into our scientific understanding (or lack thereof) of the big picture.

 

I doubt this would work. I am tired of spending time verifying others marginal/fringe 'evidence' when the reality of the evidence is, at best, inconclusive.

 

I am tired of lowering the bar, so to speak, so a few people can feel warm and fuzzy.

[Moontanman]

Cedars, do you ignore my posts because you have no answer or comments or do you consider my ideas to be too meaningless to bother with?

 

I'm not completely sure but in this group my perspective just might be unique, I have two sons, one is homosexual one is not. Both are fine young men who have lives, loves, feelings, needs and wants just like everyone else. To call one natural and one unnatural to me seems a gross injustice. BTW your idea of identical twins needing to be both homosexual or both heterosexual does indeed again confirm your lack of understanding of twins, genetics, and heredity not to mention influences of other kinds that affect people in the womb and after birth. While I do agree to a tiny extent the homosexuality among animals has no real bearing on our discussion mainly because animals do not have the concept of homosexuality or heterosexuality all they have is sexuality. Again I'll say that our own definition of sexuality as hetero and homo is the most unnatural thing about this idea.

[REASON]

Interesting response. Its not me who is making the claim that homosexuality in animals is common, occurs often, or any of the other variants being presented in an attempt to associate animal homosexuality with natural (ie normal). The burden of proof isnt upon me.

 

So you think that which is natural depends on whether it can be defined as normal? And that something that is characterized as not normal is therefore unnatural, even though it occurs in nature?

 

The burden of proof is on you to qualify that equivocation.

 

Beside the abiguity of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, it is clear that a fairly consistent segment of the human population has and does exhibit homosexual characteristics. So why can't it be understood that homosexuality is a normal (ie natural) human condition for that segment of the population, whatever the overall percentage?

 

 

I doubt this would work. I am tired of spending time verifying others marginal/fringe 'evidence' when the reality of the evidence is, at best, inconclusive.

 

I am tired of lowering the bar, so to speak, so a few people can feel warm and fuzzy.

 

Warm and fuzzy? I'd just be happy if we could reduce the number of suicides and instances of bashing that I believe are being perpetuated by the social stigmas of heterosexism, which are reinforced by unsubstantiated characterizations such as that homosexuality is "unnatural."

[Larv]

Warm and fuzzy? I'd just be happy if we could reduce the number of suicides and instances of bashing that I believe are being perpetuated by the social stigmas of heterosexism, which are reinforced by unsubstantiated characterizations such as that homosexuality is "unnatural."

"Heterosexism" leads naturally to an even more disgusting condition called "reproductionism," also known as "procreationism." Good grief!

 

But the real question here, regarding whether or not homosexuality is unnatural, can be logically shifted to whether or not homosexuality is undesirable. Here's the test: Would you desire your children to be naturally heterosexual or naturally homosexual?

 

Be honest, and please don't equivocate by answering "Gosh, I desire them to be exactly who they are." (That would be a cheap out.)

[Cedars]

So you think that which is natural depends on whether it can be defined as normal? And that something that is characterized as not normal is therefore unnatural, even though it occurs in nature?

 

 

I've addressed this previously.

 

Beside the abiguity of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, it is clear that a fairly consistent segment of the human population has and does exhibit homosexual characteristics. So why can't it be understood that homosexuality is a normal (ie natural) human condition for that segment of the population, whatever the overall percentage?

A minority segment. Varied from 5 - 10% cuz no one knows for sure.

 

The natural condition is heterosexual. Variants are outside of the natural expectation. Einstein is a variant. It is not natural to have that kind of an IQ.

 

Warm and fuzzy? I'd just be happy if we could reduce the number of suicides and instances of bashing that I believe are being perpetuated by the social stigmas of heterosexism, which are reinforced by unsubstantiated characterizations such as that homosexuality is "unnatural."

 

Yes, warm and fuzzy.

 

ScienceDirect - Personality and Individual Differences : National intelligence and suicide rate: an ecological study of 85 countries

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/659850

[REASON]

"Heterosexism" leads naturally to an even more disgusting condition called "reproductionism," also known as "procreationism." Good grief!

 

Your sarcasm is noted.

 

Each of the terms you refer to are more aptly described as Natalism. And if Heterosexism leads to Natalism, which I'm not convinced it does, there is no logical reason that I can see for linking the two. One is driven by bigotry, the other is a form of protectionism. Personally, I don't see how tolerance of homosexuality has any adverse effect on the promotion of pro-creation. Are we to believe that promoting pro-creation will somehow convince homosexuals to become heterosexuals? If you are heterosexual, can you conceive of anything that can convince you to become homosexual? Natalism then becomes an excuse for Heterosexism.

 

The equivocation is in attempting to link the two.

 

 

But the real question here, regarding whether or not homosexuality is unnatural, can be logically shifted to whether or not homosexuality is undesirable. Here's the test: Would you desire your children to be naturally heterosexual or naturally homosexual?

 

Be honest, and please don't equivocate by answering "Gosh, I desire them to be exactly who they are." (That would be a cheap out.)

 

This may be the real question for you, but again, I don't think defining something as "undesirable" has any bearing what-so-ever on whether something is natural. It's just another subjective position. What I desire for my children says nothing about the reality of the condition they were born with.

 

To answer your question: I would prefer that they be heterosexual for a number of reasons, but I would not reject them if they were not. I would also prefer that they not be dwarfs, but I would not reject them if they were. I would still love them just the same.

 

Our individual preferences aren't what determines what is natural or unnatural, and not getting what we want doesn't justify bigotry.

[Moontanman]

Larv, if I could go back in time and do something that would prevent my oldest son from being homosexual i would do so. Not because I believe homosexuality is bad or wrong but simply to protect him from the ignorance and bigotry of the world. He has experienced the spectrum of bigotry from being being beaten to people trying to convert him to Christianity so he could stop being gay. Being gay is not unnatural, it is not in of its self a bad thing but the way the self appointed judges of the world react to his sexual orientation is a bad thing that no one should have to go through. The hatred and disgust that the bigots of the world feel for any who are different from them makes me think they are the unnatural part of the equation.

[REASON]

So you think that which is natural depends on whether it can be defined as normal? And that something that is characterized as not normal is therefore unnatural, even though it occurs in nature?

 

The burden of proof is on you to qualify that equivocation.

 

I've addressed this previously.

 

Actually, you haven't. But I'll take your latest avoidance as a yes.

 

 

Beside the abiguity of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, it is clear that a fairly consistent segment of the human population has and does exhibit homosexual characteristics. So why can't it be understood that homosexuality is a normal (ie natural) human condition for that segment of the population, whatever the overall percentage?

 

A minority segment. Varied from 5 - 10% cuz no one knows for sure.

 

So being a part of a minority segment means your condition is unnatural. At what percentage would a condition qualify as a natural condition? 51%?

 

I guess we can scrap the idea of a "natural blonde." :rolleyes:

 

 

The natural condition is heterosexual.

 

Yeah, well, that's what you think. I challenge you to prove it.

 

I think it is more accurate to say, "A natural condition is heterosexual." Your notion of "the" natural condition is purely subjective.

 

 

Variants are outside of the natural expectation. Einstein is a variant. It is not natural to have that kind of an IQ.

 

I submit that your statement above which I bolded is patently false. I'm not aware that "expectations" are a factor in biological evolution. Please explain what you mean by "natural expectation?" Who's expectations are being realized through natural selection? You must be thinking of artificial selection because natural selection has no goals or expectations as I understand it. Now, as we have studied and gained knowledge about the processes of evolution, we have come to expect that variation has and will continue to be an integral aspect of Natural Selection.

 

So it is completely normal for variants such as Einstein and others like him to occur in nature. And it would be no less natural were he homosexual.

 

As it has been said, "Variety is the spice of life."

 

 

Warm and fuzzy? I'd just be happy if we could reduce the number of suicides and instances of bashing that I believe are being perpetuated by the social stigmas of heterosexism, which are reinforced by unsubstantiated characterizations such as that homosexuality is "unnatural."

 

Yes, warm and fuzzy.

 

ScienceDirect - Personality and Individual Differences : National intelligence and suicide rate: an ecological study of 85 countries

 

Nonreproduction, homosexuality, transsexualism, an...[J Homosex. 1978] - PubMed Result

 

Essentially, your links suggest that suicide is associated with low intelligence, and homosexuals have been shown to have higher levels of intelligence on average. Are we supposed to gather that the study I linked to is invalid because taken together, your links suggest otherwise?

 

I think this is just obfuscation of what is actually a troubling problem that reflects a dysfunction in society based on ignorance and a general lack of caring and consideration for others.

[Larv]

Each of the terms you refer to are more aptly described as Natalism. And if Heterosexism leads to Natalism, which I'm not convinced it does, there is no logical reason that I can see for linking the two. One is driven by bigotry, the other is a form of protectionism. Personally, I don't see how tolerance of homosexuality has any adverse effect on the promotion of pro-creation. Are we to believe that promoting pro-creation will somehow convince homosexuals to become heterosexuals? If you are heterosexual, can you conceive of anything that can convince you to become homosexual? Natalism then becomes an excuse for Heterosexism.

 

The equivocation is in attempting to link the two.

Interesting, REASON. I wonder if I commit heterosexism because I think it is better (for me, at least, and probably everybody else, too) than homosexism. But I admit to being utterly controlled by my heterosexist urges. They come to me naturally. But so do those of Moontanman’s first son, who is no less a worthy human than I.

 

This may be the real question for you, but again, I don't think defining something as "undesirable" has any bearing what-so-ever on whether something is natural. It's just another subjective position. What I desire for my children says nothing about the reality of the condition they were born with.

But what is meant by “unnatural”? I can answer it in several ways. Most people want to say that if other forms of life do it homosexually then it’s natural. But what isn’t natural? If it happens in nature then it’s natural. Humans are particles of nature; we’re 100% natural. So “unnatural” has no meaning, unless it is compared to “supernatural,” such as that of religions. As such, a better question is: Is homosexuality _________? Candidates might be: “desirable,” “detrimental,” “respectable,” “beneficial.”

 

To answer your question: I would prefer that they be heterosexual for a number of reasons, but I would not reject them if they were not. I would also prefer that they not be dwarfs, but I would not reject them if they were. I would still love them just the same. Our individual preferences aren't what determines what is natural or unnatural, and not getting what we want doesn't justify bigotry.

Then I take it that you regard homosexuality as preferentially undesirable. So do I, but that doesn’t make us bigots. I’m glad I’m not a woman either, but I still think they are natural, interesting to look at, and sometimes even useful.

[Larv]

Larv, if I could go back in time and do something that would prevent my oldest son from being homosexual i would do so. Not because I believe homosexuality is bad or wrong but simply to protect him from the ignorance and bigotry of the world. He has experienced the spectrum of bigotry from being being beaten to people trying to convert him to Christianity so he could stop being gay. Being gay is not unnatural, it is not in of its self a bad thing but the way the self appointed judges of the world react to his sexual orientation is a bad thing that no one should have to go through. The hatred and disgust that the bigots of the world feel for any who are different from them makes me think they are the unnatural part of the equation.

 

All of this is quite understandable. It’s their lot in life: homosexuals will always be scorned and abused by bigots, just as shapely women will always be ogled by men and bullies will always pick littler kids.

 

It’s such a delicate thing, homosexuality. In many ways it’s like an affliction. But it’s natural; that’s obvious. Take comfort in knowing that in many places now attitudes are shifting towards acceptance. (This will be reaffirmed in Washington next month when we approve Ref. 71. It will be interesting to see how the opposite side of this issue—those who want to reject Ref. 71—take the loss. Anyway, this is evidence that times they are a-changin’.

 

(Please note, however, that we’re not changing the meaning of the word “marriage” out here in the state of Washington.)

[Cedars]

snip

You want to talk about the genetics of blonde, I believe theres much more credible genetic evidence. But thats a different thread isnt it?

 

Statistically, homosexuality in people is not the norm, hence the very low percentage in the human population. Sugar coat it all you want, its the reality.

 

Definitions of unnatural on the Web:

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

 

Got a quarrel, take it up with wordnet.princeton.edu.

 

Could be the percentage of homosexuals will fall as we have fewer and fewer children, if there is any credibility to increased numbers of homosexual children and number of sons/birth order as some of the previous links posted suggest.

 

You read the suicide link wrong. And yes, my links suggest otherwise.

[Moontanman]

Cedars do you really think that any definition of a word applies to all cases or do you cherry pick your definitions to conform to your own prejudices? All definitions of all words to not apply in all cases. Does being unusual make blue eyed black people unnatural? Unusual does not always mean unnatural, any more than unnatural always means unusual. Beer cans on the side of the road are unnatural but not at all unusual. You are manipulating the definitions to conform to your own ideas of prejudice against what you don't like or understand. Homosexuality might be unusual but only the prejudices of humans are unnatural.

[REASON]

You want to talk about the genetics of blonde, I believe theres much more credible genetic evidence. But thats a different thread isnt it?

Could be. But genetics hasn't been your argument here. You have stated that that which is "unusual" (see your chosen definition below) and represents a minority percentage is unnatural. Under these criteria, it would be perfectly appropriate to say blonde hair is unnatural since there is a significantly lower percentage of blonde haired humans. Genetics are apparently beside the point because you also stated that albinos are unnatural. Who chooses to be albino?

 

 

Statistically, homosexuality in people is not the norm, hence the very low percentage in the human population. Sugar coat it all you want, its the reality.

I've never stated otherwise. I've only asserted that unusual biological conditions can still be natural. I don't see how that qualifies as sugar coating it. To me, it's stating the obvious.

 

 

Definitions of unnatural on the Web:

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

 

Got a quarrel, take it up with wordnet.princeton.edu.

Essentially I am by taking it up with you as their representative since this is the definition you have chosen to apply to this discussion.

 

Here's a definition for unnatural from dictionary.com:

 

2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.

 

From this definition, it could be understood that heterosexuality is unnatural to a homosexual person. But saying as much doesn't mean heterosexuality is unnatural.

 

Why don't we quit mincing words and you answer a simple question. Do you think homosexuality is inherent in certain individuals, or simply a lifestyle choice, and on what do you base your opinion?

 

 

Could be the percentage of homosexuals will fall as we have fewer and fewer children, if there is any credibility to increased numbers of homosexual children and number of sons/birth order as some of the previous links posted suggest.

Well if there's any credibility to the notion of "homosexual children" then the notion of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is out the window. But while I would agree that a reduction in birth rate would likely mean a reduction in the number of homosexuals, I would expect the percentage to remain about the same.

 

 

You read the suicide link wrong. And yes, my links suggest otherwise.

As I read the abstract of the suicide study again (sorry but I'm not going to buy the entire paper for $31) I realize I interpreted low intelligence being connected to suicide not higher intelligence as the study seems to suggest (probably a bias on my part as suicide doesn't seem like an intelligent thing to do).

 

So are we to understand from your links that because suicide has an intelligence threshold, and the other study confirms higher intelligence among homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals, that the real reason there is a higher percentage of suicide attemps by homosexuals is because they are more intelligent and not because of the self hatred they feel from being ostracized, ridiculed and condemned by society? If so, don't you think that strains credulity? Neither of these studies are making such a claim.

 

Maybe you'd be willing to elaborate on what you think is implied by those studies relative to the rate of suicides and suicide attempts among homosexuals.

[lemit]

But the real question here, regarding whether or not homosexuality is unnatural, can be logically shifted to whether or not homosexuality is undesirable. Here's the test: Would you desire your children to be naturally heterosexual or naturally homosexual?

What kind of logic are you using? UNDESIRABLE? That argument hasn't been used in industrialized society since the Third Reich. Even in the homophobic 'fifties, people were discovering just how offensive that term is. Did you pick up a bad Thesaurus? Did you write something you were going to edit and then forgot to edit?

 

I'm giving you a chance to pull back from a word that would meet Justice Holmes's standard for "shouting fire in a crowded theater." "Undesirable" is a very offensive term. When aimed at a group granted protection by, it is generally considered a violation of their civil rights. "ESHB 2661 was signed by Governor Chris Gregoire on January 31, 2006. ESHB 2661 adds sexual orientation as a protected class in Washington State." (Washington State Human Rights Commission) I don't think Hypography wants to contribute to what your home state considers criminal behavior.

 

Maybe you'd better think before you write, or maybe you'd better think before you think--and after.

 

--lemit

[Turtle]

What kind of logic are you using? UNDESIRABLE? That argument hasn't been used in industrialized society since the Third Reich. Even in the homophobic 'fifties, people were discovering just how offensive that term is. Did you pick up a bad Thesaurus? Did you write something you were going to edit and then forgot to edit?

 

I'm giving you a chance to pull back from a word that would meet Justice Holmes's standard for "shouting fire in a crowded theater." "Undesirable" is a very offensive term. When aimed at a group granted protection by, it is generally considered a violation of their civil rights. "ESHB 2661 was signed by Governor Chris Gregoire on January 31, 2006. ESHB 2661 adds sexual orientation as a protected class in Washington State." (Washington State Human Rights Commission) I don't think Hypography wants to contribute to what your home state considers criminal behavior.

 

Maybe you'd better think before you write, or maybe you'd better think before you think--and after.

 

--lemit

 

it's nothing short of hate-speech that larv and cedars et al continue to spew out here at hypography and i'm apalled that we have allowed it to continue this long. it's hurting people and patently against our rules. stop it, and stop it now!!

 

Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hate speech is a term for speech that attacks or disparages a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group[1], such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or lack there of, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. ...

 

Hypography Science Forums - Science forums rules

Also, we will not accept racist, sexist, hateful, or derogatory posts.

[Cedars]

Genetics are apparently beside the point because you also stated that albinos are unnatural. Who chooses to be albino?

I didnt say they choose to be albino. Two headed snakes dont choose to be that way. But I am not going to call it the natural condition of snakes. And its not the natural condition for people (albino).

 

I've never stated otherwise. I've only asserted that unusual biological conditions can still be natural. I don't see how that qualifies as sugar coating it. To me, it's stating the obvious.

You have lowered the bar for natural and want everyone else to lower their expectations to meet your standard. Thats how it becomes obvious to you. Its obvious to me its not a natural condition. I dont care if you want to lower your expectations, but dont expect me to agree with your categorization process.

 

Essentially I am by taking it up with you as their representative since this is the definition you have chosen to apply to this discussion.

Well then we are at an impasse because I have no quarrel with the definition. But then I dont auto-associate unnatural as a negative. Glass half full/half empty or your using the wrong sized glass. Whatever.

 

From this definition, it could be understood that heterosexuality is unnatural to a homosexual person. But saying as much doesn't mean heterosexuality is unnatural.

You cant say this much because the statistics do not hold up.

 

Why don't we quit mincing words and you answer a simple question. Do you think homosexuality is inherent in certain individuals, or simply a lifestyle choice, and on what do you base your opinion?

I can think of more than two homosexuals who did grow/mature out of it. And I am sure there are others because I dont have intimate contact with the entire homosexual community of Minnesota, let alone the entire USA (meaning some of these were stories relayed to me). Change without going through any of the programs, without having a revelation in therapy. People who, when they talk about their time believing they were homosexual "cant believe they did that". As teens, they thought they were homosexual. If asked for a survey at that time, they would have said they were homosexual. Asked when they were in their 30s, they might have said bi-sexual or they might have said heterosexual, depending on how they viewed their sexuality (at the moment, or over their lifetime).

 

I dont know why these instances occurred. Homosexuals claim to be born that way. There isnt a test to confirm it and its not like albinos, who cannot hide the obvious.

 

Well if there's any credibility to the notion of "homosexual children" then the notion of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is out the window. But while I would agree that a reduction in birth rate would likely mean a reduction in the number of homosexuals, I would expect the percentage to remain about the same.

Because of my reality, I dont know if its a lifestyle choice. I know some people who thought they were homosexuals changed. Some became bi-sexual, then hetero, some didnt spend time being bi.

 

 

As I read the abstract of the suicide study again (sorry but I'm not going to buy the entire paper for $31) I realize I interpreted low intelligence being connected to suicide not higher intelligence as the study seems to suggest (probably a bias on my part as suicide doesn't seem like an intelligent thing to do).

I dont spend money and have ranted a few times about pay-per-view science.

So are we to understand from your links that because suicide has an intelligence threshold, and the other study confirms higher intelligence among homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals, that the real reason there is a higher percentage of suicide attemps by homosexuals is because they are more intelligent and not because of the self hatred they feel from being ostracized, ridiculed and condemned by society? If so, don't you think that strains credulity? Neither of these studies are making such a claim.

You dont know if homosexuality increases suicide risk. I dont know either. The one homosexual I know of that killed himself, didnt do it because of condemnation by society. He did it because his lover left him for another man.

 

People kill themselves over their perception of society all the time, regardless of sexual orientation.

 

I really dont know why homosexuals would want their orientation associated with suicide risk (associated by the general population). There is a bias surrounding suicide in general. Your bias in that regard is not uncommon. Reinforce the negative perception and then you are critical when I try to deflect the notion to increased intelligence? Ever the victim.

[lemit]

The suicide process in gays and lesbians is generally that they grow up in the culture, learning the jokes, the sneers, the discrimination--and then they come to realize they are part of that group and will be victims the rest of their lives. That's when they become suicidal. It isn't because they are gay; it is because they too often already know what it means to be gay and don't want to live with the intolerance of the outside world.

 

It's the same process youths of any group targeted by discrimination go through. The autobiographies of African-Americans tell the same story: they found out they were black and would have killed themselves if someone had not intervened in some way to give them self-worth. Of course, the fact they were able to write autobiographies and have them published says something.

 

Cedars, some of your most recent post is more measured and considerate than I thought likely. (By way of comparison, the only gay I've known very well who committed suicide did so after a mob beat his lover to death in San Francisco simply because he was gay.) But one sentence of yours baffles me: "I really dont know why homosexuals would want their orientation associated with suicide risk . . . ." Do you think any suicidal person considers the effect his/her actions will have on the dominant group's understanding and treatment of a victimized group that the suicidal person belongs to? Just sorting that out and writing it in a note--"I'm committing suicide because . . ."--should be a great deterrent.

 

Tolerance isn't the responsibility of a group that's subject to discrimination. Don't put that off on them. Those of us who have power must be willing to learn about those who don't and to share our power with them.

 

--lemit