Is homosexuality unnatural?

[lemit]

I question the title of this thread might be misleading when comparing with animals.

For instance all data regarding the "1500 species of animals" so behaving in a

"homosexual" manner. From what I have read on the subject, this behavior was

interpreted as "bisexual" in nature. This may be somehwat of a nitpick, though I do

believe this is more clear and more in tune with nature. This would be especially so

with the Chimps in the study... :)

 

I would then think that Culture (and human beings alone) have created the notion of

"homosexuality" in that this implies "exclusivity" over with whomever just happens to

be available.

 

maddog

 

Sorry, "maddog," it was insensitive of me. I didn't mean to cause offense.

 

--lemit

[Boerseun]

reproduction is merely a "side benefit" of sex, and the fact that a penis has evolved to fit neatly into a vagina is almost coincidental.

Although it's healthy to reexamine established lines of causation, I believe you'll find this one is unassailable. All of life is in the service of reproduction.

If you quoted the entire paragraph in which I made this statement, then the context in which I said this should be clear.

 

This was referring to the importance of sex as a social tool.

[freeztar]

Whether you deem homosexuality as "natural" or "unnatural", the fact remains that it does, indeed, happen in nature - "nature", of course, being everything outside the scope of human biology/culture for the sake of this argument.

 

For instance, scientific experiments on overpopulation amongst rats have shown that the denser the population becomes, the more prone males are to engage in homosexuality, and females withdraw from sexual activity altogether.

 

On the other hand, in mammals with more developed brains where social hierarchy comes into play, primatologists have found that male chimpanzees routinely "hump" each other in affirming and strengthening the social structure. The dominant male will do the humping, the submissive male (lower on the social ladder) will turn around and present his rear to the dominant male. This serves in lowering tension levels in the troop, and affirming the participating individuals' respective positions in the social strata. The male who have just presented his rear to a male above him, will just as soon hump a male on a level below his, thereby "imposing" his will and asserting his dominance over those below him.

 

It's interesting that an analogy exist amongst human males. Amongst testosterone-poisoned young males, the insult of choice seem to be "**** you", with the "I" implicit in front of the sentence. And so the social hierarchy is established and strengthened. I'm sure there's a meaningful corrolation there.

 

But if we want to give a simple answer to the question posed in the OP, then, no - homosexuality is clearly not unnatural. Whether you, as an individual, approve of it or not is immaterial - animals al through the environment engage in it, and the reasons vary from it being a simple survival strategy to being merely an action imposed on the male by testosterone meddling with the brain.

 

Love has absolutely nothing to do with the "naturalness" or "unnaturalness" of any given sex act between any two given individuals.

 

After all, if you see two frogs humping in a pond, do you really think love's involved anywhere in the equation?

 

If two males engage in sex and they love each other, good for them. If they have sex and there's no "love" involved, if it's merely an act of lust, then there's absolutely no difference between what they're doing and what millions of heterosexual men are doing visiting prostitutes each and every day all over the world. There's no love there - it's all lust.

 

If we see the act of sex as purely reproduction, then yes - homosexuality is unnatural. But when sex becomes a social tool, maintaining peace by being an outlet for testosterone poisoning, and serves in maintaining social and dominance hierarchys (as amongst the chimpanzees), then reproduction is merely a "side benefit" of sex, and the fact that a penis has evolved to fit neatly into a vagina is almost coincidental.

 

So, in essence, the answer is definitely "no". It's not unnatural.

 

That's what I would call "end of discussion".

:naughty:

[dkv]

That is not "well known" at all. You need to provide citations in support of your points. Until then, I will label you as wrong, and this label will remain until you demonstrate otherwise with supporting evidence.

It is well known to the ordinary people.I have done enough field work on this. Interview a group of teenager who are lesbians and they will tell you exactly what I am telling you.

It is difficult to cite on such matters because the topic is still at a very nascent stage.

It is purely by chance that women know what they are doing ... most of the time these behaviours are unintentional and it is left to obeserver to determine what advantage the behaviour brings. The proposition is debatable but can not be ruled out in any more than a college discussion.

[pamela]

Homosexuality is not a threat. But we must understand "homosexuality" provides greater opportunity to transfer genes. It is well known that in most cases Lesbians do it to attract males.Males do it unconsciously.Homosexuality provides greater opportunity to propagate genes than sexual antagonism that is why Homosexuality has survived since the advent of mankind.

i would love to see some back up on this one

 

It is well known to the ordinary people

???

I have done enough field work on this

your speculation only

Interview a group of teenager who are lesbians and they will tell you exactly what I am telling you.

Most lesbians that i know, either teenagers or adults, are attracted to females and do not attempt to attract males. If you are referring to teenagers who are bi sexual, then yes, displaying erotic affections in front of males, can be a way of enticing them.

 

It is difficult to cite on such matters because the topic is still at a very nascent stage

.really? who is doing these studies, can you at least refer to one of them

 

It is purely by chance that women know what they are doing

oh boy, do you really want to make this statement?? make this statement to your girlfriend, and let me know the outcome- you dont need your teeth to type;)

most of the time these behaviours are unintentional and it is left to obeserver to determine what advantage the behaviour brings.

What???

The proposition is debatable but can not be ruled out in any more than a college discussion.

provide something then instead of just posting your thoughts and conjecture

[Larv]

Also, implicit in the question is that homosexuality is somehow wrong... an "affliction" to be cured. That's laughable, at best.

Could be that homosexuality is no more of an affliction than is left handedness, which is also natural, and curable. But why is a "cure" for either one a bad thing? Is it wrong for a homosexual to want to be heterosexual, or vise versa? So why should a "cure" be scorned in either case? If one of my children were to become a homosexual I would be very concerned. Not because I don't like homosexuals, but because I would worry about his/her future. Still, I wouldn't reject a homosexual child. I would instead invoke Hamlet's admonition on myself: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Thankfully, I've never had to invoke it.)

[InfiniteNow]

The issue is your use of the word, "cure," as it implies disease or a lack of health where there is none. It's about the negative connotation with which it implicitly castes homosexuality... as if those who are homosexual are "broken" and need to be "fixed."

 

 

AskOxford: cure

•

verb

1

relieve (someone) of the symptoms of a disease or condition.

2

end (a disease, condition, or problem) by treatment or appropriate action.

 

 

•

noun

1

something that cures a disease, condition, or problem.

2

restoration to health.

[pamela]

Larv, homosexuality is certainly not an affliction, the person who places condemnation as such is afflicted with bigotry. Why would left handedness need a cure, and what might that cure be? I realize way back in the day, people were literally forced to write with their right hand to fit the norm, but that senseless. After evaluating the rest of your post, I suggest that you read this thread from the beginning, in order to gain a better understanding of homosexuality

[Larv]

Larv, homosexuality is certainly not an affliction...After evaluating the rest of your post, I suggest that you read this thread from the beginning, in order to gain a better understanding of homosexuality

But, wait, I accept homosexuality as natural. I oppose all forms of abuse against homosexuals. And I support legalizing domestic partnerships for homosexuals. So what’s your problem, pamela?

[pamela]

hmmm...my problem.....okay, Larv, heres my problem

you refer to both homosexuality and lefthandedness as an affliction requiring a "cure". Now look at this statement you typed

 

If one of my children were to become a homosexual I would be very concerned.

are you saying this is naturally occurring or are you simply implying a choice. This statement alone, negates this next statement from you

 

But, wait, I accept homosexuality as natural

 

Still, I wouldn't reject a homosexual child

. This comment blows me away. Now you have catergorized your child, giving a label that separates him/her from you. Why would you even use and think the word reject here, what thought processes and biases have gone through your mind. I can tell you as a parent, that i would never even entertain the thought of rejecting my child for any reason

[Larv]

hmmm...my problem.....okay, Larv, heres my problem

you refer to both homosexuality and lefthandedness as an affliction requiring a "cure". Now look at this statement you typed

 

If one of my children were to become a homosexual I would be very concerned.

are you saying this is naturally occurring or are you simply implying a choice. This statement alone, negates this next statement from you

What difference does it make? Are you saying a child cannot become a homosexual by choice? Do you have proof of this? And why is choice not natural? Still, it doesn’t really matter anyway; I was just just making an honest statement. The problem is perhaps that your political-correctness feathers are too easily ruffled.

 

But, wait, I accept homosexuality as natural… Still, I wouldn't reject a homosexual child

This comment blows me away. Now you have catergorized your child, giving a label that separates him/her from you. Why would you even use and think the word reject here, what thought processes and biases have gone through your mind. I can tell you as a parent, that i would never even entertain the thought of rejecting my child for any reason

Pamela, that’s simply a lot of emotionally loaded opinion. No labeling. No categorization. No separation. And the biases run both ways. I would just be trying to understand my child and do the right thing. What more would expect from me?

[buddhaboy]

Ill be honest, when i was younger, and stoopider, i was , (or thought) i was homophobic... my argument was"its not natural"... yet as i grew up i looked at many things that i do, and thought maybe some of them may not be "natural"... going out with my friends and drinking ten pints of beer isnt natural! eating when im really full isnt natural, and so on... the way i see it , is that if people want to something together,sexual, or otherwise, then its up to them...as long as they are old enough and willing then its ok by me...and we should not feel guilt about that... dont try to get others to accept it ! maybe its not for them...and anyway if you are worried about what people think or say,, dont tell them...

[REASON]

This comment blows me away. Now you have catergorized your child, giving a label that separates him/her from you. Why would you even use and think the word reject here, what thought processes and biases have gone through your mind. I can tell you as a parent, that i would never even entertain the thought of rejecting my child for any reason

 

While I would never reject my child for who they are, I can think of some behaviors that they might engage in that I would definitely reject - even to the point where I could imagine a rift developing between us. Such things are not so uncommon in this world.

 

While homosexuality would not be one of those for me, it is for many parents who refuse to believe anything but that their child is choosing a lifestyle which they have been taught to reject. As such you end up with support groups such as PFLAG (Parents, Families, Friends of Lesbians And Gays) which is there to help people develop a greater understanding of homosexuality and how to cope with their feelings.

 

What's lacking in all of this is better information that helps people understand that most people that exhibit homosexual behavior are born with that sexual orientation. It's simply who they are. I would think that having that understanding would reduce that amount of resentment comming from parents and society in general.

 

But it's difficult to counter the religious disinformation machine which has always been so good at demonizing homosexuality, and so we shouldn't be shocked at the level of resentment that still exists.

[pamela]

What difference does it make? Are you saying a child cannot become a homosexual by choice? Do you have proof of this? And why is choice not natural? Still, it doesn’t really matter anyway; I was just just making an honest statement. The problem is perhaps that your political-correctness feathers are too easily ruffled.

have you actually read what this thread is about? exactly what type of response were you looking for when you asked me what my problem was?

 

Pamela, that’s simply a lot of emotionally loaded opinion. No labeling. No categorization. No separation. And the biases run both ways. I would just be trying to understand my child and do the right thing. What more would expect from me?

really??? Now that would be your opinion. I am however glad that you would try to understand and do the right thing

Take the time to read this quote by REASON

What's lacking in all of this is better information that helps people understand that most people that exhibit homosexual behavior are born with that sexual orientation. It's simply who they are. I would think that having that understanding would reduce that amount of resentment comming from parents and society in general.

[Larv]

What's lacking in all of this is better information that helps people understand that most people that exhibit homosexual behavior are born with that sexual orientation. It's simply who they are. I would think that having that understanding would reduce that amount of resentment comming from parents and society in general.

Would it be resentment on my part if I became concerned about my child's homosexuality? Couldn't it be compassion instead? The honest truth is that homosexuals often face challenges (social, professional, health), any of which would cause me concern as a parent. This is not a bias statement, nor a bigoted statement, not even a resentful statement; it is just plain, unadulterated truth: a parent has a right and duty to be concerned.

 

But it's difficult to counter the religious disinformation machine which has always been so good at demonizing homosexuality, and so we shouldn't be shocked at the level of resentment that still exists.

Resentment? Maybe for some people—the religious nuts—but not for me. What I resent is when either side of the hetero-homo debate descends into emotional hyperbole—when a simple statement of pure truth cannot be taken as such.

[pamela]

Would it be resentment on my part if I became concerned about my child's homosexuality? Couldn't it be compassion instead? The honest truth is that homosexuals often face challenges (social, professional, health), any of which would cause me concern as a parent. This is not a bias statement, nor a bigoted statement, not even a resentful statement; it is just plain, unadulterated truth: a parent has a right and duty to be concerned.

we all do Larv. As parents we need to be concerned about our children's health.

Resentment? Maybe for some people—the religious nuts—but not for me.

there again another label that does indeed causes separation. Whether you agree or disagree with religious fanaticism, you have boxed people into a concept and thus removing their individuality. Do you not see how your words are passing judgement on an individual, where it should be an individual with characteristics there of?

 

What I resent is when either side of the hetero-homo debate descends into emotional hyperbole—when a simple statement of pure truth cannot be taken as such

we are emotional beings and where there is not love in humanity, discord is prevalent.How you think Larv, belongs to you, and you have that right. I am merely showing you another perspective.

[REASON]

Would it be resentment on my part if I became concerned about my child's homosexuality? Couldn't it be compassion instead? The honest truth is that homosexuals often face challenges (social, professional, health), any of which would cause me concern as a parent. This is not a bias statement, nor a bigoted statement, not even a resentful statement; it is just plain, unadulterated truth: a parent has a right and duty to be concerned.

 

 

Resentment? Maybe for some people—the religious nuts—but not for me. What I resent is when either side of the hetero-homo debate descends into emotional hyperbole—when a simple statement of pure truth cannot be taken as such.

 

Larv,

 

My use of the term "resentment" was not directed at you. I want to make that clear. To be honest, I completely understand where you're coming from and the point you're trying to make. I would share your concern in such a situation and have by the fact that I have two gay step brothers. The resentment I'm talking about is that which comes from people who do not accept homosexuality as a legitimate behavior or lifestyle, and that think it is some sort of deviant or dysfunctional choice. I do not sense from your posts that that is how you feel.

 

But the compassion you would feel about someone you care about who was homosexual exists because of the fact that homosexuality is still generally resented and rejected in our society. My point was to suggest that the reason for that is the fact that most people still don't understand that it is primarily something that is inherent and not chosen. If science was doing a better job conveying research that would reinforce this understanding as a counter to the profound efforts of religious institutions to control the dialogue, maybe tolerance would prevail.

 

I imaging that you would generally agree with those sentiments.