Is homosexuality unnatural?

[dkv]

Homosexuality is not a threat. But we must understand "homosexuality" provides greater opportunity to transfer genes. It is well known that in most cases Lesbians do it to attract males.Males do it unconsciously.

Homosexuality provides greater opportunity to propagate genes than sexual antagonism that is why Homosexuality has survived since the advent of mankind.

[sman]

Does this mean that gay sex is like eating maggots?

 

Well... taken in the context of the rest of that post, it means that our instincts, the immediate gut feelings we get for these things, do not always serve us. They are in the service of our genes, and our genes are not our allies.

[InfiniteNow]

But we must understand "homosexuality" provides greater opportunity to transfer genes. It is well known that in most cases Lesbians do it to attract males.Males do it unconsciously.

Homosexuality provides greater opportunity to propagate genes than sexual antagonism

 

That is not "well known" at all. You need to provide citations in support of your points. Until then, I will label you as wrong, and this label will remain until you demonstrate otherwise with supporting evidence.

[lemit]

Is a dog humping your leg making a lifestyle choice?

 

--lemit

[Michaelangelica]

My reaction to being 'hit on' at a party is fear.I usually try to stay as close to my wife as possible at very gay parties. Otherwise people can screw anything from bananas to salami if it makes them happy

i sometimes wonder what I have missed out on, experientially.

BTW if you are Yank and you name is "Randy" change it before visiting Oz.

 

There are worse obscenities in life like war, poverty, disease, fundamentalists and people who walk backwards.

 

A dog making a lifestyle choice;. . . hard question.

[lemit]

For those of you who might like a more serious discussion, the stories I have collected from gay men chronicling their discovery as children that they were gay, and the pain and isolation of that discovery, mirror the stories I have collected of children discovering they belong to a racial or ethnic minority.

 

I have to assume that one is as natural as the other.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. Anybody who would twist that 180 degrees should accept his/her nature which does not involve the reading of anything that does not challenge the reader to find Waldo.

[lemit]

Michaelangelica,

 

For several years I lived in a predominantly gay area. I discovered that a simple "No, sorry" seemed to work when I was propositioned.

 

I probably would have had the same reaction to the particular men who approached me even if I were of a different orientation, but that's a story for another day.

 

--lemit

[Boerseun]

Whether you deem homosexuality as "natural" or "unnatural", the fact remains that it does, indeed, happen in nature - "nature", of course, being everything outside the scope of human biology/culture for the sake of this argument.

 

For instance, scientific experiments on overpopulation amongst rats have shown that the denser the population becomes, the more prone males are to engage in homosexuality, and females withdraw from sexual activity altogether.

 

On the other hand, in mammals with more developed brains where social hierarchy comes into play, primatologists have found that male chimpanzees routinely "hump" each other in affirming and strengthening the social structure. The dominant male will do the humping, the submissive male (lower on the social ladder) will turn around and present his rear to the dominant male. This serves in lowering tension levels in the troop, and affirming the participating individuals' respective positions in the social strata. The male who have just presented his rear to a male above him, will just as soon hump a male on a level below his, thereby "imposing" his will and asserting his dominance over those below him.

 

It's interesting that an analogy exist amongst human males. Amongst testosterone-poisoned young males, the insult of choice seem to be "**** you", with the "I" implicit in front of the sentence. And so the social hierarchy is established and strengthened. I'm sure there's a meaningful corrolation there.

 

But if we want to give a simple answer to the question posed in the OP, then, no - homosexuality is clearly not unnatural. Whether you, as an individual, approve of it or not is immaterial - animals al through the environment engage in it, and the reasons vary from it being a simple survival strategy to being merely an action imposed on the male by testosterone meddling with the brain.

 

Love has absolutely nothing to do with the "naturalness" or "unnaturalness" of any given sex act between any two given individuals.

 

After all, if you see two frogs humping in a pond, do you really think love's involved anywhere in the equation?

 

If two males engage in sex and they love each other, good for them. If they have sex and there's no "love" involved, if it's merely an act of lust, then there's absolutely no difference between what they're doing and what millions of heterosexual men are doing visiting prostitutes each and every day all over the world. There's no love there - it's all lust.

 

If we see the act of sex as purely reproduction, then yes - homosexuality is unnatural. But when sex becomes a social tool, maintaining peace by being an outlet for testosterone poisoning, and serves in maintaining social and dominance hierarchys (as amongst the chimpanzees), then reproduction is merely a "side benefit" of sex, and the fact that a penis has evolved to fit neatly into a vagina is almost coincidental.

 

So, in essence, the answer is definitely "no". It's not unnatural.

[Michaelangelica]

For those of you who might like a more serious discussion, the stories I have collected from gay men chronicling their discovery as children that they were gay, and the pain and isolation of that discovery, mirror the stories I have collected of children discovering they belong to a racial or ethnic minority.

 

I have to assume that one is as natural as the other.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. Anybody who would twist that 180 degrees should accept his/her nature which does not involve the reading of anything that does not challenge the reader to find Waldo.

For some of my gay friends, of my vintage, things were very difficult. Many are now celibate and living alone. These days things seem a lot easier. There is far greater acceptance, less furtiveness, no lies. It was not long ago that you could be jailed for buggery even in private.

 

I sometimes feel extreme homophobes are in need of examining the nature of their own sexuality.

 

I do find many gay women difficult to talk to. A local gay female waitress always ignores me and I feel uncomfortable around her. I do find it easier and more fun to talk to women than men.

 

My gay friends have had fascinating lives and are highly educated, well informed, good conversationalists, and hard working. Their topics of conversation are much broader generally than my 'straight" male friends. Some of whom would be happy watching a ball bounce around a green paddock 24/7.

Generalisations, about human beings are of course, always fraught or perhaps almost impossible re sexuality.

For my kids homosexuality is a non-issue, although one, (female) prefers going to Gay Clubs as they are more fun and there are fewer drugs and offensive, drunk males "trying it on".

[sman]

It's interesting that an analogy exist amongst human males. Amongst testosterone-poisoned young males, the insult of choice seem to be "**** you", with the "I" implicit in front of the sentence. And so the social hierarchy is established and strengthened. I'm sure there's a meaningful corrolation there.

 

I'm not so sure. The phrase "doggonnit" does not have ancestors pointing to concepts about canines. The ancestor is "goddamnit". Etymologies of words/phrases do not indicate etymologies of concepts.

On the other hand, this phrase ("**** you") has been converged upon by many, many unrelated languages, so there may be something here.

reproduction is merely a "side benefit" of sex, and the fact that a penis has evolved to fit neatly into a vagina is almost coincidental.

 

Although it's healthy to reexamine established lines of causation, I believe you'll find this one is unassailable. All of life is in the service of reproduction.

[sman]

For some of my gay friends, of my vintage, things were very difficult. Many are now celibate and living alone. These days things seem a lot easier. There is far greater acceptance, less furtiveness, no lies. It was not long ago that you could be jailed for buggery even in private.

 

I cant help but think there's a humanitarian obligation that's been compleatly lost in the gunsmoke. We all do the best we can to build our lives and procure our own happines using only what we've been delt by fate. If among what we've been delt is diabetes, or MS, or autism, life can be very difficult and our sympathies are aroused for these cases. A homosexual lifestyle must also be very difficult, but we dont see millions of dollars of research directed towards easing these peoples lives. What's the difference?

[lemit]

I'm not so sure. The phrase "doggonnit" does not have ancestors pointing to concepts about canines. The ancestor is "goddamnit". Etymologies of words/phrases do not indicate etymologies of concepts.

On the other hand, this phrase ("**** you") has been converged upon by many, many unrelated languages, so there may be something here.

 

 

Although it's healthy to reexamine established lines of causation, I believe you'll find this one is unassailable. All of life is in the service of reproduction.

 

Slang etymology is always tricky.

 

So is the combining of causation and sex.

 

I chose the analogy of the dog/leg partnership more carefully than most people would probably expect. I think--and I believe my books in storage would support me; please trust me--that sex is a somewhat random form of selection. Your leg might not be a successful match with a dog, but it is that random process, seemingly, that results in an ultimately successful match.

 

Now, as a disclaimer, I am single and in my sixties. I lead a life that would be admirable in a Pope in some respects. But not all.

 

Just a disclaimer.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. I've always tried to personalize my posts. I think I may have just gone too far.

[Larv]

Is a dog humping your leg making a lifestyle choice?

For you or your dog? Seems like safe sex to me.

 

A better question would be: Do dogs choose their sexual orientation or are they predisposed to hump legs?

[lemit]

For you or your dog? Seems like safe sex to me.

 

A better question would be: Do dogs choose their sexual orientation or are they predisposed to hump legs?

 

Most dogs I've known have seemed to be wonderful examples of the randomity I posited earlier.

 

--lemit

[REASON]

I cant help but think there's a humanitarian obligation that's been compleatly lost in the gunsmoke. We all do the best we can to build our lives and procure our own happines using only what we've been delt by fate. If among what we've been delt is diabetes, or MS, or autism, life can be very difficult and our sympathies are aroused for these cases. A homosexual lifestyle must also be very difficult, but we dont see millions of dollars of research directed towards easing these peoples lives. What's the difference?

 

The difference is the common perception that one has made a choice in life, and the other is afflicted.

 

Sympathy and research is more apt to be directed toward the afflicted.

[InfiniteNow]

Also, implicit in the question is that homosexuality is somehow wrong... an "affliction" to be cured. That's laughable, at best.

[maddog]

I question the title of this thread might be misleading when comparing with animals.

For instance all data regarding the "1500 species of animals" so behaving in a

"homosexual" manner. From what I have read on the subject, this behavior was

interpreted as "bisexual" in nature. This may be somehwat of a nitpick, though I do

believe this is more clear and more in tune with nature. This would be especially so

with the Chimps in the study... :)

 

I would then think that Culture (and human beings alone) have created the notion of

"homosexuality" in that this implies "exclusivity" over with whomever just happens to

be available.

 

maddog