Is homosexuality unnatural?

[lemit]

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.)

 

Larv,

 

If you are truly understanding, you have chosen some very unfortunate language, the language of the Christian right.

 

Living in the region of Matthew Shepard, I recognize the language. I hope you don't really subscribe to the "Hate the sin; love the sinner" philosophy, which is wrong in each word, with the possible exception of "the."

 

I have a feeling you are a person of good will. I hope your only "sin" is in usage. I think you'll find easy acceptance here if that is the case. If it isn't, I think that, like in the conservative Christian community, you'll find love and forgiveness once you confess.

 

--lemit

[mynah]

Getting back to what is "natural", rather than "moral" or "emotionally challenging", keeping dogs and cats has proved to be somewhat educational. I've seen both male dogs and cats practise fellatio on their brothers, for instance - to the obvious pleasure of recipients, although the motives of and benefits gained by the suppliers were less clear. In the case of the cats, the cat that regularly pleasured his brother still attempted to suckle milk from his mother and other nursing females even when mature: Fellatio may have provided a substitute.

[lemit]

Getting back to what is "natural", rather than "moral" or "emotionally challenging", keeping dogs and cats has proved to be somewhat educational. I've seen both male dogs and cats practise fellatio on their brothers, for instance - to the obvious pleasure of recipients, although the motives of and benefits gained by the suppliers were less clear. In the case of the cats, the cat that regularly pleasured his brother still attempted to suckle milk from his mother and other nursing females even when mature: Fellatio may have provided a substitute.

 

Thanks for the redirection, and thanks for the reminder that what we're talking about is often random behavior in the biological hope that something will result. Does anybody remember the studies of frogs? What about the transsexual nature of some species? Do the research on that too. Don't just trust me. Do some research.

 

Can anybody think those behaviors are learned? Are they cultural? Come on, really, aren't there more important problems to solve? Why try to solve a problem nature tells us isn't really a problem, but is instead just a behavior intended to create an environment in which the species is most likely to survive?

 

--lemit

[Boerseun]

If one considers that homo sapiens is the only animal on Earth so far demonstrated to connect the causality dots as far as sex and the birth of a new individual is concerned, then straigh-forward heterosexual intercourse with the express intent to procreate is one of the most unnatural occurences in the natural world.

 

Animals are dumb, and sex is pretty technical. Therefore, animals are duped into doing it with an orgasm as the payoff. That's as far as an animal's conscious decision to partake in sex will go. Litters seem to come by their own accord, and has nothing to do in the animal mind with the sex act that came before.

 

And if another member of the species happens to be of the same sex, and manages to cause an orgasm for the first animal, then that animal got rewarded by nature with an orgasm for (almost) doing what nature wanted it to do. It's a statistics game. As long as enough animals have sex in such a way as to lead to procreation and to replace the dead, Nature is happy. Nature holds no grudges against those short-sighted beasties who can't tell a boob from a boner.

[lemit]

If one considers that homo sapiens is the only animal on Earth so far demonstrated to connect the causality dots as far as sex and the birth of a new individual is concerned, then straigh-forward heterosexual intercourse with the express intent to procreate is one of the most unnatural occurences in the natural world.

 

Animals are dumb, and sex is pretty technical. Therefore, animals are duped into doing it with an orgasm as the payoff. That's as far as an animal's conscious decision to partake in sex will go. Litters seem to come by their own accord, and has nothing to do in the animal mind with the sex act that came before.

 

And if another member of the species happens to be of the same sex, and manages to cause an orgasm for the first animal, then that animal got rewarded by nature with an orgasm for (almost) doing what nature wanted it to do. It's a statistics game. As long as enough animals have sex in such a way as to lead to procreation and to replace the dead, Nature is happy. Nature holds no grudges against those short-sighted beasties who can't tell a boob from a boner.

 

Very good.

 

Although I can almost feel the mud of D.H. Lawrence's "The Horse-Dealer's Daughter" in our arguments here, I think we're probably operating on a different plane from the strictest iterations of the philosophical and literary schools of Naturalism. I hope so anyway, no matter how much I love that philosophy and its literature.

 

--lemit

[Larv]

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.

More or less. But whose fault is that? And what are homosexuals doing to abate it? I'm on their side in all issues except one—"gay marriage"—because even if I'm a radical, pinko revolutionary (which I am in many important ways) I still regard "marriage" as a civil union between one man and one woman. That's my bias, and believe I can support the legitimacy of homosexuality without conflating it with alternative definitions of "marriage."

 

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.

I suspect you are right about this, but I haven't yet seen a convincing confirmation of a "gay gene."

 

I imaging that you would generally agree with those sentiments.

I agree that homosexuals should not be abused in any way, that they should not be discriminated against in our laws, and that they should be granted legalized domestic partnerships. I also subscribe to the state of Washington's new ”everything-but-marriage law”. I suspect this may be our only point of contention (which is mostly OT here in this thread. Sorry.)

[Larv]

Larv,

 

If you are truly understanding, you have chosen some very unfortunate language, the language of the Christian right.

Oh, and what might that be? If I make an honest statement about my concern for a child who may be (or becoming) a homosexual, why is that "unfortunate language"?

[Boerseun]

Whatever "language" is used to describe the objector's argument, the biggest irony of it all is that a parent feeling negative towards his own child's homosexuality is exactly as normal as homosexuality itself.

 

Considering that nature bribes you with an orgasm to have sex, with the result that "whatever floats your boat will do the job", it is still in the best interest of the animal to copulate in such a way as to procreate - whether the animal is aware of it at the time (humans) or not (all other animals).

 

This, of course, is to ensure the continuation of your genes.

 

So, whereas a dog won't mind if his male offspring engage in homosexuality, a human will. And only because you want grandchildren.

 

And not because they are cute.

 

Because your genes tell you so.

 

So, homosexuality might be one hundred percent normal in the Great Scheme of Things, but so is homophobia.

 

The biggest problem the world has with homophobia, is that it is currently politically incorrect to be one. That's about the same with actually being homosexual - they've always been there, lurking in the background, but until relatively recently, it's been politically incorrect to admit to being one. These days, it's all the vogue. But I don't think the positive image homosexuals have attained over the last decade or two have increased their percentage of the population by one whit. And I don't think the bad press homophobia got over the same period has decreased the number of homophobes, either.

 

Bottom line - whether it's good, bad or nothing at all to you, it's there. And it's natural. Both homophobia and homosexuality.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm on their side in all issues except one—"gay marriage"—because even if I'm a radical, pinko revolutionary (which I am in many important ways) I still regard "marriage" as a civil union between one man and one woman. That's my bias, and believe I can support the legitimacy of homosexuality without conflating it with alternative definitions of "marriage."

There is no "alternative definition" required. A marriage describes the relationship, not the private parts of the people entering said relationship. It is about how the state will recognize rights under that relationship, and about the implied contracts contained therein.

 

No-where and at no-time has a definition of marriage been restricted to "one man and one woman" until 1996 when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed. Interestingly, this act seems well against the United States constitution, specifically, the first and fourteenth amendments.

 

The applicable part of the 14th amendment is the Equal Protections Clause, which states that all laws must apply equally to all citizens. Since the state recognizes marriages between opposite sex partners, and provides clear benefits and privileges as a result of that recognition, it is not equal to deny those same privileges to same sex relationships.

 

As per the 1st amendment, I call your attention to the Establishment Clause, which is known for stating that Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. This clause, however, has also been clarified to mean that all laws must have a relevant secular purpose for existence, most commonly, to protect property or prevent harm to others. This has become known as the Lemon Test, which was best articulated in SCOTUS case Lemon v. Kurtzman.

 

Since banning gay marriage has no relevant secular reason, it is inherently unconstitutional, and further counter to the terms and conditions set forth in the establishment clause of the first amendment. Any bans or laws which are based solely on a desire to impose a morality that tends most often to be informed by religious beliefs alone are unconstitutional. Additionally, such bans are against the equal protections clause of the fourteenth amendment since it confers differential benefit to homosexual and heterosexual couples based solely on their sexual preference.

 

Now, since some states in the US have allowed same sex marriage, we get into a bit of trouble with Article Four, Section One of our constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which basically states that all laws and contracts valid in one state of the union must also be recognized as valid in the other states of the union. If a same sex couple marries in Vermont, but then moves to Texas, and Texas refuses to recognize that marriage, when they would recognize a similar marriage of opposite sex partners moving from Vermont, then we have multiple occurrences of unconstitutional behavior and laws for the reasons stated above.

 

 

However, the simple point here is one of equality, and the recognition that there is no relevant secular reason to ban same sex marriage, and those laws which attempt to do so are unconstitutional. There is no imposition of harm to those against against gay marriages (those who seek to ban them), but there IS demonstrable harm to those who wish to be treated equally yet are being banned from so doing. The relationship of same sex partners is the same in every relevant conceivable way to a relationship of opposite sex partners except for genitals.

 

 

To conclude, I'd like to point out to readers that the Christian church itself performed gay marriage ceremonies as early as the 11th and 12th centuries, so any appeals to "traditional definitions" are specious and based on a misunderstanding/misreading of history.

 

 

Look up the work of Professor John Boswell.

John Boswell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Excerpts from the keynote address made by Prof. Boswell to the Fourth Biennial Dignity International Convention in 1979.

"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas

 

 

When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite - Colfax Record

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

 

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

 

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

 

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

 

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

 

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

 

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

 

 

Here's one of the documents translated which shows gay marriages taking place back during the Medieval period and performed by Christian leaders:

 

Theodore of Sykeon - Adelphopoiia

 

 

 

Also, there's this:

 

The Battle Between Monotheism and Homosexuality

John Boswell (a Yale Historian) also notes that historical gay ceremonies carried out by the church in previous centuries were in the same fashion as heterosexual ones.

“For nearly two centuries after Christianity had become the state religion, Christian emperors in Eastern cities not only tolerated but actually taxed gay prostitution. In 7th century Visigoth Spain, a series of six national church councils refused to support the ruler's legislation against homogenital acts. By the 9th century almost every area in Christian Europe had local law codes, including detailed sections on sexual offenses; none outside of Spain forbade homogenital acts. By the High Middle Ages, a gay subculture thrived, as in Greco-Roman times. A body of gay literature was standard discussion material at courses in the medieval universities where clerics were educated.

 

Opposition to homosexuality, as in Augustine and Chrysostom, rested on reasons unacceptable today: "natural-law" arguments based on beliefs about supposed sexual practices among hares, hyenas, and weasels; a philosophical Stoicism that was suspicious of any sexual enjoyment; a sexism that saw a degrading effeminacy in being the receptive partner in sex. All-out Christian opposition to homosexuality arose at a time when medieval society first began to oppress many minority groups: Jews, heretics, the poor, usurers. A campaign to stir up support for the Crusades by vilifying the Muslims with charges of homosexual rape also played a part in Christian Europe's change of attitude toward gay and lesbian sex.”

"Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" by John Boswell (1980)

 

The author lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies: Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece. The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek. An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic.

 

Christianity has always contained a mix of pro- and anti- homosexual elements. Periods of oppression of homosexuals and celebration of love, homosexual or not, have came and went. Finally, same-sex marriage is not only found in early Christianity - it has existed quite freely in other cultures and civilizations. For example a four thousand year old Tomb belonging to gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep exists in Saqqara, Egypt.

[buddyzen]

As a gay man here is my opinion.

 

Look back on cultures like the greeks and egyptions and everything they never had discretion against Homosexuals. Only in current cultures and religions have we seen hostilaty to Homosexuality. May i remind all of you that Alexander the great has been said to have been a Bisexual.

 

So what defines natural? natural can mean many things if we are talking natural to our society or natural to human nature or just as we personaly describe natural. In my opinion Natural is everything anything we decide everything we do because in this sence natural does not exist becuase natural does not describe any particular thing.

 

I think of it like how the constitution has a very broad meaning to its laws. Natural is the same thing it has basis to how things are like evolution and stuff.The Amendments that have been made are very to the point and alot people disagree with in my opinion we are not a free country with all the laws we have but that is for another time to discuss. Natural can be like the amendmants where man sais what he thinks is natural and not natural for example the catholic religion says that homosexuality is not natural and is a sin. What defines that besides the person who came up with that?

 

In my opinion i think that Homophobes are people that have been told it is wrong or them thereself do not understand it.

[Larv]

Bottom line - whether it's good, bad or nothing at all to you, it's there. And it's natural. Both homophobia and homosexuality.

Your argument here contains mixed syntax. For it to be constructed correctly (i.e., in a parallel fashion) your argument should place "homophobia" opposite "homophilia" and "homosexuality" opposite "heterosexuality." Otherwise, if you're heterosexual then you must be homophobic.

[Larv]

As a gay man here is my opinion.

 

Look back on cultures like the greeks and egyptions and everything they never had discretion against Homosexuals. Only in current cultures and religions have we seen hostilaty to Homosexuality. May i remind all of you that Alexander the great has been said to have been a Bisexual.

 

So what defines natural? natural can mean many things if we are talking natural to our society or natural to human nature or just as we personaly describe natural. In my opinion Natural is everything anything we decide everything we do because in this sence natural does not exist becuase natural does not describe any particular thing.

 

I think of it like how the constitution has a very broad meaning to its laws. Natural is the same thing it has basis to how things are like evolution and stuff.The Amendments that have been made are very to the point and alot people disagree with in my opinion we are not a free country with all the laws we have but that is for another time to discuss. Natural can be like the amendmants where man sais what he thinks is natural and not natural for example the catholic religion says that homosexuality is not natural and is a sin. What defines that besides the person who came up with that?

 

In my opinion i think that Homophobes are people that have been told it is wrong or them thereself do not understand it.

Hi buddyzen. Good post.

 

Question for you: Do you regard people who oppose same-sex marriage as homophobic? And, if so, why?

[buddyzen]

Ok good question. I believe that only some of the people against same-sex marriage are homophobic. First off homophobia is not necissarily when someone doesn't like gays most of the cases is that they don't understand it and they don't want contact with gays because they are afraid of them. I believe that gay bashing is one of the main reasons why alot of people oppose same-sex marriage, but not just that i also think that there is a large group of people that are followers. Not necissarily people that just follow what the public wants but also religius people because alot of religeons do not approve of same-sex marriage. So no to your question i do not regard people who oppose same-sex marriage as homophobic. Only some of the people that oppose same-sex marriage that are actually homophobic.

[REASON]

I suspect you are right about this, but I haven't yet seen a convincing confirmation of a "gay gene."

 

Well it shouldn't be too hard to find. It should be right where the hetero gene normally would be. :confused:

[lawcat]

How can something that exists in nature be unnatural? :shrug: I do not think homosexuality is unnatural. :confused:

[Larv]

Well it shouldn't be too hard to find. It should be right where the hetero gene normally would be. :confused:

Good answer! Mine's on my Y chromosome. Wonder where women get their sexual orientation, since they are extremely deficient in the Y chromosome.

[InfiniteNow]

I suspect you are right about this, but I haven't yet seen a convincing confirmation of a "gay gene."

 

Well it shouldn't be too hard to find. It should be right where the hetero gene normally would be. :confused:

 

Considering how prominent a part our sexual behavior plays in the survival of our offspring, it's highly unlikely that our sexual preference is determined by a single gene. The much more likely explanation is that our sexual behavior is the result of a combination of many different genes.

 

 

The Real Story on Gay Genes | Sex & Gender | DISCOVER Magazine

Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.

 

<...>

 

Bocklandt is quick to point out that most likely there is no single “gay gene”—no single switch for sexual orientation. Instead, there are probably a handful of genes that work in ways as yet unexplained.

 

<...>

 

He thinks it is likely that perhaps 5 to 15 genes explain sexual orientation in most people.