Is it ironic when religious people get upset over homosexuality because they think its unnatural? (moral, abomination)

[SERVANTOFSET]

No you're not even listening. He is not justifying homosexual behaviour by the fact that it is abundant in nature, he is demonstrating that it is natural. It is natural and unharmful which setsit apart from eating your young.

"but we will accept homosexuall behaviour because it suits us." -No we accept it for the reason that it is not intrinsicly harmful.

In a free society the onus is on you to give a reason why there is something wrong with homoexuality.

[Heneni]

Ok as a member of society and as the human race, let me propose to you what is harmfull about homosexuality.

Even though homosexual behaviour, and let me be explicit, homosexual intercourse, is found in the animal kingdom, it does not mean that we should model our behaviour on that of animals, or in restrospect say, that the behaviour is ok since it is found in nature.

If that doesnt do it for you, then lets not use the word NATURAL.

Secondly homosexaul intercourse is tolerated by society mostly because homosexuals claim that it is not harmfull to anybody.

A few hundred years from now, I propose that society will become aggressively set against homosexual behaviour, if such behaviour is a threat to mankind.

Someone once said, if homosexuals cant procreate, why are they multiplying so quickly?

A good point, but the multiplying of homosexuals is a direct and looming threat to the survival and procreation of humans on this planet.

Yes maybe now, homosexaul behaviour is not critized as much anymore, and people have become accepting, but if you look at the fact that homosexual behaviour cannot gaurentee the survival of the human race since procreation can not take place by such, perhaps in the distant future you might be frowned upon.

True Science can make test tube babies, but a womens womb is still required for the bearing of such a child. If in an increasing measure the male sperm is resulting in more and more gay men being born, then eventually the only sperm we could use will be the sperm of a homosexual, and it will result in the birth of another homosexual, and eventually there could be few if any men around that are not homosexual.
And so whatever mechanism humans will use to work their way around procreating, they will still find it difficult to find sperm that does not produce a homosexual.

Please read my post about chromosones if you are not familiar with the study of such in regards to people being born gay.

At some point humans will be able to engineer a certain type of human with certain physical characteristics, but unfortunately this engineering can not work around inherent female or male identification. Im not talking about physical attributes, im talking about what makes you feel a man and what makes you feel a women.

So it is a bleek picture, if you think about the effect of homosexuality in the long run. And so i have to disagree with you that homosexuality is not harmfull to anyone.

Having said that, the chromosones that are responsible for shall we call 'gay-ness' are on the increase.

There are a few theories around why this is. One such theory is that in times of war, there is always in increase in babies. These babies are born while the mother is under great stress, and her chromosones undergo a change. This change would ensure the birth of a child that would perhaps 'not leave her' .These babies grow up sometimes without their father or are without a father figure for a very long time. The mother then takes the role of both parents and it is the stress related to such that continue to change her chromosones.

Chromosones are very sensitive to great emotional stress.

Having said all this, perhaps science in the future will be able to no only genetically engineer humans that are less suceptable to desease and so forth, but will be able to genetically modify the chromosones that result in homosexual tendencies.

The question then would be...would we be happy if scientists proposed the extinction of homosexuals?

Heneni

[Mike182]

not that it matters, but i'm an openly gay man, and i'll happily debate this with you.

Originally Posted by Heneni

Ok as a member of society and as the human race, let me propose to you what is harmfull about homosexuality.

as a liberal and a member of the gay community, let me refute your ignorant spiel and suggest why you are wrong.

Even though homosexual behaviour, and let me be explicit, homosexual intercourse, is found in the animal kingdom, it does not mean that we should model our behaviour on that of animals, or in restrospect say, that the behaviour is ok since it is found in nature.

while i agree with you, this has no relevance on the discussion. no one has said we should base our social interactions upon the animal kingdom. what has been said however, is that if homosexuality is "unnatural", ie is not found in the natural world, then whoever is arguing that point is blind - because it clearly does exist in the natural world. on top of that, there is the argument that it does no harm to the individual, and with only about 10% of the worlds population being either LGBT or Q, it doesn't harm wider society either.

well, ok granted, STD's are a risk, but those risks come with any sexual intercourse, so that is not an argument against homosexuality.

If that doesnt do it for you, then lets not use the word NATURAL.

that suits me, all the gays i know don't think of themselves in terms of natural or unnatural, the think of themselves as human

Secondly homosexaul intercourse is tolerated by society mostly because homosexuals claim that it is not harmfull to anybody.

so, i guess we get to the crux of your argument: why homosexuality is harmful to society.

A few hundred years from now, I propose that society will become aggressively set against homosexual behaviour, if such behaviour is a threat to mankind.

just about every group of people has been scapegoated for the incompetence of social leaders throughout history, and gays are no different. but placing your proof in "a few hundred years time" without giving any prediction of the social trends that will lead up to this point is a cop-out. this argument of yours is convincing nobody. what's next?

Someone once said, if homosexuals cant procreate, why are they multiplying so quickly?

A good point, but the multiplying of homosexuals is a direct and looming threat to the survival and procreation of humans on this planet.

1) homosexuals can procreate. what, do you think that as soon as a man of woman comes out as gay or lesbian they have their testes/ovaries snipped? also, i'm gonna throw in a new term now... "bisexuals"

2) why are they multiplying? let's think about this for a second. why is the gay community so much bigger now than it has been in the past? well, instead of coming up with fantasy day-dreams that more and more people are becoming gay, i'm going to place my view on this matter in the camp that says "gay's were discriminated against in the past, and so choose not to come out... now we live in a much freer environment, coming out and being openly gay is a real option for LGBT and Q people." - in other words, the gay population isn't multiplying at a terrifying speed, it's just that a much higher percentage of the LGBT and Q community are choosing to come out of the closet than have done in the past.

3) while the population density of the planet is certainly spread, i don't think humanity will die off, even if 50% of the population was gay. don't worry, the human species will survive.

4) even if your argument that "gays don't reproduce, and so the population will die out because of homosexuality" does fly in the minds of some people reading this, here is a question that i put to you:

"should we also look down on heterosexuals who choose not to procreate?"

because, let's be honest, it's the same argument - they are contributing to the numerical decline of the human species.

no, this argument is also not convincing anyone.

Yes maybe now, homosexaul behaviour is not critized as much anymore, and people have become accepting, but if you look at the fact that homosexual behaviour cannot gaurentee the survival of the human race since procreation can not take place by such, perhaps in the distant future you might be frowned upon.

ok, i know many Religious people aren't a fan of this argument, because they are also against artificial means of insemination... but i can whack off into a cup, and the doctors can slice and dice it into a woman, and she can have a kid. the human race is not about to run out of humans.

True Science can make test tube babies, but a womens womb is still required for the bearing of such a child. If in an increasing measure the male sperm is resulting in more and more gay men being born, then eventually the only sperm we could use will be the sperm of a homosexual, and it will result in the birth of another homosexual, and eventually there could be few if any men around that are not homosexual.

And so whatever mechanism humans will use to work their way around procreating, they will still find it difficult to find sperm that does not produce a homosexual.

ah, sounds like my dream come true.

show me the part of our DNA that dictates sexuality, and i will agree with you that the sperm of a homosexual is only capable of creating more homosexuals... and i can't believe that sentence just came out of my mouth. no, the "cause" of homosexuality, if there is such a thing, is entirely unknown.

Please read my post about chromosones if you are not familiar with the study of such in regards to people being born gay.

i read your post, and i wasn't impressed at all. it simply sounds like a complete misunderstanding of what a dominant and recessive chromosome is. but still, i will give you the benefit of the doubt... if this is such a "well know fact", then you will have no problems providing me with documented studies showing evidence for this.

At some point humans will be able to engineer a certain type of human with certain physical characteristics, but unfortunately this engineering can not work around inherent female or male identification. Im not talking about physical attributes, im talking about what makes you feel a man and what makes you feel a women.

So it is a bleek picture, if you think about the effect of homosexuality in the long run. And so i have to disagree with you that homosexuality is not harmfull to anyone.

Having said that, the chromosones that are responsible for shall we call 'gay-ness' are on the increase.

There are a few theories around why this is. One such theory is that in times of war, there is always in increase in babies. These babies are born while the mother is under great stress, and her chromosones undergo a change. This change would ensure the birth of a child that would perhaps 'not leave her' .These babies grow up sometimes without their father or are without a father figure for a very long time. The mother then takes the role of both parents and it is the stress related to such that continue to change her chromosones.

Chromosones are very sensitive to great emotional stress.

Having said all this, perhaps science in the future will be able to no only genetically engineer humans that are less suceptable to desease and so forth, but will be able to genetically modify the chromosones that result in homosexual tendencies.

The question then would be...would we be happy if scientists proposed the extinction of homosexuals?

Heneni

well, i'm not going to dignify the rest of that post with a response until you have refuted my above comments. what i mean by that is, you now have to prove the baseline "facts" that you have used to construct your argument. these facts being:

1. the percentage of homosexuals is increasing
2. homosexuality is genetic
3. your weird psycho-babble about the nature of chromosomes

[SERVANTOFSET]

Well it's a shame that you still can't be bothered to read the posts. No one is suggesting that we should model our behaviour on that of animals. What is suggested is that the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is demonstarbly false when one considers the state of the natural world. So now that we have established that the 'unnatural' argument is unsound (and also invalid) let us turn to one of your more idiotic comments:

"A few hundred years from now, I propose that society will become aggressively set against homosexual behaviour, if such behaviour is a threat to mankind."

You claim that people will turn against something if it becomes a threat to mankind. For this to have any relevance you have to demonstrate that homsexuality is (or will become) a threat to mankind and you fail to do so. And I hope that you will not respond to that by claiming that your flimsy understanding of genetics demonstrates the threat of homosexuality as 'gay genes' have not been conclusively identified and I would argue that bisexuals out number gay people by a long way in any case.

People have always assumed that homosexuality is on the increase partly as a result of their confusion of their own experience with that of wider society.

In any case, if we accept that homosexuality is genetic, then discouraging it will actually be counter-productive. People in 'show-marriages' will only pass on their genes.

"the multiplying of homosexuals is a direct and looming threat to the survival and procreation of humans on this planet." No, it's a recessive gene in any case.

[Heneni]

If I say that gayness is due to chromosones then im ill informed. Should we then rather say, that it is pure lust then?

Whatever your views are, i respect them.

But if you tell me homosexuality is natural,that would imply that i am a freak of nature not acting natural as well.

Heneni.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Heneni

Hmmm...no point in beating a dead horse wouldnt you agree?

If I say that gayness is due to chromosones then im ill informed. Should we then rather say, that it is pure lust then?

Would that make it natural? If we say that homosexuality is NATURAL then arent we implying that it is something that is common in NATURE???? And where is nature? Animals!!!!

Whatever your views are, i respect them.

But please dont tell me homosexuality is natural.

That would imply that i am a freak of nature not acting natural as well.

Heneni.

You are aware that different ways of doing things can all be natural, right?

[Heneni]

Yes I am aware of kamasutra.

[UltraViolet]

Originally Posted by Heneni

But please dont tell me homosexuality is natural.

That would imply that i am a freak of nature not acting natural as well.

Heneni.

I think it would rather imply limited/small thinking.

But no worries,
small thinking seems to be the natural state of mind
as evidenced in the human masses from their inception.

So you are not a freak of nature after all!
You