U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-04-2009, 07:25 AM
 
8,640 posts, read 7,951,915 times
Reputation: 2854

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
And maybe some people need to take psychology classes to learn that homosexuality is considered normal.

Not by normal prople.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-04-2009, 08:18 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,183,555 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
I've seen this same organization cited by gays and gay websites before. It seems this Swedish research group has a conclusion they would like to apply to some science. Do you have a more objective source?
As far as I know, those scientists from the Karolinska Institute are not gay. The Karolinska Institutet is one of Europe's largest medical universities. It is also Sweden´s largest centre for medical training and research. I remember reading about that study when it was first published and I think it was sparked by the findings of another study that had nothing to do with homosexuality. I'll try to find the link.

The point is, this study was also peer reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals. So while of course some scientists can be biased, they'll get clobbered by a majority of their peers if they try to publish biased studies. This one was well received by their peers.

But speaking of "objective"...There are religious based organizations like NARTH who have an anti-homosexual agenda because of their religious beliefs, who publish so called "studies" on their website and other conversative anti-gay websites to try to prove that homosexuality is a choice and that sexual orientation can be changed (with lot's of prayers and behavioural therapy ). The APA and other professional organizations warns against this sort of therapy. These "studies" are NOT peer-reviewed and NOT published in any reputable scientific journals because of their unscientific methods and clear bias. NARTH is well known for the articles on it's website that selectively distort the results of other reputable studies to suit their own agenda.

I also remember reading a few months ago about a court-case in Florida about gay adoption where the opposition counsel tried to use some of NARTH's "studies". The judge did not accept them because they had been shown to be unscientific and biased. I'll try to find the link to the article for that one too.

Last edited by Ceist; 06-04-2009 at 09:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 09:24 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,183,555 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
I will continue to say that same-sex attractions are normal. Sorry if you don't like it. It's what I believe, and it's the position of all of the major medical and psychological organizations in the modern world. If you want to disagree with them, that's your right, but don't tell others that they need to stop speaking because you don't agree with them.

I just read in another thread the old tired line about "libs only believe in free speech when you agree with them". You've certainly proving that conservatives do it too.

And I don't know what you're talking about when you say that I'm calling natural things unnatural. I don't believe I ever said anything like that.

Comparing same-sex attractions with the birth defects and disorders you mentioned is ridiculous.
I think some people get so caught up in the whole SEX SEX SEX (especially male sex) aspect of homosexuality or in their interpretation of ancient religious beliefs, that all the diverse and positive traits that homosexuals bring to the human race, are ignored.

According to many recent studies we know that many homosexuals are biologically different to heterosexuals and are not just heterosexuals with a desire for homosexual sex. For example(you linked to some in your previous posts) - brain stucture, neurobiology, right brain/left brain emphasis and auditory brain waves are different. All these (and other) differences lead to homosexuals thinking and perceiving differently to heterosexuals.

If we look at the way heterosexual males and females think, feel and perceive differently to each other, it's obvious that homosexuals, who have (to varying degrees) some of the characteristics of both genders, would also think, feel and percieve differently to someone who has only the characterisics of one or the other gender.

I see this as a very Positive thing. The world needs people who think and perceive differently to the majority. "Group think" and conformity to one way of thinking and perceiving is NOT usually a positive thing for any culture. For example, the intellectual contributions of women, who think and perceive differently to males, have been neglected for thousands years until more recent times because men thought of females as much less intelligent and too emotional and only suited to child rearing and domestic duties or the "gentle" arts. (while not allowing them higher education ).

Diversity in thinking and perception is important to keep a culture from stagnating.

Diversity of genetic traits is also important for a population to adapt successfully. I've explained (a simplified version I know) in a previous post how these traits can be passed on genetically through heterosexuals even if homosexuals don't themselves reproduce (which many have done and will continue to do anyway)

All this obsession that many anti-gay people have with gay "sex", while completely ignoring all the other aspects of homosexuality, almost leads me to think that maybe "sex" is ALL they ever think about themselves.

Sex is not the most important part of my relationship with my partner (who is female as am I). The deep love we have for each other after more than 10 years together, our intellectual compatibility, trust and respect, humor and laughter, raising our children, doing all the everyday activities together and just enjoying each other's company...are all equally important.

Last edited by Ceist; 06-04-2009 at 09:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 09:25 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,183,555 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsldcd View Post
Not by normal prople.
Define "normal" people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
19,495 posts, read 20,840,695 times
Reputation: 13756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Define "normal" people?
While understanding that your question is rheotorical, one might be tempted to ask you to offer a list of the animal species which could surivive if all its members were homosexuals.

This has nothing to do with religion or prejudice. It's all about biological facts.

Unless you are willing to argue that the central instinct of life is not its preservaton and propagation, and consider the extinction of a species to be its desired goal, you must conclude that to the degree that homosexual behavior is biologically counterintuitive, it represents an negative evolutionary outcome.

While whether this represents abnormality in the common understanding of the term is questionable, there is no doubt that the phenomenon is arguably suicidal and runs counter to all that we know of the collective survival instinct of all sentient species.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 09:49 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,183,555 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
While understanding that your question is rheotorical, one might be tempted to ask you to offer a list of the animal species which could surivive if all its members were homosexuals.

This has nothing to do with religion or prejudice. It's all about biological facts.

Unless you are willing to argue that the central instinct of life is not its preservaton and propagation, and consider the extinction of a species to be its desired goal, you must conclude that to the degree that homosexual behavior is biologically counterintuitive, it represents an negative evolutionary outcome.

While whether this represents abnormality in the common understanding of the term is questionable, there is no doubt that the phenomenon is arguably suicidal and runs counter to all that we know of the collective survival instinct of all sentient species.
I don't agree at all. I guess you didn't bother to read my previous posts.

Here it is again in case you can't be bothered going back one page:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Some people argue that homosexuality can’t have a genetic cause because two homosexuals can’t reproduce, so homosexuals would have bred themselves out of the gene pool long ago.

This is a little too simplistic and doesn’t take into account recessive genes or “balanced superior heterozygotic fitness”.

Does everyone remember basic genetics in High School? Here’s a quick refresher:

We inherit two copies of each gene, one from each parent. The same gene comes in different "flavors," called alleles.

If we inherit the same allele of a gene from each parent, we are homozygous for that allele. If we inherit a different allele of that gene from each parent, we are heterozygous for that allele.

The terms “dominant” and “recessive” refer to how the alleles for that gene express themselves.

Recessive alleles express ONLY if you are homozygous (two of the same) for that allele. Dominant alleles are expressed even if you only get one copy of that allele.

An often used simple example is Eye Color: - let's call the gene for eye color B, and use a capital letter “B” (Big B) for the dominant allele of Brown and a small letter “b”(little b) for the recessive allele Blue.

If we inherit a gene for eye color from our father and a gene for eye color from our mother, each of which have 2 alleles, there are four combination possibilities:

BB – Homozygous ( Dominant. Has brown eyes)
Bb – Heterozygous. (Has brown eyes. Carrier for blue)
bB – Heterozygous. (Has brown eyes. Carrier for blue)
bb – Homozygous. (Recessive. Has blue eyes)

Okay, so are we clear about the basics? Now let’s look at homosexuality.

Scientists believe there is a combination of a number of different genes that affect sexual orientation, and it’s quite complex, but I’m trying to keep this simple to get the basic idea across, so I’ll just use an example of a single gene. And I’ll just stick with males for the moment.

If there is a gene for human sexual orientation and it is heterozygotically controlled, we could use Big H for Heterosexuality and little “h” for homosexuality and call Big H the dominant allele.

HH – Homozygotic Heterosexual (Straight)
Hh– Heterozygous Heterosexual (Straight, but carrier for gay allele)
hH– Heterozygous Heterosexual (Straight, but carrier for gay allele)
hh – Homozygous Homosexual (Gay)

This would mean that there are:
Straight men (HH) with the two Dominant Heterosexual alleles.
Straight men (Hh) with one Dominant Straight allele and one recessive gay allele. These would be the carriers of the gay “gene” even though the gene is not expressed because it is recessive.
Gay men (hh) with the two recessive alleles.

So homosexuality can be easily passed on genetically by heterosexuals who have recessive “gay” genes.

For homosexuality to have remained in the gene pool, it must have some evolutionary advantages for the straight men who carry the recessive trait, over the straight men who don’t carry it.

Let’s say for example that straight men who carry the recessive “gay” genes are better able to express themselves verbally and emotionally than straight men who don’t carry this recessive gene. Or perhaps straight men with the recessive gay gene may be better lovers or have better left brain/right brain communication….or whatever.

These characteristics conferred by the recessive “gay genes” may make these straight men more attractive to straight women. So the genes get passed on, even if gay men with the two recessive alleles (hh) never reproduce themselves.
And there's another post above yours about the value of homosexuals to the human race.

Last edited by Ceist; 06-04-2009 at 10:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 10:03 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,183,555 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconmark View Post
No not ridiculous at all, what's ridiculous is trying to convince the overwhelming majority of people on the planet that what you do is "normal".
You do know that Sexual Orientation is not just about behaviour or having sex, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconmark View Post
Also what makes you think that ALL the medical and psychological organizations in the world cite homosexuality as being normal.
Umm... Because they do? Do you know of any that don't? I'd be happy to read any links you can find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconmark View Post
.
I'm also not a conservative, I'm liberal and black. This dosen't mean I blindy accept every agenda under the sun.
But nice playing ASSumptions with you.
So you don't blindly accept the anti-gay agenda and propaganda of some of the conservative religious organizations either I hope? Great!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Near Manito
19,495 posts, read 20,840,695 times
Reputation: 13756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
I don't agree at all. I guess you didn't bother to read my previous posts.

Here it is again in case you can't be bothered going back one page:
Thanks for sending that. I did not read the entire thread. I understand the concept of recessive traits and agree that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality.

Now, please review my post, which does not state or imply that homosexuality does not exist or does not have a genetic basis. My argument is that the central instinctive and evolutionary force of all species is preservation and propagation, and that any deviation among members of a species, either individually or collectively, from that goal, represents an aberration. This is not open to debate.

Whether one wants to apply the term "abnormal" is a question of semantics and lexicographical denotation -- not biology. The fact remains that homosexuality is a trait which, were it somehow to become universal or dominant, would lead to the extinction of a species. It cannot be otherwise, biologically.

I find it unfortunate that these conversations often move into the realm of elementary genetics, because eventually comparisons to physical and mental disabilities are made by people whose interest is to denigrate and insult gay people.

I hasten to emphasize that to my mind, religion, ethics, and references to handicaps and disfigurements are not relevant to the discussion.

The fact remains, however, that it is intrinsically true that biological behaviors detrimental (or superfluous) to the survival of a species are tolerated at some risk to that species, regardless of one's genetic makeup or of one's opinion of either the behaviors or the genetics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 10:24 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 12,183,555 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
Thanks for sending that. I did not read the entire thread. I understand the concept of recessive traits and agree that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality.

Now, please review my post, which does not state or imply that homosexuality does not exist or does not have a genetic basis. My argument is that the central instinctive and evolutionary force of all species is preservation and propagation, and that any deviation among members of a species, either individually or collectively, from that goal, represents an aberration. This is not open to debate.

Whether one wants to apply the term "abnormal" is a question of semantics and lexicographical denotation -- not biology. The fact remains that homosexuality is a trait which, were it somehow to become universal or dominant, would lead to the extinction of a species. It cannot be otherwise, biologically.

I find it unfortunate that these conversations often move into the realm of elementary genetics, because eventually comparisons to physical and mental disabilities are made by people whose interest is to denigrate and insult gay people.

I hasten to emphasize that to my mind, religion, ethics, and references to handicaps and disfigurements are not relevant to the discussion.

The fact remains, however, that it is intrinsically true that biological behaviors detrimental (or superfluous) to the survival of a species are tolerated at some risk to that species, regardless of one's genetic makeup or of one's opinion of either the behaviors or the genetics.
There's absolutely no evolutionary reason why the traits for homosexuality would ever become Dominant rather than remain recessive (if that's what they are. Scientists are only just beginning to find some of the markers for sexual orientation-It's more complex than just one gene). Can you think of any evolutionary reason why it would???

So your argument appears to a strawman argument.

As to some people trying to compare homosexuality to mental and physical difficulties ...that just shows their ignorance of gay people, human sexual orientation, basic genetics, sociobiology and psychology. (and probably literacy )

Last edited by Ceist; 06-04-2009 at 10:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2009, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Western Cary, NC
4,349 posts, read 6,607,732 times
Reputation: 7266
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
The question of the tread is about homosexuality in nature. That is what people are trying to establish. Humans are creatures of nature and are the result of evolution.


I agree. It is a strange situation when because a person’s sexual preference is different than ours, that a culture would reach a point of verbal and at times physical attacks on the question of the different sexual drive being natural or unnatural. I have hoped we all would have reached a point in our intellectual development where we would have recognized sexual preference as a genetic issue, not a choice. The continued belief to the contrary, the belief of sexual preference as a choice, or a that sexual preference other than your is a religious abomination is just the ignorant ramblings of fools. It is time to look at the science. People are different for a reason. In time we will understand that reason but for now it is to our advantage to accept and work with the differences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top