The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Denur]

Let's give this lad a rest, he is obviously brainwashed and unable to reason beyond his believes.

 

[Sureboss]

Oh come on. I have to provide you with all known occurrences of gay animals now? Is that even relevant? You said that homosexuality wasn't natural because it doesn't happen in nature. Fact is that it happens an awful lot in nature, instantly denying your point that it's not natural.

Still, just for you, I know that it has been documented in dogs, sheep, goats, cows, dolphins and our closest genetic ancestors - the bonobo. For how long? The entire adult life of the animal (except bonobos, where it stretches to youngsters too).

I saw a Tiger trying to have sex with his brother on Tiger-Spy in the Jungle last night. (credit to Attenborough for another brilliant documentary)

Their expressions of love tend to destroy their body physically. I won't get detailed, of course, but having sex in this unnatural way causes bleeding and easy transfer of STDs.

Anal sex is common in male to female sexual relationships, many blokes try to have anal sex with their female partner. As for bleeding during sex, it happens in 'conventional' sex as well as anal sex. Famine mentioned about sex with virgin females in a post above, it also happens when having sex with women on their period. Sorry to all the women on here, talking about this seems out of order, but Earth needs to get his facts straight on some topics.

 

[Famine]

Seems to be mainly mammals (or "the animals that have willies") that enjoy the occasional spot of homosexuality...

 

[Sage]

How has it been viewed in nature? I'm not an expert on this subject, but Famine appears to be, so I will let him answer how homosexuality has been viewed in nature. First off which animals commence in homosexual activities, and how and for how long? It's been well documented in nature is quite vague. But in the end, if some animals, which I'm sure are in the extreme extreme minority commit homosexual acts does that somehow make it natural for humans?

You know, it’s not that difficult to do a little research on your own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

All of the animals listed on that page have a >8% homsexuality rate. That is not an “extreme extreme minority”, and probably corresponds almost directly with humans.

Also, there is virtually no evolutionary advantage to having a species that is 100% heterosexual. I won’t get into the details, but if you’re interested (I doubt it), you can pick up and read Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene.

 

[Sureboss]

Seems to be mainly mammals (or "the animals that have willies") that enjoy the occasional spot of homosexuality...

I wonder if anyone has recorded homosexual relationships in porcupines and hedgehogs Maybe that's why they have spines and spikes, not for protection from predation but from anal sex 💡

 

[Earth]

The problem is that you called it unnatural and even assumed to know if a homosexual person chose to feel that way or not, while yourself not being homosexual. As that can be offensive to certain people and you make broad assumptions based on zero experience you have people challenging your statements.

Everyone here knows what I mean when I said unnatural. However because they have a weak or baseless argument vs my opinion they decided to nit pick at little things like the words I use to describe something. These are the same people who would try and sum up a 30 minute speech of someone with a controversial 15 second sound byte.

A man and a man is not natural. Twist my words, probe them, disect them, re-word them, flip them upside down. You know what I mean. I won't be suckered into another silly debate about in what context I used the word natural

You know, it’s not that difficult to do a little research on your own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

All of the animals listed on that page have a >8% homsexuality rate. That is not an “extreme extreme minority”, and probably corresponds almost directly with humans.

Also, there is virtually no evolutionary advantage to having a species that is 100% heterosexual. I won’t get into the details, but if you’re interested (I doubt it), you can pick up and read Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene.

Homo Sexuality has been seen in 1,500 species of animal with a 8% homosexuality rate, yet there is 5-30 million species of creatures in the world.

Certain bees turn homosexual when exposed to high levels of heat. Most likely some of these animals become homosexual depending on changes in their enviorment.

You're right, that isn't an extreme extreme minority, that's really nothing at all.

But what does that have to do with original opinion? Famine brought up the point that there are homosexual animals and tried to make it seem as though it was rampant in the animal kingdom when it obviously is not. But again whether or not there is homosexual animals had nothing to do with my original opinion. I simply questioned Famine's statement.

Am I suppressing you? Do you see sections of your post disappearing as I forbid you from expressing your opinion?

Or do you see your opinion being challenged with rationality? It seems awful weak if you have to resort to the typed equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "La la la la la la la la la!".

The only thing you are challenging about my opinion is the fine details, because you don't have anything else to challenge.

If you think my opinion is illogical I've got bad news for you. I am very very tolerant of homosexuals, but the vast majority of people here in the United States are nowhere near as kind or nice or reasonable as I am on the subject of homosexuality.

Let's give this lad a rest, he is obviously brainwashed and unable to reason beyond his believes.

I'm brainwashed because I believe different then you? You want to come arrest me because I believe this way? You want to take my right to free speech away?

Anal sex is common in male to female sexual relationships, many blokes try to have anal sex with their female partner. As for bleeding during sex, it happens in 'conventional' sex as well as anal sex. Famine mentioned about sex with virgin females in a post above, it also happens when having sex with women on their period. Sorry to all the women on here, talking about this seems out of order, but Earth needs to get his facts straight on some topics.

If you and Famine want to try and say anal sex is the same thing or nothing special compared to normal sex then this world has seriously gone down the toilet. All it needs now is a nice flush

 

[Sage]

Homo Sexuality has been seen in 1,500 species of animal with a 8% homosexuality rate, yet there is 5-30 million species of creatures in the world.

Oh cheese and rice: because we don’t have the time and money and people power to study the sexuality of every species on the face of the Earth!

We have only identified 2 million species on Earth, and estimates range up to 100 million. Let’s say we were able to study the sexuality of all 2 million species that we’ve found (which is not possible currently), and hypothetically let’s say that 20% of them are gay, which you’ll agree is a hugely significant number. Simply because we have not found the other 28 million species, the math works out to .25*2/30 = 1.7%. So even if we knew that 1/4 of the 2 millions species in existence were gay, you could still play statistics shenanigans and claim that it’s insignificant, because of things that we don’t even know exist yet.

Non sequitur, my friend.

And the reason this is important is because you are the one who’s arguing it’s not natural. It’s perfectly natural, because it exists in nature in very significant numbers. I don’t even care if it’s natural (all I care about is consent), but since you brought it up, Famine and I have brought you evidence to the contrary, and now you’re saying “it doesn’t matter” and that we’re “nitpicking”. You’re purposely evading your own argument, and it’s incredibly annoying.

 

[Danoff]

Everyone here knows what I mean when I said unnatural.

Honestly I'm not sure that's true. Homosexuality is quite natural (as in, occurring in nature). I think you mean that homosexuality doesn't conform to perceived social norms. But that's a rather arbitrary distinction and doesn't really help your argument here at all.

If you think my opinion is illogical I've got bad news for you. I am very very tolerant of homosexuals,...

What does the first part have to do with the second part? If I believe homosexuals are aliens from the planet Xarthon sent here to monitor our prairie dog population, but I'm incredibly tolerant of them, does that justify my belief at all in any way whatsoever?

You know what probably is unnatural is heterosexual oral sex. Now that's really rare in nature. Far more rare than homosexuality. S&M is even more rare in nature. I can't remember the last time I saw a prairie dog in assless chaps. But do you know what's really really natural - like, more natural than consentual heterosexual sex???

Unconsentual heterosexual sex. Rape is about as natural as it gets. Just turn on the discovery channel once in a while.

 

[Pako]

Just asking a silly little question, don't we hold ourselves (humans) to a higher social standard than say....a homosexual dolphin?

 

[Danoff]

Just asking a silly little question, don't we hold ourselves (humans) to a higher social standard than say....a homosexual dolphin?

Yes. We observe human rights, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom. What other standards were you thinking of?

 

[Pako]

The discussion was, it's natural for nature....so it's natural for us.

You should give yourself the title, "Spin Doctor", just because it's cool.

 

[Danoff]

The discussion was, it's natural for nature....so it's natural for us.

Yes, violation of human rights is natural for us.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

I believe homosexuality is simply rebellious. In many different ways people find, it's basically naughty sex, and I think that's what people like about it. I may very well be horribly wrong with that, my other thought is chemical imbalance, gene sex mix-ups, i.e., higher/lower testosterone and estrogen levels, but I believe that is only the case sometimes.
But I cannot, for the life of me, understand how it is even possible for a man to find another man physically attractive. And that's one of the reasons I'm not sure it's just natural choice for some people... because I can't relate to it at all.

now, as for people condemning it, etc, etc, I don't see why people care, if the guy next door wants another guy doing.... that, it ain't my problem

But I will say that it must be unnatural, because if it was natural, we wouldnt be here.
Comparing animals, I believe to be a mute point, because I believe many animals get confused about it, which is just a smidgen easier for them with their level of intelligence.

 

[Famine]

The discussion was, it's natural for nature....so it's natural for us.

I think the discussion was more that it's not unnatural for nature, so it's not unnatural period. Since "unnatural" is pretty much defined as "not occurring in nature", by both most major dictionaries and the individual who chose to use it as a point against homosexuality (and is now desperately thrashing about to prove that it's not particularly common and that wasn't what he meant anyway). It doesn't make the reverse also true.


There's quite a few things that happen in nature which humanity doesn't participate in (generally). Like eating your own excrement, incest and paedophilia. There's quite a few things humanity does which don't appear in nature. Like driving a car, injecting Botox and playing the Alpenhorn.

Something being "unnatural" doesn't make a good argument against its practice (just as, in the example above, something being "natural" doesn't make a good argument for its practice) - and in this case both the argument (it's unnatural) and the reasoning behind it (animals don't do it) are seriously flawed.

Everyone here knows what I mean when I said unnatural.

Yes - I asked you to clarify it, before I debunked it.

However because they have a weak or baseless argument vs my opinion they decided to nit pick at little things like the words I use to describe something.

Rrrrrrright. You know the part where you said "Homosexuality is not natural" and then, upon request for clarification said "The root word of natural is nature. Two creatures of the same sex having sexual relations is contrary to nature."? And then the bit right afterwards where I showed you that in fact it certainly does happen in nature?

That, right there, undermines your position that homosexuality isn't natural. If it's still your opinion that homosexuality isn't natural for the reason that it doesn't happen in nature then your opinion is wrong and your reasoning behind it is, as you say, "weak and baseless".


Fine, you don't "get" gay. I don't either. Don't pretend that you have nature on your side though.

A man and a man is not natural. Twist my words, probe them, disect them, re-word them, flip them upside down. You know what I mean. I won't be suckered into another silly debate about in what context I used the word natural.

I quoted you directly and in full. In what way is this anything other than representing your full opinion as stated?

There is no basis in nature for saying two entities of the same gender should not copulate. To pretend otherwise in the face of evidence is startlingly obtuse.

But what does that have to do with original opinion? Famine brought up the point that there are homosexual animals and tried to make it seem as though it was rampant in the animal kingdom when it obviously is not.

I will request, yet again, that you desist from making things up. I am not responsible for what you infer from my statements, but do not try to represent it fact.

But again whether or not there is homosexual animals had nothing to do with my original opinion.

It had everything to do with it - you said that homosexuality is not natural as it does not occur in nature. In fact it does occur in nature, neatly kicking away the crutch of unnaturality.

The only thing you are challenging about my opinion is the fine details, because you don't have anything else to challenge.

Well, apart from the whole basis for your argument that homosexuality isn't natural.

Since we've completely disposed of that particular notion, do you have any other basis for objection to homosexuality?

If you think my opinion is illogical I've got bad news for you. I am very very tolerant of homosexuals, but the vast majority of people here in the United States are nowhere near as kind or nice or reasonable as I am on the subject of homosexuality.

Danoff neatly dealt with the first part - just because you put up with something doesn't make your reasons for disliking it logical. You haven't actually presented a logical line of enquiry yet.

So, you tolerate homosexuality then. I'm sure that homosexuals worldwide are partying in the streets right now at that news. But, here's a thought. Tolerance implies putting up with something that you dislike. Now, personally, I don't give a monkey's what two consenting adults get up to, so really, there's nothing for me to dislike or tolerate.

And I don't agree that the vast majority of people in the USA are as "kind or nice or reasonable" as you on the topic of homosexuality. Most Americans I've had dealings with have a view pretty similar to my own - they don't really care what anyone does with their own body in their own time.

If you and Famine want to try and say anal sex is the same thing or nothing special compared to normal sex then this world has seriously gone down the toilet. All it needs now is a nice flush

I'm sure that in your mind there's something massively important about which hole has things put into it.


Here's a thought though - heterosexuals engage in anal sex too. Oh no! It's the apocalypse!

 

[Sureboss]

I'm brainwashed because I believe different then you? You want to come arrest me because I believe this way? You want to take my right to free speech away?



If you and Famine want to try and say anal sex is the same thing or nothing special compared to normal sex then this world has seriously gone down the toilet. All it needs now is a nice flush

You're brainwashed because you have some very ill informed opinions on homosexuality and the transferral of things like STDs and Hepatitis.

Our point about Anal sex is that heterosexual couples do it too. I bet even members of your church do it.

Comparing animals, I believe to be a mute point, because I believe many animals get confused about it, which is just a smidgen easier for them with their level of intelligence.

Because no other animals have intelligence or have any idea about keeping the species going?

 

[FoolKiller]

Everyone here knows what I mean when I said unnatural. However because they have a weak or baseless argument vs my opinion they decided to nit pick at little things like the words I use to describe something. These are the same people who would try and sum up a 30 minute speech of someone with a controversial 15 second sound byte.

A man and a man is not natural. Twist my words, probe them, disect them, re-word them, flip them upside down. You know what I mean. I won't be suckered into another silly debate about in what context I used the word natural

Here is the issue as I see it. You see homosexuality as unnatural. You try to defend that opinion by explaining what natural means, but upon being faced with the fact that your definition is not correct you accuse us of nitpicking.

Now, from what I have seen you say I am guessing that your use of the word unnatural is more in reference to the goal of sexual relations. What is the physical goal of sexual relations? Reproduction. Am I right so far?

Now, here is where your argument goes off. Never in the history of natural science has a creature just had sex to breed. Never has a male lion looked out at his pride and said, "Whoa! My numbers are low. I need to go find a lioness." Instead that male lion just sees a lioness walk by and thinks, "Hey baby!" Sexual relations are based on physical desire, plain and simple. In humans, where emotional relationships become a major point, it also achieves an emotional closeness, which is actually quite contrary to the end goal of breeding. Breeding is best served by a lack of monogamy. After a woman becomes pregnant the point of breeding is null for at least nine months. The reproductive goal of sex would be best served if in that nine months a male were to go out and impregnate 20 other females.

So yes, humans raise themselves above animals in many ways, and one of those ways actually goes against the "natural" goal of sex. We even pride ourselves on our one-partner ways. We are guided by emotions such as love. But that is where homosexuality then becomes more than just sexual gratification. Where an animal may just find natural sexual desires toward the same gender humans now have emotional attractions as well. It becomes more than just a physical act and any homosexual person has every right to be offended at the notion that their emotional attractions are unnatural, because they cannot control that any more than you can an attraction to a woman.

Your notion of natural does not make sense by any definition of the word. Sure, you could try and argue that homosexuality does not help the growth of a species but it can also be argued that a certain degree of homosexuality prevents over population. It could be naturally worked in as a control measure. From that aspect it is 100% natural in every sense of the word.

You're right, that isn't an extreme extreme minority, that's really nothing at all.

Except that that rate is relatively close to the rate of homosexuality in humans. That would put humans on a very similar course with some of our closest animal relatives.

But what does that have to do with original opinion? Famine brought up the point that there are homosexual animals and tried to make it seem as though it was rampant in the animal kingdom when it obviously is not. But again whether or not there is homosexual animals had nothing to do with my original opinion.

Wasn't your original opinion that it was not natural? Sounds to me like it has everything to do with your original opinion.

If you think my opinion is illogical I've got bad news for you. I am very very tolerant of homosexuals, but the vast majority of people here in the United States are nowhere near as kind or nice or reasonable as I am on the subject of homosexuality.

Dude, I live in the Bible Belt and I can tell you that aside from gay marriage they are tolerant. My cousin had a wedding commitment ceremony in a church, preside over by a reverend, in KENTUCKY. Trust me, as long as homosexuals don't use the word marriage people just don't care anymore.

I'm brainwashed because I believe different then you? You want to come arrest me because I believe this way? You want to take my right to free speech away?

Um, where did he say anything other than we should all just give it up because we won't change your mind? What does being brainwashed have to do with arresting you or taking away your rights?

If you and Famine want to try and say anal sex is the same thing or nothing special compared to normal sex then this world has seriously gone down the toilet. All it needs now is a nice flush

Are you one of those people who thinks married couples should not try to spice up their sex life and just do it to have kids?

I believe homosexuality is simply rebellious. In many different ways people find, it's basically naughty sex, and I think that's what people like about it.

Here is the crazy thing about naughty sex: It doesn't work if you don't have some form of physical attraction. I mean, if Jabba the Hut said he could make all my fantasies come true I'd have to turn him down. Because no matter how many fantasies he can perform for me I just don't think I would be up for it.

But I cannot, for the life of me, understand how it is even possible for a man to find another man physically attractive. And that's one of the reasons I'm not sure it's just natural choice for some people... because I can't relate to it at all.

Hey, I don't like ditzy blonds with big gazzumbas but I don't question guys who do, nor do I question if it is natural or not. Have you ever seen men dating women that just turn you off? Same thing.

But I will say that it must be unnatural, because if it was natural, we wouldn't be here.
Comparing animals, I believe to be a mute point, because I believe many animals get confused about it, which is just a smidgen easier for them with their level of intelligence.

I think you too are not using the word natural correctly. Does it occur in nature? Yes. Then, by definition, it is natural. That is why we compared animals, to show that it does meet the definition of natural. Thus, comparing to animals is not a moot point, especially after you factor in that sex is not purely about reproduction.


And this all brings up a new question for me: Why is it whenever people don't agree with homosexuality they get hung up on the sex aspect? Relationships are about much, much, much more than sex. As a married man I can guarantee to you that sex is just a perk of a relationship. There is so much more to it than just that. I don't go home from work everyday looking forward to my wife expecting her to put out all night, because that is not a marriage. No, I go home looking forward to spending time with the person who makes me feel good just by being around, even when she does watch Lifetime. I look forward to the fact that if I have had a hard day she can make me feel better and if she has had a hard day I feel good when I make her feel better.

If you want to say homosexual behavior in animals is a moot point when compared to humans then you have to completely ignore sex, because that is when it becomes obvious that a long-term homosexual relationship has as much to do with sex as long-term heterosexual relationships.

 

[Sniffs]

Earth is the type that is a "human mule", stubborn and set. the kind that goes "i believe what I was taught, and nothing else, so bleep you"

it is common for homosexuality to be lumped together with all other Deviant Acts. some people will not believe there is more to it for humans than procreation. *refrains from making Missionary Position comment*

and it's not just the Rainbow that gets this kind of flack. so has the Furry subculture, with the whole thing being perceived as simply one giant orgy, and is automatically lumped with Zoophiliacs

oh, add "animals with weenies" instead of mammals alone to the same sex critters. I hear Mallards do, too.

 

[TheCracker]

and it's not just the Rainbow that gets this kind of flack. so has the Furry subculture, with the whole thing being perceived as simply one giant orgy, and is automatically lumped with Zoophiliacs

Furries don't get enough flack IMO. Weirdos.

 

[Danoff]

I don't go home from work everyday looking forward to my wife who is legally obligated to put out all night, because that is not a marriage. No, I go home looking forward to spending time with the person who makes me feel good just by being around...

...and that's a good thing because she's not legally obligated to put out anymore (she would have been a number of years back).

 

[FoolKiller]

...and that's a good thing because she's not legally obligated to put out anymore (she would have been a number of years back).

Well, I wasn't implying that she is, but I see how it reads that way.

EDIT: Changed it to read better.

 

[Duke]

Folks:

So far I haven't seen any problems with the level of discussion here, but let's remember there is a large membership group in the 12-14-year-old age bracket (and some younger) who could see this. When discussing different types of sex, please keep your wording simple, mature, and non-detailed.

Thanks.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

Because no other animals have intelligence or have any idea about keeping the species going?

exactly. according to science, they dont do it for pleasure. and many species have males that will try to kill the young. So tell me how they are intentionally procreating to keep the species going?
The bottom line, is that animals are stupid. Animals that kill their young, kill their mates, eat each other.
Humans and dolphins are supposed to be the only animals that do it for fun.

 

[Famine]

And Bonobos. In fact Bonobos use it as currency too - like humans.

 

[Loon]

And Bonobos. In fact Bonobos use it as currency too - like humans.

Seeing as how I didn't know what a Bonobo was I headed over to wiki to find out, there's a whole section on their sexual behavior alone, interesting stuff. Especially concerning people who say gay animals aren't natural, these chimps beg to differ.

 

[Sureboss]

exactly. according to science, they dont do it for pleasure. and many species have males that will try to kill the young. So tell me how they are intentionally procreating to keep the species going?

Eliminating future competition = Survival of the fittest

The bottom line, is that animals are stupid. Animals that kill their young, kill their mates, eat each other.
Humans and dolphins are supposed to be the only animals that do it for fun.

Calling animals stupid is ill informed, if they were stupid they wouldn't be here. I'd also point out a case where a dolphin 'saved' two beached whales in New Zealand (maybe Australia).

How do you know that killing their young isn't an effective way of population control?

As for killing their mates? Humans don't they that, do they?

 

[Sniffs]

Furries don't get enough flack IMO. Weirdos.

untill their heterosexual lawyers with five kids decide to sue the protesters for a few million dollars apiece for harassment.

 

[Danoff]

Eliminating future competition = Survival of the fittest

Not genetically.

How do you know that killing their young isn't an effective way of population control?

I can't think of a single biological reason why any living creature would control the population of it's species (unless it was sentient). We know that it isn't a form of population control because there is no mechanism in natural selection to cause that behavior.

 

[Sage]

If you mean localized population control for one’s own sake, it definitely happens.

 

[Danoff]

I wasn't really talking about direct competition for resources (which I wouldn't classify as population control), though I can totally see why you thought that. I was talking about population control for the sake of preventing the future need to compete for resources.

 

[Sureboss]

Not genetically.

Well no, but it makes sense to eliminate potential future competitors, does it not?

I can't think of a single biological reason why any living creature would control the population of it's species (unless it was sentient). We know that it isn't a form of population control because there is no mechanism in natural selection to cause that behavior.

What kind of animals has it been recorded in? Lions often do it don't they? Normally only male cubs though. But you are right, an animal (Lion for example) isn't going to think, "I have to worry about the future population of my species, I need to kill those cubs". Maybe it does control populations, but there is no Science for it (not in a religious way either btw).


I need some more straws please...