Homosexuality: Some natural and some unnatural?

[Cecilie1200]

Homosexual behavior has been documented in several thousand species of animals. I think it's safe to say it's a natural phenomenon.

Misleading and disingenuous.

 

[Cecilie1200]

First off, we don't know if it's genetic or not. Second off, the APA disregarded homosexuality as being a mental disorder in the 1970s. Homosexuality does not hinder one's perception of reality (or humanity's definition of reality). Therefore, it is not a mental disorder.

It is a sexual disorder, at least in terms of nature.

Looking at the numbers in the US, gay males account for over half the AIDS and STD cases even though they only account for about 5% of the population.

It sure looks unhealthy to me.

Where do you get your information because those numbers seem to be more likely from the 1980s than anything current. Either way, though. homosexual males (or really males in general) tend to be rather sexually promiscuous, If anything, those numbers have more to do with their number of partners than homosexuality itself.

According to the CDC, the only thing wrong with those numbers is that homosexual males don't comprise 5% of the population; they comprise only 2%.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU.

HIV among Gay and Bisexual Men | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

 

[Cecilie1200]

No cases of healing homosexuality are valid. What happened was a young boy was coerced into a homosexual relationship and convinced that he was homosexual when he was never homosexual. As he grew older the man developed a very normal attraction to women. Now he's healed.

How convenient. Just dismiss cured homosexuals as "weren't REALLY homosexual", and you get to go on viewing the world exactly as you want it to be, rather than having to ever accept that it might be otherwise.

 

[Cecilie1200]

History tells us otherwise.

In ancient Greece and Sparta it was culturally accpeted and widely practiced......unless you think there to be a rampant "gay gene" amongst these races.

I hadn't thought of that, but that's more evidence of it being a simple preference, driven by current popular culture and fickle Monkey appetites.

There is no question about it. However, I don't discount some who are inclined that direction. By in large I view it to be a disorder that effects a very small percentage of the population. Unfortunately, it has been proven to extend to the rest of society via cultural norms. This is why the whole gay movement is so insidious. As I have shown, the gay lifestyle is like playing Russian roulette.

I tend to think it's like alcoholism or mental illnesses like schizophrenia: some people have a genetic predisposition toward it, but most don't. And of those who do, it requires the right external circumstances and stimuli to trigger it.

It should also be pointed out that, despite the fact that both alcoholism and schizophrenia could be considered "natural", in that they have a genetic factor to them and they affect a statistically noticeable minority of the population, that "naturalness" in no way makes them desirable traits, or impervious to correction.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It occurs in nature, therefore it must be natural. However, it is a deviant behavior which is naturally limited by the inability to reproduce.

I'm not sure I'd call it deviant.

I don't know how something can be natural yet deviant at the same time.

By being an undesirable trait or defect. Alcoholism is "natural", insofar as we KNOW - not just assume - that it comes from a genetic predisposition, but that doesn't mean that we don't still try to change and correct the manifestation of it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Explain how something that is natural to an animal isn't also normal.

The argument I heard was that homosexuality happens among animals therefore it's perfectly natural for man. I of course disagree. Filicide, cannibalism and incest are also found among animals, does that mean it's natural for man to act on these instincts?

There are a lot of things that animals do that is instinctively natural and I'd argue for them it's normal behavior.

While I believe that human behavior is influenced by a number of genetic and environmental factors, you're right, that argument is essentially meaningless. The argument that behavior existent in the rest of the animal kingdom is a premise for human behavior is essentially no argument at all.

Generally I think that is used as an argument against calling homosexual behavior unnatural. Saying that it is seen in nature seems to be an understandable response.

As a moral argument, I agree, it's pretty worthless. But to counter the idea that it's unnatural I think it works.

On the bigger issue of whether sexuality is a choice, I tend to agree with Jimmy_Jam's post a few posts back. Various things can probably play a part, from genetics to environmental factors. I don't know how often it is a conscious choice, I don't know if many people say to themselves, "I'm going to be gay now" or "I'm going to be straight now". However, I see no reason people cannot develop different tastes, including sexual tastes.

No, it doesn't really work to counter the idea that it's unnatural, because what is or isn't natural and normal for other species has nothing whatsoever to do with what's natural and normal for humans. It's both natural and normal for earthworms to be hermaphrodites, but that's completely irrelevant to the fact that hermaphroditism in humans is aberrant and a defect.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In that case, lets just drop marriage altogether. We're not bound to be fair to anyone right?

Are we bound to fairness? 170 years ago, it was fair to own slaves, 90 years ago women couldn't vote. 60 years ago racial segregation was legal. What is "fairness"? It seems to be a convention of peer pressure...not of some transcendent concept . What fairness IS depends on the times and popular sentiment, doesn’t it?

Slaves weren't freed by votes. Racial segregation wasn't ended by votes. Men didn't vote for women to have the right to vote. Same sex marriage shouldn't be voted on.

Um, you do realize that all the things you listed came about because laws were passed to that effect, right? In other words, they were voted on. Not by direct ballot initiative, that's true, but that's because we don't pass federal laws that way in this country.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Slaves weren't freed by votes. Racial segregation wasn't ended by votes. Men didn't vote for women to have the right to vote. Same sex marriage shouldn't be voted on.

OK. Not sure where to go with that. You overlooked my point, let me make this clear: there isn't any such thing as "fair". Fair is a matter of popular opinion at the time. OK, now we have Homosexuals floating cash out there like so many BP or NRA reps trying to buy popular opinion in America. The fact that they (BP) created the biggest oil spill of all time, or (the NRA) help contribute to the cause of murder of innocent school children, that is "Fair" in this country. Fair. I wonder what that means anymore. Gays don't need to get married; they want it as symbol of acceptance. We all know it. I won’t willingly to give it to them and they don't really need it anyway. Have I made myself clear? Fair? What does that have to do with anything?

You missed my point. Popular opinion didn't bring about these changes. People wpuld have argued women didn't need to vote. Slaves didn't need to be freed. And "Negroes" didn't need the end of segregation.

Homosexuals need same sex marriage as much as these other groups needed to be treated fairly. Life isn't always fair. But this is one thing that can be made fair. You don't wait for popular opinion (votes) to change civil rights.

Um, people DID make those arguments. And other people argued the opposite until popular opinion changed enough to allow laws to be passed to that effect. So yes, popular opinion DID bring about those changes.

 

[Montrovant]

While I believe that human behavior is influenced by a number of genetic and environmental factors, you're right, that argument is essentially meaningless. The argument that behavior existent in the rest of the animal kingdom is a premise for human behavior is essentially no argument at all.

Generally I think that is used as an argument against calling homosexual behavior unnatural. Saying that it is seen in nature seems to be an understandable response.

As a moral argument, I agree, it's pretty worthless. But to counter the idea that it's unnatural I think it works.

On the bigger issue of whether sexuality is a choice, I tend to agree with Jimmy_Jam's post a few posts back. Various things can probably play a part, from genetics to environmental factors. I don't know how often it is a conscious choice, I don't know if many people say to themselves, "I'm going to be gay now" or "I'm going to be straight now". However, I see no reason people cannot develop different tastes, including sexual tastes.

No, it doesn't really work to counter the idea that it's unnatural, because what is or isn't natural and normal for other species has nothing whatsoever to do with what's natural and normal for humans. It's both natural and normal for earthworms to be hermaphrodites, but that's completely irrelevant to the fact that hermaphroditism in humans is aberrant and a defect.

If the argument were usually put that homosexuality in humans is unnatural, but in animals it is natural, you would have more of a point. I don't think I've ever seen it put that way, though. Most often I have seen people tie procreation to what is natural; as I'm pretty sure homosexuality has been seen in animal species which cannot lead to procreation, that version of the 'it's unnatural' argument applies to both human and various animal species.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That the best you can do?

Just say that what happens in natural isn't normal and think you're right.

Sorry but you are a fool to think that what is natural behavior in the animal kingdom isn't normal for them.

Stop applying human logic to the animal world.

I did not say that.

For the record, normal and deviance are statistical terms, natural is not. Statistics are applied to the natural world, but they are not natural because they were invented by man. It is entirely possible for something to be normal yet unnatural, for example, it is normal for houses to have multiple cell phones, it is not natural. Alternatively, it is also possible for something to be not normal, aka deviant, yet still natural, like blue eyes.

Your analogy is rather lame.

Again your defining what is normal in the human scheme of things.

Who said having multiple phones in a house isn't natural?

You?

Are you the authority on what is normal or natural?

In the animal kingdom there is no deviance from what is instinctively natural (normal) behavior.

Show some examples of deviant behavior in the animal world.

Do phones grow on trees? Phones are, by definition, unnatural.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I did not say that.

For the record, normal and deviance are statistical terms, natural is not. Statistics are applied to the natural world, but they are not natural because they were invented by man. It is entirely possible for something to be normal yet unnatural, for example, it is normal for houses to have multiple cell phones, it is not natural. Alternatively, it is also possible for something to be not normal, aka deviant, yet still natural, like blue eyes.

Your analogy is rather lame.

Again your defining what is normal in the human scheme of things.

Who said having multiple phones in a house isn't natural?

You?

Are you the authority on what is normal or natural?

In the animal kingdom there is no deviance from what is instinctively natural (normal) behavior.

Show some examples of deviant behavior in the animal world.

Do phones grow on trees? Phones are, by definition, unnatural.

No and nor do houses.