My take on same-sex attraction

[Harel13]

Isn't it obvious? Especially to someone who probably doesn't hold animals in very high regard (I'm talking about you, among hundreds of millions of others). You would likely hold to the idea or support that animals are even less capable of abstract thought than humans. That we are even more capable of controlling or resisting our base/primal/instinctual urges, animals less so, and that animals cannot as easily "reason themselves into" particular situations. i.e. it would be a lot less believable to claim that animals "decide" to be homosexual.

Anyway, to see homosexual tendencies played out in nature by creatures who, like us, have the male/female dichotomy points to it being due to either an instinctual drive, and therefore more out of their hands to control. Hence the correlation drawn to the human condition we witness - whereby people themselves report that they can't help which sex they are attracted to. And yet we have a group of staunch deniers who claim that these people are choosing to be homosexual.

And when you bring "God" into it (not that I think we ever should), that really gets people's hackles raised, doesn't it? Then you start talking about how God must have created these creatures (humans included) with these drives/desires, which really seems to insult people who believe that God would never create anything "imperfectly" (note: I do not view homosexuality as any sort of "imperfection" in the slightest - and believe it asinine to do so - a view only able to be held by those with a juvenile mindset). Why people get insulted on God's behalf, I will never understand. Seems to me like that itself should be considered some sort of "sin," if I am being honest. Like God should just come down and slap people who are this way, letting them know that He is a big boy, and can fight His own battles and make His own judgments. Alas... He's just never around when you need Him, is He?

I see here a big anti-religious rant when I wasn't even talking at all about religion.
The only thing relevant in what you wrote is that animals have homosexual instincts and follow them. Must we all, always, follow our instincts? Or is there some sort of animal kingdom rulebook somewhere with clear guidelines?

 

[Harel13]

No, we should just live and let live and love and let love

Because animals do it? Not really. They kill each other. They steal mates. Etc. Voice an opinion on homosexuality. That's fine. But why base it off animals?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I never said they did but the difference between being attracted to or excited by a women or a man largely has to do with differences in anatomy. Some men are attracted to deep voices. Some women are attracted to hour-glass figures. If I focus on the human groin too much it's because I am man and it is the nature of a man to be such a horn dog. Ok, people fall in lust with the body.

I still think there are only two sexes:
male and female, that is sperm producers and egg producers respectively.

Sperm producers who wear a pink dress are sissies.
Sperm producers in hunting camo are macho.

Egg producers who wear a pink dress are dainty.
Egg producers in bib overalls are butch.


Whether a sperm producer is attracted to an egg producer, another sperm producer, producers of both gametes or no producers of any gamete, he is still a sperm producer.

Whether an egg producer is attracted to a sperm producer, another egg producer, producers of both gametes or no producers of any gamete, she is still an egg producer.

I'm going to guess that you're very single.

 

[columbus]

say bad things about homosexuals or use bad words for homosexuals that begin with the letter F, Q and other letters.

Allow me to make a point here.

Among many other things, I'm a really gay, out, and mouthy guy.

I like the "F word", and apply it to myself quite regularly and loudly. But not on RF because I get infraction points for doing so. I'd rather save those for more important issues.
I prefer the word queer to the nonsensical alphabet soup, because that soup always leaves out somebody who complain about it. Queer is much more inclusive.

Just my opinion, YMMV.
Tom

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

Because animals do it? Not really. They kill each other. They steal mates. Etc. Voice an opinion on homosexuality. That's fine. But why base it off animals?

I'm only using animals to dispute those who claim homosexuality is "unnatural" or "against nature". The animals prove otherwise. I'm not suggesting Homo sapiens should kill each other or steal mates.

Animals are my argument against those disapprove of homosexuality based upon their perception of natural happenings. Human sexuality, regardless of orientation, all originates from the brain.

 

[shmogie]

You're right, that it doesn't lead one to "justification." You can't look at what the animals do, and call it an excuse for your own behavior, I will give you that, and it is obvious.

However, what you can do, is point to animal behavior and conclude that such behavior is natural. And that's more the point I would make with something like this. That animal homosexual behavior is natural, and therefore it is not such a stretch to imagine that it is also natural within the drive of various humans. To rule the idea out before making evidence-based conclusions is only going to be done by those with some strange emotional stake in keeping homosexuality as "a choice" being made by those humans actively engaged in it. We can easily point at animals and ask "Do you believe those animals are only making a choice?" It becomes much more easy to see that those creatures may, in fact, be following some instinctive drive or innate desire. And it should plant the seed of idea that until you have ruled it out through some more reliable means, you can't dismiss a human being's explanation that they, themselves, cannot control the urges.

Animals also can be cannibals, eat their own feces, run off of cliffs into the sea, whales beach themselves and die,It is all "natural". Yet what does it have to do with human behavior ??

The reason why homosexuality exists is not known, there are just a plethora of hypotheses.

The real point is that it is a free country, people can act as they choose.

If they are homosexuals it is irrelevant as to whether it is natural or a choice. They exist in a free society and have the right to live their life as they choose.

The issue that is relevant in this matter and others is the attempt by homosexual apologists to change how people think, not by reasoned arguments but rather by whining and hysteria and condemnation if their thoughts are not in harmony with the social justice warriors,

People have the right to hate whomever they choose for whatever reason. It may be morally wrong by my standard and that of others, but I do not have the right to dictate morality.

All the petty justifications may have little value to some people, so what ?

As long as no citizens rights are infringed, by an act, all else is irrelevant.

As in all other relations with people, avoid those you don't like and associate with those that you do like.,

Liberty for all means some will think and say things that others dislike. Tough.

 

[shmogie]

Allow me to make a point here.

Among many other things, I'm a really gay, out, and mouthy guy.

I like the "F word", and apply it to myself quite regularly and loudly. But not on RF because I get infraction points for doing so. I'd rather save those for more important issues.
I prefer the word queer to the nonsensical alphabet soup, because that soup always leaves out somebody who complain about it. Queer is much more inclusive.

Just my opinion, YMMV.
Tom

It has always been an all inclusive term.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I see here a big anti-religious rant when I wasn't even talking at all about religion.
The only thing relevant in what you wrote is that animals have homosexual instincts and follow them. Must we all, always, follow our instincts? Or is there some sort of animal kingdom rulebook somewhere with clear guidelines?

We don't "have to", obviously - but there's no use denying that instincts are there, or even that they are there for a reason. And OF COURSE there is no rulebook anywhere. Why would you even ask that? Who would write such a rule book? In my mind there is none capable. None at all.

 

[columbus]

It has always been an all inclusive term.

Does it include you?

The way I remember it from my childhood, it didn't.

But language and culture grow and evolve. Now it kinda does. The minority of religionists, people who still oppose gay people having ordinary lives due to their religious beliefs, is shrinking. So, I guess(in the sense of being a small minority) you're becoming more queer by the day.
Tom

 

[Harel13]

but there's no use denying that instincts are there, or even that they are there for a reason

I certainly never denied their existence.

Why would you even ask that?

Sarcasm, bro. Having an instinct for something doesn't necessarily make it legit.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Animals also can be cannibals, eat their own feces, run off of cliffs into the sea, whales beach themselves and die,It is all "natural". Yet what does it have to do with human behavior ??

Perhaps not much. My only point is that if we see animals doing something in nature that is also found in ourselves, then investigating their reasons might also lead to insights for our own reasons. Again, this sort of thing has been done many multiple times. Researching how the brains of rats completing mazes or doing other intellectual tasks react, and using the knowledge to apply to our understanding of our own brains and learning abilities. Using various chemicals or proposed medicines on animals first to see and record their physiological responses. If animals weren't akin to us in a myriad ways, these things wouldn't make sense to do, or even be possible. But they are. End of story there.

The reason why homosexuality exists is not known, there are just a plethora of hypotheses.

And? What do you figure this means? To my mind it means we should keep looking, perhaps even at the animal kingdom, where the "reason" may be more easily discerned because they have less complicated brain anatomy. Who knows? The one thing we can know is that homosexuality occurs in nature, and is therefore a natural occurrence. Is it strictly natural for human beings? Unsure... but there is obviously better evidence for the proposition than against it. For example many of the homosexuals themselves who insist they cannot help who they are attracted to. Theists always want to point to "individual experience" as evidence. I'll admit it isn't the best kind to have, but at least the homosexuals who say they can't help it are being consistent with one another. That's at least something.

If they are homosexuals it is irrelevant as to whether it is natural or a choice. They exist in a free society and have the right to live their life as they choose.

I agree.

The issue that is relevant in this matter and others is the attempt by homosexual apologists to change how people think, not by reasoned arguments but rather by whining and hysteria and condemnation if their thoughts are not in harmony with the social justice warriors,

So... you're saying out of one side of your mouth that it is fine, legal, a free society, and that people should be able to do as they please, but then you are worrying yourself over the way the people in question defend their liberties? Because make no mistake, they would all likely be silent on the topic if there wasn't STILL pushback. There would be nothing to protest against if there weren't still people trying to end this facet of their freedoms.

I (and many others) believe that we should first offer liberty, and only curtail it as we deem necessary when harm is being done. And if you have actual harm being done that is premeditated and perpetrated by the individuals themselves, then maybe you have a case against an activity. But you'd be up against exactly what you have basically admitted to if you try to take anything away - attempting to curtail someone's liberties. And that opens up a whole bunch of cans of worms. I could point to hundreds of studies that show that eating meat at the levels we do is simply not good for human beings. There are all sorts of detrimental effects that affect health, and therefore healthcare, and therefore the price everyone has to pay. So we could talk harm being done in other avenues, and how other "liberties" should also be curtailed, couldn't we?

People have the right to hate whomever they choose for whatever reason. It may be morally wrong by my standard and that of others, but I do not have the right to dictate morality.

And we all also have the right to try and explain them out of their hate, don't we? Hell yes we do. We also have the right to believe them wrong, and tell them so. Which is what people do. And then you chastise them for it, and then people chastise you back. That's how it works. Everyone's allowed to do it. So have at it... but don't expect anyone to shut up any time soon. You can bet I won't.

Liberty for all means some will think and say things that others dislike. Tough.

No... I am TOTALLY on board with this. Somehow it seems you don't get that. You can say that homosexuals are "whining," are hysterical, and that they don't have reasoned arguments. You can say all that. And I can turn around and tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about, that their protests are mostly justified, and that I sympathize with their cause. You don't like that? Then just as you say... tough. I get that you can say those things... and I can come back at you and tell you to get right in the head. And you can come back at me and tell me I have no idea what I am talking about... and I can come back at you, etc. etc. etc. We're allowed to disagree. Which is what we're doing on certain points. So, what is it you were saying again? Hahaha...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I certainly never denied their existence.

Sarcasm, bro. Having an instinct for something doesn't necessarily make it legit.

But what is the ultimate point being made there with respect to the topic at hand? Are you stating, definitively, that it is your opinion that homosexuality is one of those urges/instincts that is "not legit?" If not, then what are you getting at (besides beating around the bush, I mean)? And if so, then on what basis do you define them as illegitimate?

 

[Harel13]

But what is the ultimate point being made there with respect to the topic at hand?

That our actions needn't be based off of animals. Make whatever point you want about homosexuality, but I don't think it's right to base your reasoning off of what animals do. I mean, where would you cross the line? Is there even a line? (according to you, probably not).

 

[columbus]

Make whatever point you want about homosexuality, but I don't think it's right to base your reasoning off of what animals do.

Then why do I keep hearing "Homosex is unnatural. Animals don't do it."
Tom

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That our actions needn't be based off of animals. Make whatever point you want about homosexuality, but I don't think it's right to base your reasoning off of what animals do. I mean, where would you cross the line? Is there even a line? (according to you, probably not).

As others have pointed out, there are plenty of activities that humans engage in that would appall us if animals did the same. I understand this, and so I am not advocating that animals be more like humans or humans be more like animals at all. I have said as much multiple times in this thread. Much easier to knock down a strawman, however, isn't it? Go ahead... speak to us from your firsthand experience.

In the end, we can look at other things we share with animals and put them in the same light you are trying to here. For example. Isn't it helpful to note that animals all need water just as we need water? I mean, we looked at animals drinking water, and we looked at ourselves drinking water, and we realized that animals in general just need water. And of course this is helpful. Want to keep pets or livestock? Going to have to provide for their needs... so you give them water. Now... would you make the same ridiculous statement you did previously and state that we humans may want to second guess our water drinking because animals also do some things humans find unsavory? And no, I am not saying that homosexual activities are anywhere near as necessary as drinking water. All I am saying is that our own behavior emulated or mirrored in the animal kingdom is useful information - regardless what behavior it is, and regardless whether there are other behaviors that the animals engage in that we humans don't want to associate ourselves with.

 

[shmogie]

Perhaps not much. My only point is that if we see animals doing something in nature that is also found in ourselves, then investigating their reasons might also lead to insights for our own reasons. Again, this sort of thing has been done many multiple times. Researching how the brains of rats completing mazes or doing other intellectual tasks react, and using the knowledge to apply to our understanding of our own brains and learning abilities. Using various chemicals or proposed medicines on animals first to see and record their physiological responses. If animals weren't akin to us in a myriad ways, these things wouldn't make sense to do, or even be possible. But they are. End of story there.

And? What do you figure this means? To my mind it means we should keep looking, perhaps even at the animal kingdom, where the "reason" may be more easily discerned because they have less complicated brain anatomy. Who knows? The one thing we can know is that homosexuality occurs in nature, and is therefore a natural occurrence. Is it strictly natural for human beings? Unsure... but there is obviously better evidence for the proposition than against it. For example many of the homosexuals themselves who insist they cannot help who they are attracted to. Theists always want to point to "individual experience" as evidence. I'll admit it isn't the best kind to have, but at least the homosexuals who say they can't help it are being consistent with one another. That's at least something.

I agree.

So... you're saying out of one side of your mouth that it is fine, legal, a free society, and that people should be able to do as they please, but then you are worrying yourself over the way the people in question defend their liberties? Because make no mistake, they would all likely be silent on the topic if there wasn't STILL pushback. There would be nothing to protest against if there weren't still people trying to end this facet of their freedoms.

I (and many others) believe that we should first offer liberty, and only curtail it as we deem necessary when harm is being done. And if you have actual harm being done that is premeditated and perpetrated by the individuals themselves, then maybe you have a case against an activity. But you'd be up against exactly what you have basically admitted to if you try to take anything away - attempting to curtail someone's liberties. And that opens up a whole bunch of cans of worms. I could point to hundreds of studies that show that eating meat at the levels we do is simply not good for human beings. There are all sorts of detrimental effects that affect health, and therefore healthcare, and therefore the price everyone has to pay. So we could talk harm being done in other avenues, and how other "liberties" should also be curtailed, couldn't we?

And we all also have the right to try and explain them out of their hate, don't we? Hell yes we do. We also have the right to believe them wrong, and tell them so. Which is what people do. And then you chastise them for it, and then people chastise you back. That's how it works. Everyone's allowed to do it. So have at it... but don't expect anyone to shut up any time soon. You can bet I won't.

No... I am TOTALLY on board with this. Somehow it seems you don't get that. You can say that homosexuals are "whining," are hysterical, and that they don't have reasoned arguments. You can say all that. And I can turn around and tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about, that their protests are mostly justified, and that I sympathize with their cause. You don't like that? Then just as you say... tough. I get that you can say those things... and I can come back at you and tell you to get right in the head. And you can come back at me and tell me I have no idea what I am talking about... and I can come back at you, etc. etc. etc. We're allowed to disagree. Which is what we're doing on certain points. So, what is it you were saying again? Hahaha...

Yes, disagreement is a right as well, for a specific reason, all reasons, or no reasons.

You didn't quote me where I said that attempts to change the views of people should be based in reasoned, logical arguments.

Many don't do this, thus the whining hysteria label. They are bellicose, demanding, and call names. Exactly what they accuse their targets of. That convinces no one of anything.

 

[shmogie]

Then why do I keep hearing "Homosex is unnatural. Animals don't do it."
Tom

It does seem to be contrary to what brother Darwin wrote.

 

[columbus]

It does seem to be contrary to what brother Darwin wrote.

Darwin's understanding was rather primitive.
Is yours better?

Tom

 

[shmogie]

Does it include you?

The way I remember it from my childhood, it didn't.

But language and culture grow and evolve. Now it kinda does. The minority of religionists, people who still oppose gay people having ordinary lives due to their religious beliefs, is shrinking. So, I guess(in the sense of being a small minority) you're becoming more queer by the day.
Tom

Perhaps, but I couldn't care less. Tell me, how are homosexuals "opposed" ?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You didn't quote me where I said that attempts to change the views of people should be based in reasoned, logical arguments.

I sort of did, indirectly - the part where I said you can say that they are "whining or don't have reasoned arguments", but I also believe that the best, and most honest way to change public opinion is through reasoned arguments and evidence. Hence the reason there are people trying to figure out where the desires toward homosexuality come from. If we have evidence of an answer that points in the direction of "nature" then all the naysayers get to prove themselves irrational when they still rage against it. Or vice versa. However, as I have stated, I believe that all the observable evidence currently points in the direction of nature, and I have stated what I consider this evidence multiple times - including the consistent testimony of homosexuals themselves, the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature (just as parental bonding occurs in nature, compassion across species occurs in nature, recognition of youth occurs in nature - just because we prize these things does not mean that those correlations carry far more weight than others), and to begin with, the realm of thought we are dealing with in the first place doesn't "play nice" with reason and logic 100% of the time anyway. For example, what makes YOU attracted to the people you end up being attracted to? Can you explain it? Do you think it was all based in decisions you have made throughout your life? Do you think that your nature, as a man/woman has anything to do with who you find attractive, or is it all mental conditioning of some kind or another? Point being, "emotion" or "feeling" does also play into this area of discussion - like it or not.

Many don't do this, thus the whining hysteria label. They are bellicose, demanding, and call names. Exactly what they accuse their targets of. That convinces no one of anything.

And here we come to the other way to convince the public of something... shame them into submission or quiet. This is, quite honestly, how Christianity works at times also. Ask enough questions, and people call into question your loyalty, and out you to others... calling you names that signify that you're "bad" to the others of the group like "nonbeliever" or "atheist" - in a more ignorant time not very long ago, people even threw around the term "satanist." So, you see, that sort of persuasion DOES work - which is why people employ it. It shouldn't, and people should actively oppose it when they see it. So no, I don't agree with anyone whose sole line of attack is ridicule, mocking, name-calling, scare-tactics, or attempts to shun/banish - you have to at least be making solid points in there as well, otherwise you may as well be admitting defeat - which I have had to come to terms with myself on more than one occasion.