Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been mulling over this recently and I think my thoughts are finally mature enough to put out into coherent sentences. From early on, I've always heard or been told that being gay goes against mother nature and biology itself (among other things). I've been told that no other animals exhibit homosexual tendencies and humans are the only ones who exhibit this behavior that 'goes against nature itself.' I believed that for years, but later on, as I started to delve deeper into biology and zoology, I found that this was quite the contra.
Here's a list of a few organisms that display homosexual behavior and tendencies:
My question is, if it goes against mother nature and biology to be gay, how come we have so many species that engage in homosexual activities? Since we seem to seperate ourselves and think of ourselves as the 'supreme beings' and the 'goal of evolution' (btw, evolution has no goal) I thought that we ought to bring in our cousins, step-sisters, second cousins, and extended family that most still recognize as part of the animal kingdom. How do people who are against homosexuality explain this? How do you explain the number of animals who engage in homosexual acts when it is supposed to 'go against nature itself' and is unnatural?
"How do people who are against homosexuality explain this?"
You are trying to win an argument about whether homosexuality is right or wrong based on examples in nature, is that correct?
Either side of that argument is making a wrong conclusion.
Animals are not to be used to win or lose such an argument.
If you want to debate the morality of homosexuality, which is the real reason you're asking this question, I suggest you come up with a better defense than the animal kingdom
Last edited by bhouston77386; 01-16-2009 at 10:43 PM..
"How do people who are against homosexuality explain this?"
You are trying to win an argument about whether homosexuality is right or wrong based on examples in nature, is that correct?
Either side of that argument is making a wrong conclusion.
Animals are not to be used to win or lose such an argument.
If you want to debate the morality of homosexuality, which is the real reason you're asking this question, I suggest you come up with a better defense than the animal kingdom
Sigh.
I love when people tell me what I'm thinking. It just, I don't know, shows me how wrong they are about what is going on in my head. Trust me bud, if I wanted to debate the morality of the issue, I would have started a thread debating the morality of the issue. I originally created this thread to get feedback on what people who said "homosexuality goes against nature," had to say when evidence was provided that homosexuality is a natural thing; hence the title Biology and Mother Nature. But it seems people get an idea in their head and run with it, making up what they think this person was thinking instead of actually coming to the person and asking.
I'm wasn't (and am not) trying to argue to win; I was trying to get some lively debate out of people with logical reasons to back what they were saying up. I'm getting kind of tired of having to explain myself when someone misinterprets or misconstrues what I am saying. But next time, will you actually ask me what I meant when I said something instead of chalking it up to me intentionally trying to deceive people? Sorry if I'm not like others on this forum who say something and have lurking innuendo behind every word.
Humans are what they are exactly because they do go against nature.
Why does a baby put its hand in its mouth as one of the first motor skills it displays? Because feeding is the first priority of any organisn, and the most essential and obvious skill of any species is to get nutriendt into the body. So, not eating to satiety is a conspicuous example of human beings "going against nature". (Americans are going back to nature on that one.)
Humans have evolved rational minds, which are constantly devising methods of "going against nature", like flying across oceans in supersonic tin boxes, exuding toxic particulate. With rare and anecdotal exceptions, humans are the only organixms in the known history of this planet who have "decided" to go against nature. And virtually everything we do except eat and f*** goes against nature. Because nature operates in a cruel and inhospitable environment, and humans have set short-sighted goals of making the human environment less cruel and less inhospitable.
Here is how nature works: About 99.99999999% of all individual organisms born with a nervous system die a death more horrible than anything you can imagine. The lucky ones get torn apart quckly by a predator with teeth. The rest just dissolve alive, slowly, in digestive fluids. Consider yourself lucky, even if you are gay, that you have sidestepped the laws of nature.
I've been mulling over this recently and I think my thoughts are finally mature enough to put out into coherent sentences. From early on, I've always heard or been told that being gay goes against mother nature and biology itself (among other things). I've been told that no other animals exhibit homosexual tendencies and humans are the only ones who exhibit this behavior that 'goes against nature itself.' I believed that for years, but later on, as I started to delve deeper into biology and zoology, I found that this was quite the contra.
Here's a list of a few organisms that display homosexual behavior and tendencies:
My question is, if it goes against mother nature and biology to be gay, how come we have so many species that engage in homosexual activities? Since we seem to seperate ourselves and think of ourselves as the 'supreme beings' and the 'goal of evolution' (btw, evolution has no goal) I thought that we ought to bring in our cousins, step-sisters, second cousins, and extended family that most still recognize as part of the animal kingdom. How do people who are against homosexuality explain this? How do you explain the number of animals who engage in homosexual acts when it is supposed to 'go against nature itself' and is unnatural?
Darwin wrote some interesting stuff on this, re-examined by many since. He points out that prior to puberty the young of both genders display the mating behavior of both genders. Only after puberty does one behavior become dominant in the majority of individuals. Some species have to observe a "role model" whereas others appear hardwired.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,776,945 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padgett2
You have to remember as you think about this, that the people that believe that it is "against nature" may not be in the majority. They may also not be the best educated.
All species that engage in homosexual actives may simply be doing what comes naturally.....that is, if it itches, scratch it. If it feels good, do it.
Or rather than monkey itch, monkey scratch this could be influenced by a collective contraceptive mechanism.
Some rodent species will develop individuals that only pursue sexual urges with members of the same sex when the population has reached a certain stress level. In other words, too many rats + not enough food/space = homosexual rats.
Either way, it is difficult for me to embrace the attitude that sexual attraction to members of the same gender is as arbitrary as, say, a preference for coffee over tea. That has to be hardwired, and if a trait or behavior is inborn I think it is definitionally part of nature.
Typically in the wild, when a male lion accepts a new female lionness into his pride, he will kill any young she has with her (as they are by a different male). Just because animals do something, doesn't automatically make it right for people.
Unless that's how you want to live...
A divorced woman brings home a man and he says, "I like you, but you've got kids from your ex..." so either she handles it (i.e. Susan Smith) or he does the deed himself, right?
That's not the sort of society I want to live in!
When seeking to justify something as normal and/or healthy, you're going to have to do better than "species X, Y, and Z do it this way!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
