Defining natural

[Booze Zombie]

Your chain of thought trips up here - a homosexual relationship has no bearing on survival, and obviously would not have been passed on evolution-wise as two men cannot conceive

The individuals are surviving together. Two people are stronger than one by himself, etc.
And who's to say that those two "weaklings" couldn't have taken over a group of people after a natural disaster or some such?

Look, let me word it like this: If it is not natural for gay people to exist... why do they effin' exist?!

 

[Booze Zombie]

To your first paragraph: Doesn't matter what they did in life, eventually they'd die and produce no direct heirs.

To your second paragraph: They exist through random genetic mutation and the power of suggestion.

And those processes that made them are not natural, then? I'm sorry, I just don't see why gay people are "unnatural".

They were born, they make friends and have sex drives... I don't get it.

 

[matnatz]

Homosexuality is used naturally in animals as population control, and to be honast I would not be surprised if the growing number of homosexuals in the world would not only have to do with the growing acceptance, and also be in part just that, there are far too many people in the world at the moment.

That's a theory I had, that homosexuality is nature's population control.
Then again that sounds kind of stupid.

Big angry Lions are natures population control.

Anywho, everything we invent, think, or anything is natural. We were meant to invent, hence why we do. We were meant to fight, hence why we do. Etc etc. If you like dudes, then there's nothing wrong with it, you get gay Dolphins and apart from humans they are the only animals that have sex for pleasure. The stigma around Homosexuuality came around pretty recently in the grand scheme of things.

Edit: I almost sound like I believe in god now, just to clarify, I do not.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Booze Zombie]

Okay. Then to clarify for hopefully the final time. Homosexuality (not 'gay people' what kind of person would say a living human is 'unnatural'? I'm talking about the lifestyle - obviously) is unnatural because it serves no evolutionary purpose - i.e. homosexual intercourse it's not something humans were naturally designed to do.

homosexuals have sex. Sex was made for reproduction. Two males don't reproduce. This goes against the natural role of sex (primarily to reproduce, secondarily that said reproduction is achieved through pleasurable stimulation of the involved sexual organs which leads to ejaculation/fertilisation). It (it being homosexuality with regards to intercourse and therefore by implication homosexuality as a whole) is therefore unnatural.

Now, I realise that gamers tend to lose large parts of their short term memory so I'll repeat this: I am not against gays or homophobic.

If you don't understand the things I've said in this post, then frankly you're not worth the [unkind phrases deleted] i am currently expending. I'm usually smart enough not to [phrase removed] someone but you're being ignorant to the point of hilarity.

Gee-wizz, that's so much better! They're not against nature, only their choice to love each other is.
Our species is so large in numbers that if every single one of us focused on actually making babies, we'd probably all die of hunger within a very short time frame.

Homosexuality can afford to exist in nature in modern times in great numbers because we as a species exist in great numbers, our bodies must somehow be aware of this environmental factor (through as of yet unknown processes) and that resulted in people who don't reproduce because there's already so many other people reproducing.
Their genetic code would've been unnecessary because there's already so much floating around.

Why would a body make more bodies when there area it hopes to occupy is already filled?

My memory is just fine, I am quite aware of your stances but I choose to disagree with your analysis of homosexuality as unnatural.
I understand what you're saying, but I choose to disagree with it... it is in my nature.

Good night, you "foul" mooded person.

 

[elemenetal150]

the argument that two man or two women together can't have babies is what makes it unnatural is a flawed argument at best. If you use that line of thinking, you should never use contraceptives of any kind as they prevent pregnancy from happening. Also things like pulling out, oral sex, masturbation, etc. are all unnatural as they all lead to not getting pregnant. humans unlike most animals can and do have sex for pleasure and many times to strengthen bonds in a relationship. I would say that the vast majority of times that sex is had the goal is not to breed at all and most people take the steps necessary to make sure that this doesn't happen when they are not ready.

Plus if sex is only for breeding then anyone who is sterile should not be allowed to have sex because it is unnatural too. The argument that it is unnatural is a weak argument made by people who hate gays in some manner. So is the argument that even though you "don't" hate gays,you don't want them to have any civil rights as an extension from a religious love towards people that have "lost their way".

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Booze Zombie]

Homosexuality can afford to exist in nature in modern times in great numbers because we as a species exist in great numbers, our bodies must somehow be aware of this environmental factor (through as of yet unknown processes) and that resulted in people who don't reproduce because there's already so many other people reproducing.
Their genetic code would've been unnecessary because there's already so much floating around.

This is a reiteration of what I quoted you on earlier about the "good of the species" concept.

Is there not just the chance that there's a lot we don't know about ourselves and that our bodies are in fact adapting to our increased numbers, but we just don't know how yet?

 

[cainx10a]

People say homosexuality isn't natural because female + male = babies. So therefore, apparently, because homosexuality doesn't help us breed, it isn't natural and thus is bad.

.. *sigh*

EDIT: Yes, I'm pointing out the obvious.. I don't know why. Oh well. Dead brain work good.

I always thought of Homosexuality as reducing the amount of man to compete against to acquire a mate of the opposing gender. So, being the big hypocrite I am, I support homosexuals at 250.34% of my being.

 

[Arkengetorix]

As for proof? Logic. Nature would not evolve homosexuality, as it is against nature and 'survival of the fittest [best reproducer]' would have rooted it out. It therefore originated in genetic defects - or you know one day some guys probably said 'u know what, you have quite a pretty, femenine face... i can't get real femenin people so why don't we satisfy each other's needs - look, you have a hole!' I mean I said it in a very simplified, harsh way [cuz' i'm lazy] but that is another possible source - along with genetics.

Your complete misunderstanding of nature, evolution, survival of the fittest or anything related to biology is painful to read and contemplate. Please consider picking up a biology book or at least speaking to someone that has a deeper and more nuanced understanding. I would be glad to provide it for you but I'm not sure you would listen, but here it is anyway.

Evolution is not an agent that cares about the survival of any particular species, it makes no moral assumptions or judgments. It does not actively try and "root anything out". Evolution through natural selection is a process that can explain diversity, it says nothing about the kind of diversity or whether the diversity is a benefit or not to the species.

Survival of the fittest is a crap term, it probably should be changed to something more appropriate but thus far it has stuck. All it says is that any species that has had offspring is successful, that's it. Whether they died 2 seconds later in an unfortunate smelting accident really doesn't matter, if they are blind, deaf and dumb it makes no difference either because as long as they have had offspring they are successful.

You have argued that "two guys can't have kids lol", I will argue that yes, they can, as long as there are actual females around those two guys will have, quite likely, many kids. Homosexuals throughout history have had children, and will always have children, this is because the desire to procreate and have children is just as strong in homosexuals as it is in heterosexuals. Whether you prefer penis or vagina your body and brain will still do its thing. If the entire human race was gay, chances are we would survive just as well because the biological imperative for babies is just that strong.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Lord George]

And those processes that made them are not natural, then? I'm sorry, I just don't see why gay people are "unnatural".

Okay. Then to clarify for hopefully the final time. Homosexuality (not 'gay people' what kind of person would say a living human is 'un natural'? I'm talking about the lifestyle - obviously) is un natural because it serves no evolutionary purpose - i.e. homosexual intercourse it's not something humans were naturally designed to do.

homosexuals have sex. Sex was made for reproduction. Two males don't reproduce. This goes against the natural role of sex (primarily to reproduce, secondarily that said reproduction is acheived through pleasurable stimulation of the involved sexual organs which leads to ejaculation/fertilisation). It (it being homosexuality with regards to intercourse and therefore by implication homosexuality as a whole) is therefore un-natural.

Now, I realise that gamers tend to lose large parts of their short term memory through gradual atrophy so i'll repeat this: I am not against gays or homophobic.

If you don't understand the things i've said in this post, then frankly you're not worth the [unkind phrases deleted] i am currently expending. I'm usually smart enough not to [phrase removed] someone but you're being ignorant to the point of hilarity.

But it could have evolved as a form of release, for example if there are only a limited number of female parters available in a tribe, then the males can still sexual satisfy one another, and not for example break into a huge war for females which would kill off a large portion of the tribe which would then leave them defenceless against other tribes, not have enough manpower to gather food, ect. I'd argue that homosexuality could led to greater survivability. It could be an underlying genetic in everyone, with it being stronger in many people which causes them to be homosexual, bisexual ect. but when deprived of members of the opposite sex it can take more prominence. Just like what happens inside prisons.

Also if your argument about reproduction was true then why don't women feel the need to constantly have as many children as they can take care of, why do many hetrosexual couples choose to only have one or even no children. Are they all going against nature too, and if they are then why are they?

 

[Booze Zombie]

Nope. Sorry. That's not how evolution works. Limiting how much you reproduce for the sake of everyone is not an evolutionarily viable strategy because the gene that causes you to do that will not get passed on. The people who reproduce as much as possible will outcompete you and flood the gene pool, no matter how bad it is for the species as a whole. THAT'S how evolution works -stupidly. Blame game theory.

Oh no, I don't mean evolution. I mean environmental behavorial changes.
However, if everyone had that gene, but it's only activated in the underdogs, it'd be viable would it not?

 

[Inarticulate_Underachiever]

I thought people didn't consider homosexuality natural because it's a genetic mutation of sorts?

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Booze Zombie]

Helping others at the expense of your own reproduction only matters when you help your relatives - the general population can go hang.

I think I misunderstood you earlier. I'm still slightly confused. An organism might decrease its reproductive rate in response to a large population, which I think is what you were talking about - but only temporarily, and still to maximise its own reproductive potential. Homosexuality does not fit these criteria, although it might be adaptive in some other way.

That's what I mean. Adaptive in some other way, we haven't quite clocked yet, y'know?
We as a species can't pretend we know it all, as science is not exact... or it wouldn't be science.

I mean, perhaps something in our genes is in there and that might have something to do with instincts and genes and what have you... but what I was really trying to say earlier was that there is a reason for homosexuality.
It is most assuredly natural, we just don't know what nature's doing with it, really. I guess that scares some people (I don't mean you, by the way).

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Booze Zombie]

If you mean adaptive in the sense of there being another evolutionary reason for it, it's possible, although I would consider that unlikely.

Some process completely unrelated to evolution might be possible, but that probably wouldn't count as adaptation. It would be outside the bounds of scientific knowledge and my expertise, and would probably conflict with the theory of evolution.

Just for reference... am I talking to a professor or a student or... um, what? What are your expertise, in relation to biology, genetics, etc?

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Ignignoct]

I might as well be a three mile high black wall of obsidian for all the affect your silly re-evaluations of your argument is gonna have on this undeniable fact: men are not meant to have sex - human's means of reproduction - with other men.

Which makes it all the funnier that nature gave the prostate gland a sense of pleasure when rubbed or massaged.

Now... Why would that be?

BONOBOS!