Is homosexuality unnatural?

[REASON]

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.

 

I'm going to guess that the facetious tone in my last post didn't come through very well. But at least it led to the information you provided. That's what's most important. Thanks for digging. :confused:

[lemit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemit

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"?

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

--lemit

[dannieyankee]

As far as I know, homosexuality is definitely not hereditary.

 

However - it is natural, something that happens to someone beyond their scope of options. Similar to various diseases, only it's not a disease. Maybe neither of your parents have ever, ever been able to play music or have good hearing. All of a sudden, this kid has this musical ability like Mozart.

 

That's my stance on homosexuality.

 

The sexual behaviour of some people who claim to be homosexual may be based on pop culture, but most people who say they're gay are actually gay. The more promiscuous, rule bending ones tend to be false.

[InfiniteNow]

As far as I know, homosexuality is definitely not hereditary.

Perhaps you missed the post three above yours? :)

 

 

 

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

Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.

[HydrogenBond]

Perhaps you are unaware, then, of the fact that over 1,500 animal species have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior, and that out of every single animal which has ever been observed, not one has failed to have homosexual behaviors demonstrated.

 

One angle for homosexuality that is not address is how homosexuality increases when the shadier segment of humans are put in prison like caged animals. Is there a prison connection to increased homosexuality, in the sense that any type of prison, either physically or psychologically can increase gay behavior. For example, one of the gay laments is they feel like a woman "trapped" or imprisoned in a man's body, which may be an example of one of the psychological prison angles.

 

Another angle I thought interesting is, in nature the male is typically the more colorful of the two sexes. The male lion has his mane, the peacock male has his colorful feathers, etc. With humans, this is sort of reversed with the female typically the more colorful one. Either humans don't line up with nature, in this particular way or this modification from natural is due to learned social behavior.

 

Relative to gay males, they typically are more colorful than straight males (majority of cases). If we use natural animals as the guide, does this reflect natural male behavior in gay males (composite effect) or is it just learned behavior based on the assumption this is what females are suppose to do. If it is natural behavior it has an impact on the genetic male-female proportions in gays. If it is learned it has an impact on conditioned to genetic proportions.

[Boerseun]

Another angle I thought interesting is, in nature the male is typically the more colorful of the two sexes. The male lion has his mane, the peacock male has his colorful feathers, etc.

It's to draw attention away from their tiny penises so that they, too, will get laid.:eek2:

[InfiniteNow]

One angle for homosexuality that is not address is how homosexuality increases when the shadier segment of humans are put in prison like caged animals. Is there a prison connection to increased homosexuality, in the sense that any type of prison, either physically or psychologically can increase gay behavior.

Much more likely is how sexual activity can decrease social tensions. In prison, social tensions are high and sex can be used as a form of currency... almost exactly like bonobos do in nature. Basically, they use sex to reinforce group cohesion and to decrease fights and quarrels.

 

Further, sex drive is powerful... driven by hormones and millenia of evolution, and a lack of available women does not make that sex drive suddenly turn off. Just because no opposite sex mating partners are available does not mean that our sex drives goes dormant and our desires suddenly evaporate. A likely explanation, in addition to the easement of social tension, is that the profundity of the sexual feelings overcomes the social customs of preferring women. In other words, sex with another man becomes preferable to no sex at all.

 

It has nothing to do with the prison, and everything to do with our evolved sex drive, a lack of available mates, and the need for social cohesion.

 

 

 

Relative to gay males, they typically are more colorful than straight males (majority of cases). If we use natural animals as the guide, does this reflect natural male behavior in gay males (composite effect) or is it just learned behavior based on the assumption this is what females are suppose to do.

Neither. In SOME animal species, the female is the choosey one. The male has displays to show he is better than other males... He can "waste" resources on pretty feathers, or building a cool nest, or doing a nifty dance... which shows that he is strong enough to have viable offspring... he can "waste" all of this time and energy on pretty feathers and other stuff, instead of focusing purely on finding food and shelter, and avoiding predators.

 

Now, with that said... The way you are trying to apply this concept of "color" to gay males, and this concept of "what females are supposed to do,"... the way that you are still trying to argue that homosexuality is a learned behavior or personal choice DESPITE the abundance of evidence to the contrary... I'm going to go ahead and let you know... and this is supported by many more posts you've made other than just this one...

 

You are an ignorant sexist homophobe, and I'd probably shoot you in the face if I ever met you. :eek2:

[Larv]

Now, with that said... The way you are trying to apply this concept of "color" to gay males, and this concept of "what females are supposed to do,"... the way that you are still trying to argue that homosexuality is a learned behavior or personal choice DESPITE the abundance of evidence to the contrary... I'm going to go ahead and let you know... and this is supported by many more posts you've made other than just this one...

 

You are an ignorant sexist homophobe, and I'd probably shoot you in the face if I ever met you. :eek2:

Why not shoot him in his ignorant, sexist, homophobic groin where it will do him (?) the most good. Then maybe he will have a legitimate excuse for choosing from a list of viable options: LGBT.

[maddog]

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

--lemit

lemit,

 

NP. No offense taken. :eek2: It was only a small point that "bisexuality" is really what is

being discussed for animals. IMHO, I don't think animals (mammals in particular) consider

things such as "exclusivity".

 

maddog

 

ps: Boy, I have been away for awhile from this thread.

[maddog]

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? ...

Excuse me: ... When was it decreed that Handedness, in Particular Left Handedness

as being an Affliction to be "cured". Who are to be the judges, "right handed people" ?

Be careful whom you might offend. I don't feel the "need" to be "cured". I am fine with

being a lefty. Bet you didn't know that Only Left-Handed people are in the "right" minds. :lol:

... 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 am not sure how mean the above "italicized" remarks. Are you implying that a

homosexual (or other sexual orientation) has an otherwise impaired or limited future ?

 

:eek2::xx:

 

When you post you may think how you will interpreted before commit the post.

 

maddog

[maddog]

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.

I have observed similar behavior in our two dogs (dachsunds) - same litter. It appears to

be a case of extended grooming (cleaning the urine from his brothers penis). It does not

appear sexual in any way. I have also seen both lick each others asses (anus) as well.

It is us who project a "homosexual" interpretation to this activity.

 

maddog

[lawcat]

Humans are social beings. Social interaction influences sexual preference. I would be shocked if there was a single, unique, and determinative gay gene.

[InfiniteNow]

Thus stating that men seek only prime women.

 

One might safely assume that homosexual men do not and would not.

Now... back on-topic.

[dannieyankee]

For those opposing the idea that homosexuality is unnatural; are you saying that every homosexual who says they have these feelings naturally are lying?

 

Every single one of them is lying?

 

Obviously there are some people who feign it, particularly teenage girls feigning bisexuality, but isn't the entire argument based on the idea that yes, millions of people around the world are indeed simply lying?

 

Of course, if we're actually debating their ability to change their sexuality from homosexual to heterosexual, then the question is not whether or not it is natural, but why should they?

[mynah]

I have observed similar behavior in our two dogs (dachsunds) - same litter. It appears to

be a case of extended grooming (cleaning the urine from his brothers penis). It does not

appear sexual in any way. I have also seen both lick each others asses (anus) as well.

It is us who project a "homosexual" interpretation to this activity.

 

maddog

We have four spaniels - dad, modified mum, and two five month old sons. Dad regularly bullies his smaller son into rolling onto his back, and the poor mite is frightened (or so it appears) into urinating, whereupon the father licks it from his penis while the puppy lies quite still. This kind of interaction only takes place between these two dogs. However, the same pup has been seen sucking the penis of his brother, who was having an orgasm as a result. These two actions appear to be quite different.

[sman]

 

Of course, if we're actually debating their ability to change their sexuality from homosexual to heterosexual, then the question is not whether or not it is natural, but why should they?

 

A homosexual lifestyle must be more diffucult than a hetreosexual one. Even in a perfect world without ostricism. I tried to portray earlier in this thread that I felt like his is a humanitarian issue. About quality of life for human beings. If science can target the beterment of the lives of these people it certainly should. Not to is immoral.

There's a barrier here, often referred to as homophobia. I see it as a genetic mechanism for preserving the harmony of the genotype, but whatever. If people are suffering....genes can go to hell.

I really think we should be studying homosexuality in humans the way we study cancer....either to kill it, to keep it from happening, or to ease the lives of those that it's already happened to. One side refuses to allocate this kind of funding because homosexuality is evil or unnatural, the other side refuses because homosexuality is not a disease in need of a cure. Both sides overlook the fact that these are real people with real lives.

[InfiniteNow]

I really think we should be studying homosexuality in humans the way we study cancer....either to kill it, to keep it from happening, or to ease the lives of those that it's already happened to.

 

Why do you presume such studies trying to eradicate homosexuality would be any different from trying to cure people from being "black," or curing asians from having more slanted eyes, or maybe "curing" people from having anything other than blond hair and blue eyes? You may see these traits as vastly different than homosexuality, but they are not.

 

 

The challenge is that you see (or, at the very least, your posts imply that) homosexuality as an illness to be fixed, as opposed to the more reasonable view based in reality that it is simply another section on the broad spectrum which is animal sexuality.