Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Nature has no preference one way or another. It just is what it is.

 

Nature has no preference one way or another. It just is what it is.

Well, I guess we disagree on that point.

 

Nature is also a convenient substitution for God.

In light of certain circumstances that is.

 

There is no such thing a 'normal'.

If homosexuality is genetic or developmental I don't understand why anyone cares anyway. If two grown people love and want to be with one another why does that have to be my business or the governments.

The fundamentalism of the right is just pathetic. Gays have been around for thousands of years, discrminating against them isn't going to stop it, just ruin peoples lives for selfish, political, and ignorant reasons.

 

Sex, regardless of who a person engages in that act with, is a choice. One can chose to have sex or not. In that sense, those who engage in homosexual sex do so by choice. Anyone who argues the contrary to people who believe it?s wrong aren?t going to get far, as it?s clear there is free will involved.

However, desire is not usually a choice. It isn?t explainable (most of the time) nor is it ?curable?. I can?t cure my preference for broccoli over green beens any more than I could ?cure? my preference for women. Desire varies among individuals, many times without reason. It?s got nothing to do with ?nature?. If it did, we would all desire healthy foods over junk food. That?s clearly not the case when it comes to most human desires, so to assume it would be the case with all human sexual desires doesn?t make sense either. For that reason, to argue that it?s ?natural? to prefer women over men, or vice versa, also won?t fly with those who disagree, as it?s clear that desire ?naturally? varies among individuals.

So what are we left with? Engaging in homosexual sex is a choice. However, wanting to engage in such an act is typically not a choice.

Arguing about ?why? one would want to engage in such an act is overly nitpicky, imo. You might as well argue about why one person prefers certain kinds of foods over others. There?s always an occasional person who doesn?t like ice cream. Just because you can?t relate doesn?t mean they?re desires are ?unnatural?.

Nature, ?in her infinite wisdom?, simply doesn?t care. God, in his infinite wisdom, likely doesn?t care either. The bible isn?t the word of God, and anyone who tells you otherwise needs to look at the top of every page in that book: it gives the author?s name, and nowhere is the author presented as ?God?. Fallible men wrote the bible, and ?anyone who tells you different is selling something?. Use it as a guide, but don?t take everything it has to say as absolute truth. Rely more on your own deductions. God resides within us, not in some book.

 

Simply being born with an urge to behave a certain way doesn't mean that that behaviour is not deviant.

Homosexuality isn't deviant because it doesn't harm anyone. Alcoholism and drug addiction harm others, because they can make the user violent. Because homosexuality benefits the two people in a relationship and doesn't affect anyone else, its acceptable behavior. Its as insignificant as whether you write with your right or left hand. People need to have a relationship with the gender they are most comfortable with.

If we approve of pre-marital sex, pornography, and masturbation-why not approve of homosexuality? There's nothing about homosexuality that could be considered harmful. Behaviors that harm people are the only ones that should be considered wrong.

All embryos are female until a certain point in their development. A hormone is introduced to some that makes the embryo male. I ain't a Dr, so I don't know the details. But that's how it works.

But sometimes there is a problem and unintended conditions result. Morphodites(SP?) for instance. They have both sex organs. And, IMO, homosexuality. The genitalia of one gender, and the drive of the other.

That scenario is possible. I don't think the reason why homosexuality occurs is that important. Because the behavior doesn't harm anyone, its perfectly acceptable if that's what some people prefer.

Also, I believe much homosexual behaviour is a result of childhood trauma.

I don't think that's true. Why would a four-year-old who hasn't experienced any trauma feel physically attracted to the same sex? Many homosexuals never experienced any trauma at all.

 

Get a dictionary and look up the definition of "deviant". It has nothing to do with whether it harms anyone or not. It is completely based on whether it deviates from the normal, expected, average, or mean. Your statement makes as much sense as saying that a rock isn't a fruit because it doesn't float in midair.

Even if you accept the heavily inflated 10% figure for the number of homosexuals in the population, that still places it outside the norm (usually the norm is one standard deviation from the mean or average, usually covering about 67-68% of the total population). By that definition, you could define homosexuality as deviant (you could also define quite a few other behaviors, traits, and so forth as deviant).

If you are going to say that something isn't deviant, could you at least provide criteria that fits the definition of deviant?

Kimball Kinnison

 

"Deviant" is usually used to describe unacceptable behavior that's outside of the norm. Homosexuality is definitely outside of the norm, but so is left-handedness. In a sense, homosexuality fits the dictionary definition of "deviant", even though there isn't anything wrong with it. The reason why I don't like using the term "deviant" to describe homosexuality is because it carries a negative connotation. Its different, but it isn't better or worse than heterosexuality.

 

My only point was that the structure of your argument did not match the content of it.

As I said, your statement was like saying that a rock isn't a fruit because it doesn't float in midair. Whether an object floats in midair or not has nothing to do with whether it is a fruit. In the same way, whether something harms someone else or not has nothing to do with whether it is deviant.

If you are going to say that X isn't Y because Z, you need to make sure that Z actually relates to the definition/criteria of Y, otherwise you've only said a bunch of nonsense.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Deviant has a negative connotation to it, which is precisely why people take offense. Its like saying someone is cheap or stingy vs. saying someone is thrifty or economical.

Why say gays are "deviant" rather than "different?" Merely to add a negative connotation to homosexuality.

 

The Bible is an all-or-nothing deal. If you don't believe it's the word of God, don't even bother reading it(for spirtual purposes that is)

 

Well, I guess we disagree on that point.

Of course, because you believe in god.

 

Yes it did. Why does the dog have three legs if nature didn't intend for him to be that way? Couldn't God in his infinte widom/power stop the dog from turning out that way?

But since I'm agnostic, and I don't believe for sure that there is a God, I agree with FID. Nature is what is is. Some people will have an arm missing, and some people will be born attracted to the same sex. Instead of labeling it as "normal" and "unnormal," you should just look at the trait itself, and then decide if it is somehow bad.

And speaking of unnatural, I don't believe interracial marriages are natural.

 

Analyzations can be wrong and have been many times throughout history, so don't lecture me about how science, excuse me, analyzations are always correct, because they're not. A person can study all they want and still not know what they're talking about.

Uhhhh... I believe I already stated that it is my opinion, so that was rather repetitive text.

Did I once say it had anything to do with sex? No. I said it was an example of choice. That post proves you're rambling without even trying to comprehend the meanings of others. That's respectable.

Of course. I go around misinterpreting things all day because of the sheer fun of it.

What question? And instinct doesn't wear off, so that whole instinct turns me on thing doesn't work. If it was instinct, people wouldn't need Viagra, now would they?

Why would someone stand up for gay rights and such if they could just as easily be straight? That implies only gays stand up for gay rights. Choose your words wisely or eat them with dignity when you fail to get your point across.

Depends on how much money.

Did I ever say that it was that easy; to wake up gay? No. I said many factors in your environment growing up can affect your choice. You pick and choose from posts like a picky vulture.

 

And speaking of unnatural, I don't believe interracial marriages are natural.

If that were true, sex between people of differing races would not produce off-spring. But it does. That's nature giving the seal of approval.

 

An average 14-year-old male human and his 40-year-old mother can produce offspring, too. Is that more natural than homosexuality?



Nature also doesn't give the "seal of approval" to infertile couples, regardless of gender. The ability to produce offspring is not really relevant. Yes, offspring help ensure the survival of the species, but the following natural things also helped ensure species survival in times past and are no longer as helpful to the human race:

A) Stress fight-or-flight response: useful if the stressor is a stampede; not so useful when stressors are in an office. Heart problems, blood pressure issues, etc.

B) High-starch foods causing serotonin release in the brain: Encouraging people in leaner times to eat more starch could help ensure they take in enough calories to get through periods where there was less food. The tendency to store extra calories when calories are plentiful is not helpful in a society where meeting caloric intake (though not necessarily nutrient intake) is easy and the challenge is not to go over what is needed.

C) Short menstrual cycles - the menstrual cycle is of course useful if pregnancy is somewhat likely to occur, but as the age at first cycle drops and the number of cycles women have goes up as a result of delayed childbearing or no childbearing at all, menstruation causes more iron depletion and a host of other physical problems (including higher risk of breast cancer.)

Many natural tendencies are, in fact, either no longer helpful or actually harmful. I would say that the tendency for humans to be attracted to the opposite sex is one that is still helpful for the population in general, but not as much as it once was, since people live longer and the birth rate can (and should) fall.

In fact, it would serve the human race better if there were a significant minority of adults in homosexual relationships or no relationships, as this will help control the birth rate if they choose to adopt or not parent.

 

It works, but that doesn't mean it was intended to be that way.

 

An average 14-year-old male human and his 40-year-old mother can produce offspring, too. Is that more natural than homosexuality?

That causes, all too often, retardation. Nature's seal of disapproval.

Shredder said...It works, but that doesn't mean it was intended to be that way.

No. It works perfectly. It creates an even broader range of adaptability, our greatest asset against extinction as a species; a natural trait of mammals in general and humans specifically.

 

Darth-Inferno:

Analyzations can be wrong and have been many times throughout history, so don't lecture me about how science, excuse me, analyzations are always correct, because they're not.

*sigh* Did I ever say that science was always right? No. Once again, you're just twisting what I say to make it into something it isn't.

Did I once say it had anything to do with sex? No. I said it was an example of choice. That post proves you're rambling without even trying to comprehend the meanings of others.

Don't try to make me look like I'm putting words into your mouth, when you know I'm not. You used a rabit choosing a safe hole to hide in as an example how an animals can make a concious choice, like one to be gay. So essentially, you were equating the two. Don't pretend like you did otherwise.

What question?

And instinct doesn't wear off, so that whole instinct turns me on thing doesn't work. If it was instinct, people wouldn't need Viagra, now would they?

Even people who have erectile dysfunction don't choose when to be sexually happy. Their problem is that the penis itself just doesn't get an erection. However, if one could control when they got an erection and what gave them it, then there'd really be no point in wanting a girlfriend, because they could just as easily be attracted to a piano.

Did I ever say that it was that easy; to wake up gay? No. I said many factors in your environment growing up can affect your choice.

That's contradictory. You said the environment causes someone to be gay, but it's still a choice?

And I believe farrellg mentioned three or four times the fact that some gays are attracted to the same sex even before they knew what sex was or when all the other kids thought kissing was icky. This is obviously evidence that it's not a choice or something they picked up from a friend.

 

Homosexuality doesn't cause birth defects, the way incest does, because offspring cannot result from gay sex. Same-sex relationships have a major advantage that heterosexual ones don't: gays don't have to worry about unwanted pregnancies.

As I mentioned earlier, the most important thing to consider is whether a behavior harms anyone. Homosexuality isn't harmful and doesn't even affect anyone other than the people in a relationship who both benefit from the affair). Because homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, its acceptable behavior.

 

Homosexuality doesn't cause birth defects, the way incest does, because offspring cannot result from it. Same-sex relationships have a major advantage that heterosexual ones don't: gays don't have to worry about unwanted pregnancies.

That's nature giving it's seal of disapproval to same sex couplings.

As I mentioned earlier, the most important thing to consider is whether a behavior harms anyone. Homosexuality isn't harmful and doesn't even affect anyone other than the people in a relationship who both benefit from the affair). Because homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, its acceptable behavior.

Bare in mind I don't care if someone engages in homosexual behaviour either. To each his/her own.

 

That's nature giving it's seal of disapproval to same sex couplings.

That's nature giving its seal of approval to gays. They can enjoy sex without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy. Many heterosexuals have ruined their lives (and potentially the lives of their children) with unwanted offspring.

It doesn't matter if you are capable of producing offspring. What about heterosexuals who are infertile? The purpose of sex is enjoyment, not necessarily having children. Many heterosexuals have sex without the desire of producing offspring.

A behavior is only negative if its harmful. Homosexuality doesn't provide the benefit of having children if you want them (although it has the advantage of not having to worry about unwanted pregnancies), but it doesn't harm anyone.

Bare in mind I don't care if someone engages in homosexual behaviour either. To each his/her own.

I agree with this. I only worry about myself. I don't worry about who anyone else is sleeping with.

 

J-Rod...give up the ghost. You talk about nature as if it has some sort of intelligence in how things are made. Cities are unnatural, marriages are unnatural (in nature it's natural to have many mates, hence infidelity), paper is unnatural, ink is unnatural, and plastic is unnatural. If you're going to argue that nature has some sort of intent then you're going to find a lot of the things that we use in the modern age are unnatural. Unless you're a hypocrite, and we know righties are never hypocritical about anything. Sooo....in summation...stop using your PC, it's unnatural and you don't tolerate unnatural things.

 

That's nature giving its seal of approval to gays. They can enjoy sex without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy. Many heterosexuals have ruined their lives (and potentially the lives of their children) with unwanted offspring.

You're confusing your approval with that of nature's.

It doesn't matter if you are capable of producing offspring. What about heterosexuals who are infertile? The purpose of sex is enjoyment, not necessarily having children. Many heterosexuals have sex without the desire of producing offspring.

The natural purpose of sex is procreation. Most animals, and presumably primitive humans, don't know that sex makes babies. So to keep a species from going instinct, nature made sex pleasurable and gave animals a desire for that pleasure.

And what does fertility have to do with whether the act is natural? Males breed with females. Sex between the two is natural and intended.

 

You're confusing your approval with that of nature's.

Or maybe nature's approval is a matter of opinion.