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.
Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, not just in humans. Does not sound like something artificial to me but natural instead.
Those lizards of the genus Teiidae that they are talking about in the second paragraph, I think we would say that they are bi.
Quote:
Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality?
Arash Fereydooni March 14, 2012 29
Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought. Although Darwin’s theory of natural selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world.
Maybe it's because the people who say they're not gay anymore don't seem to be fooling anyone except for themselves, Hoosier...
This.
There is literally zero motive for anyone to pretend to be gay, but all kinds of reasons to pretend to be straight. Not being thrown out on the street by your religious parents springs to mind... there's also not hating yourself, not being ostracized by your community, and not being called a sick perverted freak by hateful *******s like some of the people on this forum.
The only reason I can think of to fake gayness is if you're like Edward Norton in Fight Club, pretending to be gay so you can hang out with a support group.
Homosexuality IS a choice. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is natural in anyway. The reality is when you have a lack of men figures in your life and when you allow people to do activities that were meant specifically for only one gender, you allow more people to become gay. Society has slowly turned away from its original roots. And dont tell me homosexuality is "normal". If it was normal how come they dont reproduce? what would be the evolutionary point of homosexuality?
The abundance of homosexuality documented in non-human animals makes it quite clear that homosexuality is indeed natural.
As for evolution, here's a brief primer:
Quote:
Since the early 1990s, researchers have shown that homosexuality is more common in brothers and relatives on the same maternal line, and a genetic factor is taken to be the cause. Also relevant - although in no way proof - is research identifying physical differences in the brains of adult straight and gay people, and a dizzying array of homosexual behaviour in animals.
Quote:
The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.
An analagous example would be the sickle cell trait (which causes the hereditary blood disorder sickle cell disease) and its protective effects against malaria. Where malaria exists, this trait is common - even though sickle cell disease inhibits reproductive ability (by killing people), its benefits in providing protection against malaria are such that it provides a net benefit to carriers. This is the classic example of how a trait with a negative reproductive effect can resist being naturally selected out of the gene pool.
To understand this, it helps not to be completely ignorant of genetics and natural selection. It also helps to be genuinely interested in the answer to the question you asked, and not emotionally vested in their being no evolutionary rationale for homosexuality - if the latter is the case, it is clear no amount of evidence will sway you from the conclusion you've reached for no reason other than you want it to be that way.
One final aside:
People such as yourself need homosexuality to be a choice in order to rationalize the discriminatory laws against gays that you support, as well as to rationalize your animus towards gays as merely being an objection to what they choose, and not to what they are. Since you know the latter would be wrong, you have to believe that it's a choice - evidence be damned. You are quite transparent in this regard.
Its confusion, simple as that. If they were truly homos (and not bi), they couldnt breed, and would have gone extinct.
From the people that study this:
“No species has been found in which homosexual behavior has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue” – zoologist Petter Bøckman declared.
The low percentages have little effect on the survival of the species. In some cases the homosexual animals even take care of the offspring of the hetero so that the hetero can go off and continue to party without any parental responsibilities. Isn't that a nice arrangement?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,934,547 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amercity
Homosexuality IS a choice. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is natural in anyway. The reality is when you have a lack of men figures in your life and when you allow people to do activities that were meant specifically for only one gender, you allow more people to become gay. Society has slowly turned away from its original roots. And dont tell me homosexuality is "normal". If it was normal how come they dont reproduce? what would be the evolutionary point of homosexuality?
Bet you still believe in stuff scribbled down by a bunch of bronzed aged superstitious desert dwelling goat herders, right?
The only reason why this point of view is even considered is because it acts as an escape hatch for Christians who cannot fathom why God would create gay people only to proclaim it a sin. So ... the easiest answer, of course, is that hey, it's a choice!
Of course, if you spent any time around a gay person - or better yet a gay couple - you would quickly realize that it's NOT a choice. The evidence is with the people themselves. They no more had a choice to be gay as you had the choice to be straight. Do you recall making that conscious decision? "Wow, Kevin and Josie are both looking mighty fine ... but who do I pick? Ach, I'll go with Josie."
And then, here's the really bizarre part - once someone "chooses" their sexual orientation, they never go back on their decision. No, no, people who masquerade as straight just to avoid the abject cruelty our supposedly "tolerant" society would visit upon them ... no, THOSE people do not count as reversing their decision. They knew they were gay for a long time but decided to pretend they were straight. That's what the proverbial closet is all about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amercity
There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is natural in anyway.
This is a rather ridiculous statement on its face. Define "natural."
Is sex between a man and a woman in the missionary position the only "natural" form of sex? Or is there some wiggle room there. And if there is, then we would have to ask what your criteria is for making those judgments. Why is X position natural while Y position is not? Of course, perhaps you're one of those bland sexual partners who does nothing but the missionary - because that's the only "natural" way to have a romp in the hay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amercity
The reality is when you have a lack of men figures in your life and when you allow people to do activities that were meant specifically for only one gender, you allow more people to become gay.
Heehee, really? If only I could have stopped you from posting this, but too late. The toothpaste is out of the tube.
I say that because this reasoning is almost as benighted as the old fear of getting pregnant from using a public restroom. There are countless boys who grow up with single moms - often they are the only child. Yet somehow, the vast majority of them grow up straight. There is no legitimate scientific evidence that not having men in one's life causes one to become gay. Zero. It CAN cause other issues, and it might even lead a boy to experiment with the opposite sex, but they are not truly gay. Just like a girl who grows up in a household with no mother or sisters - she might become a tomboy, but a lack of women in one's life does not make a girl a lesbian. I didn't have many women in my life; even most of my friends were male. My interests are largely masculine, I bet I even type my posts in a masculine style (so I've been told). But rest assured I'm not gay. Why not?
Now, the NEXT part of your statement ... heh ... that argument went extinct with the dinosaurs. There's no such thing as an activity "meant" for a specific gender. This attitude borders on misogynistic, not that I'm accusing you of being one. It's just that you're reinforcing an attitude that says girls must do this and boys must do that - and boys get to have most of the fun and all of the freedom.
No. The idea of an activity being "meant" for a specific gender is an artificial construct. It is an imposition onto the individual by society at large - and I might point out, a society where men held ALL of the power and had ALL of the decision-making capabilities. You are NOT going to become gay if a boy cares about fashion, enjoys sewing, cooking, flower arranging and better still, taking an equal share in raising a child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amercity
Society has slowly turned away from its original roots.
Which roots were those? Are you looking for a time in human history when homosexuality didn't exist? I'll save you the trouble - there is no such time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amercity
And dont tell me homosexuality is "normal".
LOL! Even you had to put "normal" in quotes because, yeah, defining normalcy (thanks Prez. Harding for giving us that word) is just about impossible. Sure, we could define it as "that which is mainstream, that which the majority does or thinks." How else would you define it? The problem with that definition, though, is that from my perspective I bet you do a lot of abnormal things. In the eyes of a homosexual, YOU are the abnormal one. Plus, any minority of any kind whatsoever could be considered abnormal. I guess because only 10-15 people out of the 6.5 billion people on the planet come to my great aunt's quilting club so I guess quilting is a meeting of abnormal people engaging in an abnormal activity.
Yeah - that's why the word "normal" is just about useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amercity
If it was normal how come they dont reproduce? what would be the evolutionary point of homosexuality?
Assuming we survive for another 50 million years or so, can you say with absolutist certainty that homosexuality will never evolve reproduction? Considering that one of evolution's primary foci is reproduction in order to increase the survivability of that species, it would make perfect sense. Think of what would happen if our choice in partners was not restricted to a gender and anyone could reproduce with anyone else. We would reproduce almost like insects.
But hey, that's just a guess, a hypothesis. But it shows you that there just might BE an evolutionary reason for homosexuality - and humanity has not been on this planet nearly long enough to see any major changes in homo-sapiens
The only reason why this point of view is even considered is because it acts as an escape hatch for Christians who cannot fathom why God would create gay people only to proclaim it a sin. So ... the easiest answer, of course, is that hey, it's a choice!
Of course, if you spent any time around a gay person - or better yet a gay couple - you would quickly realize that it's NOT a choice. The evidence is with the people themselves. They no more had a choice to be gay as you had the choice to be straight. Do you recall making that conscious decision? "Wow, Kevin and Josie are both looking mighty fine ... but who do I pick? Ach, I'll go with Josie."
And then, here's the really bizarre part - once someone "chooses" their sexual orientation, they never go back on their decision. No, no, people who masquerade as straight just to avoid the abject cruelty our supposedly "tolerant" society would visit upon them ... no, THOSE people do not count as reversing their decision. They knew they were gay for a long time but decided to pretend they were straight. That's what the proverbial closet is all about.
This is a rather ridiculous statement on its face. Define "natural."
Is sex between a man and a woman in the missionary position the only "natural" form of sex? Or is there some wiggle room there. And if there is, then we would have to ask what your criteria is for making those judgments. Why is X position natural while Y position is not? Of course, perhaps you're one of those bland sexual partners who does nothing but the missionary - because that's the only "natural" way to have a romp in the hay.
Heehee, really? If only I could have stopped you from posting this, but too late. The toothpaste is out of the tube.
I say that because this reasoning is almost as benighted as the old fear of getting pregnant from using a public restroom. There are countless boys who grow up with single moms - often they are the only child. Yet somehow, the vast majority of them grow up straight. There is no legitimate scientific evidence that not having men in one's life causes one to become gay. Zero. It CAN cause other issues, and it might even lead a boy to experiment with the opposite sex, but they are not truly gay. Just like a girl who grows up in a household with no mother or sisters - she might become a tomboy, but a lack of women in one's life does not make a girl a lesbian. I didn't have many women in my life; even most of my friends were male. My interests are largely masculine, I bet I even type my posts in a masculine style (so I've been told). But rest assured I'm not gay. Why not?
Now, the NEXT part of your statement ... heh ... that argument went extinct with the dinosaurs. There's no such thing as an activity "meant" for a specific gender. This attitude borders on misogynistic, not that I'm accusing you of being one. It's just that you're reinforcing an attitude that says girls must do this and boys must do that - and boys get to have most of the fun and all of the freedom.
No. The idea of an activity being "meant" for a specific gender is an artificial construct. It is an imposition onto the individual by society at large - and I might point out, a society where men held ALL of the power and had ALL of the decision-making capabilities. You are NOT going to become gay if a boy cares about fashion, enjoys sewing, cooking, flower arranging and better still, taking an equal share in raising a child.
Which roots were those? Are you looking for a time in human history when homosexuality didn't exist? I'll save you the trouble - there is no such time.
LOL! Even you had to put "normal" in quotes because, yeah, defining normalcy (thanks Prez. Harding for giving us that word) is just about impossible. Sure, we could define it as "that which is mainstream, that which the majority does or thinks." How else would you define it? The problem with that definition, though, is that from my perspective I bet you do a lot of abnormal things. In the eyes of a homosexual, YOU are the abnormal one. Plus, any minority of any kind whatsoever could be considered abnormal. I guess because only 10-15 people out of the 6.5 billion people on the planet come to my great aunt's quilting club so I guess quilting is a meeting of abnormal people engaging in an abnormal activity.
Yeah - that's why the word "normal" is just about useless.
Assuming we survive for another 50 million years or so, can you say with absolutist certainty that homosexuality will never evolve reproduction? Considering that one of evolution's primary foci is reproduction in order to increase the survivability of that species, it would make perfect sense. Think of what would happen if our choice in partners was not restricted to a gender and anyone could reproduce with anyone else. We would reproduce almost like insects.
But hey, that's just a guess, a hypothesis. But it shows you that there just might BE an evolutionary reason for homosexuality - and humanity has not been on this planet nearly long enough to see any major changes in homo-sapiens
Nice post.
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.
