Is Homosexuality Unnatural? Defending Homosexuals And Their Right To Love And Are Natural As You And Me.

[billvon]

Homosexuality, makes no sense from the genetic POV. This behavior does not have the proclivity to reproduce itself; DNA. It is not subject to natural selection, since natural selection involves reproduction. The behavior appears to be based on a different selection process, more connected to brain subroutines.

And yet a great many mammals display homosexuality, indicating that it is conserved against reproductive pressure and thus performs an important function.  Your ignorance of what that function is does not mean that that function does not exist.

[HydrogenBond]

We have all observed male dogs humping other male dogs. This behavior is not for sex or love, but is a form of aggression done for dominance. Prison sex is not love but aggression and rape. It is not designed for procreation or affection, but is a less destructive way, to determine pack order, compared to fighting and biting. I can see how this behavior can be common to family and friendly groups of animals. It is a dramatic way to get a point across.

 

However, I had never seen a male dogs  go all the way and have sexual intercourse with other males. This is where humans depart from the animals. Up to actual sexual intercourse, the natural argument may hold. But once sex is engaged, the data get very thin, such that this may not have much precedent in nature. 

 

I can see how addictions form based on habits and pleasure subroutines within the brain; firmware. The drug or food addict can get compulsive and not be able to control themselves. It can look like instinct. If these behavior were allowed out of the the closet; not called unhealthy, one could argue this is natural to them. 

 

I look at homosexuality as two separate but connected behavior. I have had many gay and lesbian friends. They are all good people. We respected the boundaries and all was well. Sex and sexual advances crosses a line, not exhibited in nature. A celibate homosexual is interesting because it does cross the line but will exhibit all the properties. 

 

 

[JMJones0424]

This seems, unfortunately, to be little different than any other of your posts, HBond.  Wild speculation accompanied by no actual evidence resulting in a claim that can only be accepted through faith.  "Prison sex" is not analogous to homosexuality.  It is the case that there exists some people that have romantic relationships with others that have the same biological equipment as they do. This fact has nothing at all to do with your observations of dogs or even your imagined behaviors of prisoners.  I look at your look at homosexuality as ludicrous, unscientific, and frankly homophobic.

Edited January 7, 2017 by JMJones0424

[HydrogenBond]

This seems, unfortunately, to be little different than any other of your posts, HBond.  Wild speculation accompanied by no actual evidence resulting in a claim that can only be accepted through faith.  "Prison sex" is not analogous to homosexuality.  It is the case that there exists some people that have romantic relationships with others that have the same biological equipment as they do. This fact has nothing at all to do with your observations of dogs or even your imagined behaviors of prisoners.  I look at your look at homosexuality as ludicrous, unscientific, and frankly homophobic.

 

If you had a person who has all the mannerisms and propensities of someone who would be considered homosexual, but that person has never had sex; virgin, are they still a homosexual? Or does homosexuality have a rite of passage, which requires sex with one or more people of the same sex? 

 

 

 

As far as a phobia, phobia is the carte blanc accusation you get if you question any liberal social proclamation. Any form of questioning makes it a phobia. Most of the homosexuals I have known, are kind and thoughtful people, who are not very scary. Phobia has to do with fear. I am not scared of nice people. I feel safe with nice people. Is there something I should be scared of? 

 

Another thing that I don't understand is why do so many homosexuals defines themselves by their sexual orientation? It is like sex is the centerpiece of their personality. This is not the center of human personality; centered on all instincts. Most heterosexuals don't define themselves this way, unless they are players. This is not the center of the brain but is more like a peripheral; firmware, place in the psyche. 

 

I am a male, but it is taboo to promote this, in the left leaning world of feminism. I should be afraid of myself. The reason this is taboo is it makes some people feel unconformable, maybe due to conditioning. The discomfort created can lead to negativity and conflict. If we do the math, the left wants homosexuals to define themselves in a way that will lead to age old conflict. The left is like the gossip at the party who pretends to be friends with two different people, while pitting them against each other.

 

Homosexuals are set up for backlash. Some people like attention, even if negative. 

Edited January 7, 2017 by HydrogenBond

[A-wal]

You do talk some utter crap. There's plenty of male homosexuals that aren't camp, some are the exact opposite (the ****ing women is for poofs/you're not a man until you've had one group) and there's plenty of feminine lesbians, thankfully. Hmm, they're lovely. :) It's just that the feminine male ones and masculine female ones are easy to spot.

Since when is being a feminist a requirement of not being a conservative moron? What do you mean taboo to promote being male? If you mean promoting the idea that everyones identities and opportunities should be defined by what they happen to be rather than who they really are and their true potential then it should be ridiculed. You only have to be afraid of who you are if you're somebody who tries to limit others based on your own backwards views on what you think they should be.

Edited January 7, 2017 by A-wal

[Maine farmer]

What if "homophobia" is an actual mental illness?  What if someone is literally overcome by a real irrational fear of homosexuality?  Could that not be considered by some to be "unnatural"?  That probably opens up a whole new "can of worms."

[A-wal]

I think most people who are afraid of it are having trouble facing their own sexuality. There's probably a lot of bisexuals (assuming that's as common as homosexuality) that don't act on their feelings because they've been brought up to think of it that it's wrong or unnatural.

[CraigD]

However, I had never seen a male dogs go all the way and have sexual intercourse with other males. This is where humans depart from the animals.

When I read this, I wondered if male dogs could “go all the way” – that is, have anal sex ending with ejaculation.

 

The penises of dogs and other canids are very different from human ones. Here human penises are flaccid until blood engorged, canid penises are rigid because of a bone not found in the human penis. It becomes blood engorged after being inserted in the vagina, mostly in an area near the tip called the bulbus glandis, causing it to be “locked in” until after ejaculation. I wasn’t sure whether this would work with an anus.

 

I found this 2012 quora.com post from a dog breeder who describes having seen a male dog have ejaculatory anal sex with another male dog, and being advise by a veterinarian that as long as both dogs were kept calm, neither would be injured.

 

This isn’t the most scientific of sources, but I find it sufficient to convince me that male dogs can indeed “go all the way”.

 

:) Oh wonderful internet, is there nothing you cannot tell us! :)

 

We have all observed male dogs humping other male dogs. This behavior is not for sex or love, but is a form of aggression done for dominance.

Immature and mature male and female dogs “mount and hump”, for many reasons, including relieve stress and anxiety, not just to assert social dominance. This WebMD article has a pretty good description of this behavior.

 

Prison sex is not love but aggression and rape.

As other have already commented, this unsupported claim from you, HBond, suggest to me you’ve not spent much time in prisons or around people who have. Your description is laughably wrong to anyone who has. Sex, love, aggression, and rape is, in my experience, not much different in prison than in general society.

 

What if "homophobia" is an actual mental illness? What if someone is literally overcome by a real irrational fear of homosexuality? Could that not be considered by some to be "unnatural"? That probably opens up a whole new "can of worms."

LOL. I think you’re pointing a shortcoming of our languages’ use of Greek/Latin-based words ending “-phobia” and “-philia”, which imply a continuum with “brotherly love” on one extreme and “terror” on the other. We use this word ending to describe continuums such as approval-disapproval, as well as true psychiatric conditions. “Homophobia”, doesn’t commonly mean “fear of homosexuals”, but “hatred” or “disapproval”.

 

Maybe we should all speak Esperanto. I understand it has more sensible word-ending schemes. The downside is that we’d only be able to talk with an estimated 100,000 to 10,000,000 people, since in the 130 years it’s been around, not too many people have adopted it.

 

I think most people who are afraid of it are having trouble facing their own sexuality. There's probably a lot of bisexuals (assuming that's as common as homosexuality) that don't act on their feelings because they've been brought up to think of it that it's wrong or unnatural.

Some people very vocal in their hatred/disapproval of gays have proven to be gay (here’s a list of 16), but I don’t think most strongly anti-gay people are just LGB people unwilling to accept their own inclinations.

 

I’ve known some people I have no doubt are strongly heterosexual (0 or 1s on the Kinsey scale) who seemed simply offended by the very concept of homosexuality. Most were religious and self-described social conservatives, but I’ve know some self-described social liberals who were. As liberals, they believed, intellectually, that everyone should be at liberty to behave as they like, so long as it doen’t harm or infringe on the liberties of others, but if actually faced with, say, two men kissing, or a glimpse of gay pornography, felt emotional discomfort to the point where they had to look away.

 

Psychology and behavior is complicated, especially human’s. It’s hard to make simple, accurate statement about specific kinds.

[HydrogenBond]

Homosexuals prefer intimacy with members of the same sex. Does this make them heterophobic? Wouldn't a homosexual become uneasy; nervous or angry, if they were approach and required to have sex with the opposite sex? The liberal dual standard creates confusion and places a wedge between people. If you use an objective criteria, that applies equally to both orientations, it adds up better. 

 

The question we should address is, could anti-homosexual behavior be as natural as homosexual behavior since both are self accepting and exclusionary. If you look at animals, animals will try to hump members of the same sex. This is often done for defining pack order. However, the story does not end there. You will also see animals who don't try to hump members of the same sex. You will also see animals who don't take such advances very well and will fight to hurt the other. All sides are going on. 

 

What would happen is both homosexual behavior and anti-homosexual behavior were both considered natural or unnatural? Say they both stem from the same psyche dynamics, and are like two sides of a coin. Since the extremes on both sides of the coin are mutually exclusive, the social polarity could be part of a selection process. One possible outcome would be to separate natural and unnatural homosexuals, from natural and unnatural anti-homosexuals. Natural I will define in terms of nature; instinct, while unnatural in terms of nurture; learned. 

 

The concepts of nature and nurture can apply to both sides of the coin, leading to unnatural blended with natural in both sides. Like a coin we can only see heads or tails but not both. Like stereo-typing, using criterial, like skin color, people often see the unnatural/nurtured behavior in the other side, and label all members that way; white bigots. They then see the natural in their clan, labelling their clan that.

 

The high rate of suicide and addiction in the gay community, shows a lot of overcompensation. Over the past 30 years, with homosexual becoming more main stream, this has not subsided. Natural instinct is not self destructive. Unnatural or nurtured instinct can become self destructive, since consciousness is off natural center, and the brain needs to make an adjustment, that the ego avoids and overcompensates.  

Edited January 8, 2017 by HydrogenBond

[A-wal]

Some people very vocal in their hatred/disapproval of gays have proven to be gay (here’s a list of 16), but I don’t think most strongly anti-gay people are just LGB people unwilling to accept their own inclinations.

I know, just having a bit of fun. :)

 

I’ve known some people I have no doubt are strongly heterosexual (0 or 1s on the Kinsey scale) who seemed simply offended by the very concept of homosexuality. Most were religious and self-described social conservatives, but I’ve know some self-described social liberals who were. As liberals, they believed, intellectually, that everyone should be at liberty to behave as they like, so long as it doen’t harm or infringe on the liberties of others, but if actually faced with, say, two men kissing, or a glimpse of gay pornography, felt emotional discomfort to the point where they had to look away.

I do, it's icky when it's men doing it!

 

Homosexuals prefer intimacy with members of the same sex. Does this make them heterophobic?

Only if they disapprove of heterosexuality.

 

Wouldn't a homosexual become uneasy; nervous or angry, if they were approach and required to have sex with the opposite sex?

Obviously. In the same a heterosexual person would if they were required to have sex with a member of the same gender as themselves. What's your point?

 

The liberal dual standard creates confusion and places a wedge between people. If you use an objective criteria, that applies equally to both orientations, it adds up better. 

The only dual standard is coming from you!

 

What would happen is both homosexual behavior and anti-homosexual behavior were both considered natural or unnatural? Say they both stem from the same psyche dynamics, and are like two sides of a coin. Since the extremes on both sides of the coin are mutually exclusive, the social polarity could be part of a selection process.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are two sides of the same coin. The equivalent to anti-homosexual is anti-heterosexual.

 

One possible outcome would be to separate natural and unnatural homosexuals, from natural and unnatural anti-homosexuals. Natural I will define in terms of nature; instinct, while unnatural in terms of nurture; learned.

A person can't learn to have a sexual orientation. That's really silly. Do you think you could learn to be gay?

 

The high rate of suicide and addiction in the gay community, shows a lot of overcompensation. Over the past 30 years, with homosexual becoming more main stream, this has not subsided. Natural instinct is not self destructive. Unnatural or nurtured instinct can become self destructive, since consciousness is off natural center, and the brain needs to make an adjustment, that the ego avoids and overcompensates.  

They're not becoming addicts and killing themselves because they're not following their true nature, they're doing it because they don't feel free to follow their true nature without being persecuted! I bet the rate of homosexual suicides is a lot lower in places that believe in freedom rather than being brought up to believe they're the only ones who have any freedom so that they feel like they're fortunate and don't rock the boat too much.

[CraigD]

The high rate of suicide and addiction in the gay community, shows a lot of overcompensation. Over the past 30 years, with homosexual becoming more main stream, this has not subsided.

:Exclamati HBond, cite a source for you claim that the suicide rate among homosexuals has not decreased over the past 30 years. You many not simply make unsupported claims to support your opinions – it’s against our site rules.

 

You have a long history of making unsupported and untrue claims, which has led to you being temporarily suspended many time. We want to provide a forum where people of many different social and educational backgrounds can enjoy discussing science, but can’t tolerate people who are unwilling to follow our site rules.

[fahrquad]

Farming Guy, with the same reasoning you can claim that any human action is natural and hence we can keep destroying our planet and say it is all natural

 

Driving plants and animals into extinction and fouling the nest is standard operating procedure for humans.

[HydrogenBond]

:Exclamati HBond, cite a source for you claim that the suicide rate among homosexuals has not decreased over the past 30 years. You many not simply make unsupported claims to support your opinions – it’s against our site rules.

 

You have a long history of making unsupported and untrue claims, which has led to you being temporarily suspended many time. We want to provide a forum where people of many different social and educational backgrounds can enjoy discussing science, but can’t tolerate people who are unwilling to follow our site rules.

It only took me 5 minutes to find this. This is not even the original paper I read. I just assume certain things are well enough known. The study below says that suicide among all youth has increased over the last 60 years, due to less ability to deal wth stressors. If you consider how college aged students could not cope with the election of President Trump, one can see the lack of ability to cope has gotten real bad. 

 

One common factor is liberal controlled education. For example, the big white straight Christian boogey man is out to get you, since he is homophobic, racist and sexist, so watch out. This stereotype is true for some, but liberalism is about stereo-types that include all who do not vote Democrat. In a country of half Republicans there is no escape from the fear.

 

Now Trump is the new boogey man and college age children are hiding in corners huddled together with puppies so they won't go over the edge. I have been saying that the Democrat strategy is to divide the people and take half. This division causes coping problems since they need a jack of all trades bogey man on other side, therefore there is no escape for the youth. 

 

I am an honest guy who tries to create new ideas and angles, but since I am no longer a liberal, assume bogeyman. Pat of coping is the ability to look at other points of view without feeling threatened. 

 

 

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention report in 2006, within the last sixty years, suicide rates have quadrupled and doubled for males and females respectively between the ages of 15 and 24, resulting in suicide being the third leading cause of death among this group in 2005 (Langhinrichsen-Rohling 2011:53). In examining this increase, Kaplan and Sadock suggest that the majority of these suicidal youths suffer from the inability to cope with stressors and difficult situations (2003; Langhinrichsen-Rohling 2011:53). Based on this assertion, and the understanding that the self-acknowledgement of sexual orientation, and the process of making that identity known to the public has the potential of being stressful, the suicide rates of homosexual and heterosexual adolescents and young adults are compared to determine if there is a significant variation (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2011).

 

The importance of determining the relation between the sexual orientation and suicide rate is to identify the causes of this relationship, and seek a way to eventually lower suicide rates among these groups of adolescents and young adults. Based on the findings of an Austrian study, if 10% of the overall population identified as homosexual then 47% of suicide attempts would be committed by sexual minority individuals (Ploderl and Fartacek 2005:667). 

 

https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-journals/P12_Schaaff.pdf

 

An interesting statistic is the observation that suicide among male has quadrupled, while for female it has doubled. There is more social stress for males due to liberal education. Males are made to feel guilty, since they caused of all the woes of the world; Liberal 1.0. This who voted for Trump don't want to be the scapegoat anymore since this is very destructive. 

Edited January 9, 2017 by HydrogenBond

[exchemist]

 

It only took me 5 minutes to find this. This is not even the original paper I read. I just assume certain things are well enough known. The study below says that suicide among all youth has increased over the last 60 years, due to less ability to deal wth stressors. If you consider how college aged students could not cope with the election of President Trump, one can see the lack of ability to cope has gotten real bad. 

 

One common factor is liberal controlled education. For example, the big white straight Christian boogey man is out to get you, since he is homophobic, racist and sexist, so watch out. This stereotype is true for some, but liberalism is about stereo-types that include all who do not vote Democrat. In a country of half Republicans there is no escape from the fear.

 

Now Trump is the new boogey man and college age children are hiding in corners huddled together with puppies so they won't go over the edge. I have been saying that the Democrat strategy is to divide the people and take half. This division causes coping problems since they need a jack of all trades bogey man on other side, therefore there is no escape for the youth. 

 

I am an honest guy who tries to create new ideas and angles, but since I am no longer a liberal, assume bogeyman. Pat of coping is the ability to look at other points of view without feeling threatened. 

 

 

 

https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-journals/P12_Schaaff.pdf

 

An interesting statistic is the observation that suicide among male has quadrupled, while for female it has doubled. There is more social stress for males due to liberal education. Males are made to feel guilty, since they caused of all the woes of the world; Liberal 1.0. This who voted for Trump don't want to be the scapegoat anymore since this is very destructive. 

 

This paper seems to provide no support at all for your claim. I can find nothing here at about changes over the last 30 years in suicide rates of homosexuals.

 

The paper appears concerned with the greater tendency to suicide among homosexual adolescents, compared to their heterosexual counterparts - not surprising in view of the turmoil that someone coming to terms with a less accepted sexual orientation has to go through.

 

The paper says that once adulthood is reached the difference disappears, i.e. people realise, sometimes painfully, which way they are going to go, but then adapt, get used to it and get on with their lives.  

 

But I see nothing at all about rates now, compared to former times.

 

Perhaps a suspension is coming your way........ 

Edited January 9, 2017 by exchemist

[Turtle]

... 

It has been documented in the animal kingdom and that we have a genome linkage to what makes people lean towards the same sex.

...

While there is considerable variation in human sexuality, both physical and behavioral, the scientific evidence for more of a nature than nurture component to homosexuality is indeed extant.

 

Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation (The full paper appears to be behind a pay wall, but the abstract suffices to support my assertion and prompt further searching.)

Findings from family and twin studies support a genetic contribution to the development of sexual orientation in men. However, previous studies have yielded conflicting evidence for linkage to chromosome Xq28.

We conducted a genome-wide linkage scan on 409 independent pairs of homosexual brothers (908 analyzed individuals in 384 families), by far the largest study of its kind to date.

We identified two regions of linkage: the pericentromeric region on chromosome 8 (maximum two-point LOD = 4.08, maximum multipoint LOD = 2.59), which overlaps with the second strongest region from a previous separate linkage scan of 155 brother pairs; and Xq28 (maximum two-point LOD = 2.99, maximum multipoint LOD = 2.76), which was also implicated in prior research.

Results, especially in the context of past studies, support the existence of genes on pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28 influencing development of male sexual orientation.

Can Epigenetics Explain Homosexuality?

 

 

Researchers looking for a genetic signature of homosexuality have been barking up the wrong tree, according to a trio of researchers in the United States and Sweden. Instead, the scientists posit, epigenetic influences acting on androgen signaling in the brain may underlie sexual orientation. In a paper published last week (December 11) in The Quarterly Review of Biology, they propose a model describing how epigenetic markers that steer sexual development in males could promote homosexual orientation in females, and vice versa. The scientists offer their model to explain both the tendency of homosexuality to run in families, and the fact that so far no “homosexual gene” has been identified.

 

“It’s a very provocative, very interesting new twist that is plausible,” said Margaret McCarthy, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland who studies how hormones influence brain development and was not involved in producing the model. But, she cautioned, so far the theory “is not supported by any data.”

...

Fascinating as it may be to understand the biological basis of sexual orientation, however, not everyone is convinced it’s a necessary line of investigation. “Should we test this? Is it important for us to know?” asked McCarthy. “Homosexuality is not a disease, it’s part of natural human variation. I’m not sure there’s a good reason to delve this deeply into it. I think we’ve reached the point that we have enough evidence that there’s a biological basis for sexual orientation.” It would be more helpful to people to get a better handle on the epigenetics of cancer or mental illness, she added.

McCarthy makes an excellent point about the importance of homosexuality. We wouldn't be discussing it but for the intolerant folks who just can't let it go and must continue to label and denigrate. Such intolerant behavior has a psychological basis in-and-of-itsef, but that discussion is fodder for another thread.

[exchemist]

While there is considerable variation in human sexuality, both physical and behavioral, the scientific evidence for more of a nature than nurture component to homosexuality is indeed extant.

 

Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation (The full paper appears to be behind a pay wall, but the abstract suffices to support my assertion and prompt further searching.)

 

Can Epigenetics Explain Homosexuality?

 

 

 

McCarthy makes an excellent point about the importance of homosexuality. We wouldn't be discussing it but for the intolerant folks who just can't let it go and must continue to label and denigrate. Such intolerant behavior has a psychological basis in-and-of-itsef, but that discussion is fodder for another thread.

Interesting.

 

There is however one aspect of this that smells rotten to me, namely the hint that science should self-censor its lines of research, in case they lead somewhere that might be politically uncomfortable. The suggestion of de-prioritisation of research on sexual orientation vs. cancer and mental health research strikes me as disingenuous: science researches across a broad front, according to the interests and expertise of its practitioners. Also, sexual orientation is such a big issue in today's society that further research on it seems time and money well spent, to me.    

Edited January 13, 2017 by exchemist

[JMJones0424]

I am an honest guy who tries to create new ideas and angles, but since I am no longer a liberal, assume bogeyman. Pat of coping is the ability to look at other points of view without feeling threatened. 

 

https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-journals/P12_Schaaff.pdf

 

An interesting statistic is the observation that suicide among male has quadrupled, while for female it has doubled. There is more social stress for males due to liberal education. Males are made to feel guilty, since they caused of all the woes of the world; Liberal 1.0. This who voted for Trump don't want to be the scapegoat anymore since this is very destructive. 

 

You've identified a statistic that you feel is interesting, and then, without any supporting evidence, you confidently provide an explanation.  How did you determine that "There is more social stress for males due to liberal education. Males are made to feel guilty, since they caused of all the woes of the world; Liberal 1.0. This who voted for Trump don't want to be the scapegoat anymore since this is very destructive."

 

I am not convinced that you have any support for your claims.  I am pretty sure, however, as has been shown in damn near every other of your claims for the last how many years, that you are proclaiming certainty without any actual evidence.