Homosexuality.

    • Re: Homosexuality.

      Phuck Buddy wrote:


      there are a lot of things that animals do that we don't do. that's the point I was making. we may be animals in certain sense, but we humans > animals.


      Except you could use that argument for any animal, such that animal X > other animals.

      robb wrote:

      All i'm saying, is that being straight is the natural way to be. If being gay was the natural way the population would deplete very quickly.
      When people are gay it's because of an inbalance of the hormones they recieved while in the womb.

      It's because they receive a different balance of hormones. The 'natural' way is pretty clearly for populations to have a mix of heterosexual and homosexual behaviours. It's not an either-or situation.
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      Though I do agree, for the most part, with what Maggot is saying, I also see where Phuck Buddy is coming from as well. When he says that humans are above animals, I interpret it being more philosophical than literal, and I agree. Though I would word it differently.

      Because humans are part of the animal kingdom, we can't be above animals. That would be a contradiction. But, we are the most advanced of all the animal kingdom. We are above all other animals, but not above "animals" in general.

      That's how I'm interpreting what he's saying anyway.



      I don't know if this post made any sense. I've been awake for the last two days and at this point, what makes sense to me might not make sense to anyone else. >.>
      [CENTER]

      [/CENTER]
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      I just think the whole problem with homosexuals or bisexuals is ridiculous. I know many people of both. And they're all very cool and fun people. If someone didn't tell you they were homosexual or bisexual, you'd probably never know and still have a grand time with them.
      I'm Agnostic, but I have a friend since preschool who's Mormon, and I asked him why their stand on homosexuality is that way, and he said something to the effect of it being something god has given you to struggle with and rise above, and that satan would want you to give up and stay that way. Personally I think that if you want to get into that sort of religious mindset, it makes more sense that it would be satan convincing people to view homosexuality as a bad thing, thus turning people against each other. My impression was that god was a kind, loving guy, not some all powerful homophobic.
      Hey...how do you think they'd give a deaf kid a spelling test? I mean he can't hear them say the word, if he read lips or they signed it to him, they'd have spelled it, and they obviously can't just write it down for him...
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      Homosexuals don't choose to be gay. It's something that's decided in the womb with the hormones.

      It is natural. It has always been around and will always be around. With every single species.

      When you look at it, God didn't create homosexuality. He created humans, and we were perfect, but adam and eve messed up and we because imperfect. And so began homosexuality. But god says that its wrong and that we are supposed to resist those urges because its not the way things are supposed to be. Same as the urges of a pedophile or a rapist and such like GoddessofJudecca said.

      Disclaimer: I do not exactly believe what I just said, I'm just telling you that's the way it is. So don't argue with me saying its wrong and bash me for it. Just clearing things up for ya. :p
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      Shadow-Koumajutsu wrote:

      Though I do agree, for the most part, with what Maggot is saying, I also see where Phuck Buddy is coming from as well. When he says that humans are above animals, I interpret it being more philosophical than literal, and I agree. Though I would word it differently.

      Because humans are part of the animal kingdom, we can't be above animals. That would be a contradiction. But, we are the most advanced of all the animal kingdom. We are above all other animals, but not above "animals" in general.

      That's how I'm interpreting what he's saying anyway.



      I don't know if this post made any sense. I've been awake for the last two days and at this point, what makes sense to me might not make sense to anyone else. >.>


      You said it better than me. I'm glad it was expressed in a better way. thanks
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      robb wrote:

      All i'm saying, is that being straight is the natural way to be. If being gay was the natural way the population would deplete very quickly.
      When people are gay it's because of an inbalance of the hormones they recieved while in the womb.

      But before you said:

      robb wrote:

      OK:
      Well my first source is this book i read. It was a while ago i read it but it was basically a 'women are from venus, men are from mars' type of book. It talked a bit about why people are gay/lesbian and this 'gay gene'.

      Ive also found some websites which say the same sort of thing:
      Are people born gay? - Gay & Lesbian - Helium
      Gene Genie

      I quote from one of those sources and it pretty much sums up what I think:

      "While genes and hormones predispose a person to a particular sexual orientation, they do not determine it. They are significant influences, not the sole cause. Other factors are also at work. Social expectation, cultural values and peer pressure, for instance, push us towards heterosexuality. Without these pro-straight influences, more people might be lesbian, gay or bisexual.".

      I'm with science on this one.

      I still don't understand what you're getting at. Sorry.

      robb wrote:

      And as for christianity and gays if you ask me the whole thing is very out-dated...it's no longer the year 0. But i guess you can't really modernise it unless another Jesus comes down.

      I wouldn't speak on things I know nothing about. No, that is not just an opinion, the last sentence cancelled out that possibility. You were attempting to state a fact there.

      Phuck Buddy wrote:

      I think it sounds ridiculous calling it "best animals" and I would not say it that way.

      I'm also saying its wrong to use homosexuality in the animal world as proof that its natural for humans.

      You are still not making any sense in your argument. Though I agree with Shadow.
      I'm here, Karla. :]
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      Regular.Femme.Fatale wrote:


      You are still not making any sense in your argument. Though I agree with Shadow.

      Someone, can't remember who, said that homosexuality was a natural occurence in animals and cited references from some author who wrote something about it.

      I think it's stupid to put humans into this category and call it natural (or whatever word she used). Why? see shadow's post b/c he explained it better than me.
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      You'reAlwaysWrong wrote:

      The 'natural' way is pretty clearly for populations to have a mix of heterosexual and homosexual behaviours. It's not an either-or situation.

      Yeah sorry i'm not making sence. When i say natural i mean idealy i suppose. As in a person 'should' be attracted to the opposite sex so they can reproduce.
      (Btw i'm not anti-gay or anything like that just to let you know).
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      robb wrote:

      Yeah sorry i'm not making sence. When i say natural i mean idealy i suppose. As in a person 'should' be attracted to the opposite sex so they can reproduce.
      (Btw i'm not anti-gay or anything like that just to let you know).
      Oh, so you now can decide what people "should" do?

      ~Maggot
      [size=3]Oh! why is phrensy called a curse?
      I deem the sense of misery worse:
      Come, Madness, come!
      [/size]
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      Phuck Buddy wrote:

      I think it sounds ridiculous calling it "best animals" and I would not say it that way.

      I'm also saying its wrong to use homosexuality in the animal world as proof that its natural for humans.


      Please explain to me then the substantial difference between saying humans are "superior" and humans are the "best".

      Then, explain why you agree that humans are animals yet treat them as separate for the purposes of homosexuality.
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      I am not against homosexuality in any way, shape or form, but I don't think it's "natural" either. Just because it's natural for many other animals to take part in it, doesn't mean it's natural for others, such as humans. That's like justifying the killing (or letting die) the weaker of your children to ensure only the strong survive because it's natural for other animals to do it.

      I'm not trying to compare infantacide to homosexuality, I'm just trying to make the point that just because it occurs naturally in some species, doesn't mean it occurs in all.

      My take on homosexuality: Though I don't believe it's 'natural,' that doesn't in any way make it bad. They are not hurting or bothering anyone else so I say, let them be.
      [CENTER]

      [/CENTER]
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      Shadow-Koumajutsu wrote:


      I'm not trying to compare infantacide to homosexuality, I'm just trying to make the point that just because it occurs naturally in some species, doesn't mean it occurs in all.


      The point is that homosexuality is not something particularly special, and that puts a lot of strain on claims that it's not 'natural' in any sense. Could you explain why you feel it's not 'natural'?


      The burden of proof is on those people making the claim that homosexual is in any way not 'natural'. I personally think that's a pretty difficult case to make if one agrees that humans are animals.
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      You'reAlwaysWrong wrote:

      The point is that homosexuality is not something particularly special, and that puts a lot of strain on claims that it's not 'natural' in any sense. Could you explain why you feel it's not 'natural'?


      The burden of proof is on those people making the claim that homosexual is in any way not 'natural'. I personally think that's a pretty difficult case to make if one agrees that humans are animals.

      Do all animals show homosexual behavior? No. Only certain species. And if it were natural in the human species, all humans would be inclined to homosexual behavior.

      One might argue that the reason we don't take part in these acts is because of society, but that can't possibly be the case because there are parts of the world where homophobic teachings have never reached. And yet, there are no more people who exhibit those behaviors there than anywhere else.

      Which leads me to believe, as far as the human race goes, is not natural. It's an anomaly in the hormones/genetics.
      [CENTER]

      [/CENTER]
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      You'reAlwaysWrong wrote:

      Please explain to me then the substantial difference between saying humans are "superior" and humans are the "best".

      when something is superior to something else, it falls into a different class.
      when somethinig is the best of something, it is still in the same class.

      You'reAlwaysWrong wrote:

      Then, explain why you agree that humans are animals yet treat them as separate for the purposes of homosexuality.

      humans are like animals in many ways. we breathe, have mobility. In other words we are not inanimate objects nor are we plants. humans, like animals, need food, water, etc.




      I agree with Shadow that it is not "natural". I think it's a personal choice. Humans are capable of in depth thought. animals, thought some are highly intelligent, do not come close in reasoning and thought to humans. so whereas animals display homosexual tendencies, humans have a though process that they follow in deciding that they are gay, and then have sex with other men. animals don't decide they are gay...they just do it.
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      Phuck Buddy wrote:

      when something is superior to something else, it falls into a different class.
      when somethinig is the best of something, it is still in the same class.


      humans are like animals in many ways. we breathe, have mobility. In other words we are not inanimate objects nor are we plants. humans, like animals, need food, water, etc.

      So you believe that humans are not animals, then? There's an important difference between humans being like animals and humans being animals. I think I might have been confused by your agreement to a statement saying that humans are animals earlier on.

      Phuck Buddy wrote:


      I agree with Shadow that it is not "natural". I think it's a personal choice. Humans are capable of in depth thought. animals, thought some are highly intelligent, do not come close in reasoning and thought to humans. so whereas animals display homosexual tendencies, humans have a though process that they follow in deciding that they are gay, and then have sex with other men. animals don't decide they are gay...they just do it.


      Do you have any studies backing up your personal opinion? You seem to be making the statement that humans start out "straight" (or neutral, possibly?) and consciously choose to go against those instincts. That doesn't seem like the simplest explanation for homosexual behaviour, so unless you've got something to back it up I'm going to go with Occam on this one.
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      You'reAlwaysWrong wrote:

      So you believe that humans are not animals, then? There's an important difference between humans being like animals and humans being animals. I think I might have been confused by your agreement to a statement saying that humans are animals earlier on.



      Do you have any studies backing up your personal opinion? You seem to be making the statement that humans start out "straight" (or neutral, possibly?) and consciously choose to go against those instincts. That doesn't seem like the simplest explanation for homosexual behaviour, so unless you've got something to back it up I'm going to go with Occam on this one.


      Humans are separate and superior from animals. I dont understand why you people (:lol: I love saying that) are making a big deal about the way I phrase it.

      Let's say I think they are part of the animal category. ok fine. so we are better than them. we control the planet. Our intelligence > their intelligence.

      Let's say they are not part of the animal category. Well...that's it. we are superior to animals. end of story.

      I guess it just depends on what you consider humans...part of the animals, or not. You might be missing my point which Shadow detailed earlier....to call homosexuality in humans "natural" b/c of the occurences in nature are ridiculous because humans are superior/different from/etc animals.

      I'm not really much for debating. That being said, no I dont have any studies. Why? I don't read studies about anything. And if I did, I wouldnt read it about homosexuality...particularly in the animal kingdom.

      I'm just stating my opinion. I dont care if I don't get your vote and you decide someone else is correct.

      People have choices. Call it free will. You can either reply to this, or not. You can have chinese, italian, fast food, or nothing for lunch. You can choose to be gay, or not. Homosexuality, in my opinion, is not a physical trait, but more of a personality trait. People choose to like something over another thing. They choose to be gay.
    • Re: Homosexuality.

      For the record, I don't think homosexuality is choice either. I believe the most common cause (though there are probably many) of homosexuality is an anomaly in the hormones.
      [INDENT]"In 1993, Dean Hammer found the genetic markerXq28 on the X chromosome. Hamer's study found a link between the Xq28 marker and male homosexuality, but the original study's results have been disputed. Flies bearing mutant alleles of the fruitless gene, causes male flies to court and attempt to mate exclusively with other males.Twin studies give indications that male homosexuality is genetically mediated. One common type of twin study compares the monozygotic (or identical) of people possessing a particular trait to the dizygotic (non-identical, or fraternal) twins of people possessing the trait. Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic brothers and 22% of the dizygotic twins were concordant for homosexuality. Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins."

      "In experimental animals it’s been well established that the sexual differentiation of the body and brain results primarily from the influence of sex hormones secreted by the testes or ovaries (Arnold 2002). Males have high levels of testosterone in fetal life (after functional development of the testes) and around the time of birth, as well as at and after puberty. Females have low levels of all sex hormones in fetal life, and high levels of estrogens and progestagens starting at puberty. High prenatal testosterone levels organize the brain in a male-specific fashion; low levels testosterone permits it to organize in a female-specific fashion. Hormones at puberty activate the circuits laid down in prenatal life but do not fundamentally change them. Thus, the range of sexual behaviors that adult animals can show is determined in large part by their prenatal/perinatal hormone exposure—manipulating these hormone levels can lead to atypical sex behavior or preference for same-sex sex partners as well as a range of other gender-atypical characteristics."[/INDENT]
      [CENTER]

      [/CENTER]