Is there really something wrong with being gay?

Absolutely nothing wrong.
Other people have problem with eating carrots, does that mean there is something wrong with eating carrots?

Its a personal choice. Leave it at that.

No.

Only the fact that other people try to make one think there’s really something wrong with being gay.

So, short answer, no. ;-)

Nope. Some people are gay. Get over it.

If I didn’t have gay men in my life…well, I couldn’t imagine a life without them…it would be quite boring, bland and not bodacious at all!

No, being gay is simply a choice. Tell your friend you love him and give him a hug.

Eventually, I hope….no one will ever have to ask this question again.

Nothing wrong with being gay in a secular sense. It says it is wrong in the Bible and the Quran but that rule is only for Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Since religion is a personal matter that rule should only apply to the one who follows it. Like how Jews are not allowed to eat pork. You don’t see Jews getting all pissy on non Jews eating pork. Even if a Christian, Jew, or Muslim is gay, it doesn’t give anyone the to judge him/her for his/her sexuality. Only God is allowed to judge. Since I believe spiritual matters are a personal thing. I believe there is nothing wrong with being gay. What 2 consenting adults do in the bedroom is of no concern to anyone. I dont see why it is such a big deal. Outside of the Bedroom and their personal relationship. Heterosexuals, Homosexuals, and Bisexuals are just people. Their sexual preference has no impact on the lives of others. People find their sexuality long before they even know it.

Unless your school experience was different than other kids’, you will already know that people make fun of others for being:

Tall
Short
Fat
Skinny
Smart
Stupid
Dark skinned
Pale
Freckled
Wearing glasses
Being clumsy
Liking to sing
Not singing well
Liking to whistle
Being too Christian
Not being Christian enough
Liking too many TV shows
Not knowing enough about TV
Not knowing enough about fashion
Being overly concerned with fashion
Being too philosophical
Being too shallow
Being too analytic
Being too reactive
Being too shy
Wanting to be the center of attention

So yes, there is something wrong with being gay. Just as there is something wrong with being anything else. That is, if you’re willing to accept the judgment of whoever wants to be critical at the time.

@6rant6 true. No matter what/who you are and what you do, somebody is going to find something wrong with it. Might as well be yourself.

@Mikewlf337 You pays your money and you takes your chances.

Let’s see. Your friend: “He’s very nice, really funny and knows how to make someones day.”
But : “He gets made fun of alot”. Really, it’s a no-brainer. He’s nice, the other people are mean. I’d go with the idea that there’s something wrong with them.

If religious zealots would focus their attention on what they do to serve their G_d* and refrain from passing judgment on others and what they do, life would be so much more gentle and humane

Nope, nothing wrong with being gay, but don’t expect some sort of special treatment because of that preference. As @6rant6 points out, there are plenty of @$$holes out there who can find almost any excuse to be judgmental.

For me, nothing is wrong with it! I am gay! :D

@YoBob @$$holes—Thanks for the cool spelling of this word!

Chyeah!!

Why don’t – some of you gay guys – stop pretending that you know how women can best dress? You cannot advise better on that than a woman. Or straight man.

Apart from that, I ain’t got any problem. ;-)

@YoBob

I don’t think respect and not being discriminated against count as “special treatment”.

@Mikewlf337

For the record, there are many Christians who believe that homosexuality as we understand it today is actually not condemned by the Bible.

Nope!

except for the whole “gay” part. oh well, nobody’s perfect.

Usually no, but there are occasional exceptions as with all things in life. There was this one gay bloke who always made fun of and laughed at me for the way I dress (usually not in a fashion considered acceptable by society for a woman of 66 years, hehehe). Never liked that guy, course it had nothing to do with him being gay, he would have been a jerk no matter what his sexual preference, so I amend my answer to say unequivocably no.

Please make sure that your friend knows about this link:

The It Gets Better Project.

Despite what others have said, being gay is not, in my opinion, a choice. I think it’s biological. So, unless there’s something wrong with being blonde or tall or green-eyed or skinny or whatever, then no. There’s nothing wrong with being gay.

Yeah, sorry @DarlingRhadamanthus and @blueiiznh, I agree with @Seelix on this one; it’s not a choice. It’s a preference. It’s important to distinguish between the two because we make wrong and bad choices and we can choose to change bad things about ourselves, but preferences are just preferences; there’s not always a clear explanation for why we have those preferences, but we have them and that’s all there is to it.

No, and the people who think there is something wrong with it have their own issues.

No.
But gay people still have to put up with some social conventions, religious doctrines and even state laws that may make their lives difficult.
But it is not normal for human beings to live without love and relationships, so it could not be called wrong.
Having said all that, I do not totally understand or appreciate homosexuality, but it really does not get in the way of me having a good time, so I don’t give a shit.

Absolutely and utterly not!
I myself am not gay but I am constantly disgusted by how some people are not willing to accept homosexuality as part of everyday life.
As some people here have said it is a personal preferance, just like eating meat or choosing to be a vegetarian.
So,people who think it is wrong : get a life.

It’s estimated that 15% of the population is gay. It is not something people choose to be, they just are.

Most of the time, I don’t think about someone else’s sexuality unless I am interested in being ahem privy to their sexuality. This may sound harsh but please think about it for a moment but I don’t think there is anything wrong or anything right with homosexuality. It’s just something that is. I think calling homosexuality wrong is like saying it’s wrong to be blonde. I think calling it right is like saying it’s right to be tall.

Ditto everything that has been said (especially @Seelix and @KatawaGrey and the biological point). Love your friend. He is who he is. Those who mock him are fools.

Nothing wrong with it, and people are just mean.

Racism is no longer acceptable in society in general. One day, homophobia will be treated the same way.

It seems that some people have a problem with homosexuality because the human body is designed to re-procreate using a female egg and a male sperm, thus it is only natural that males should be attracted to females and vice-versa.

Does this make homosexuality wrong? It is not a matter of choice, and it is not wrong. It is just another difference in makes you ‘you’, whether you are straight or gay.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being gay but I think depending on where you live and the community surrounding you it can be very difficult. Some societies are strongly intolerant of homosexuality. I think it’s unfortunate but very much a sad fact.

I think homosexuality is dysfunctional. Scientifically speaking, sex is a means to an end. The end being the propagation of the human race (See biological imperative). Denying this is maladaptive behavior, and is thus, dysfunctional and unproductive. This end can never be fulfilled by sex between males (in the case of gays) or between females (in the case of lesbians). Therefore, it only seems obvious that homosexuality is irrational and illogical.

If we consider the construction of the bodies of the male and female, what is noticed at once is that the construction of a body of a male (the penis and the anus- i.e no vagina) does not accommodate having sex with another male. Nor does the construction of a body of a female (no penis, a vagina) accommodate sex with another female. What is obvious to common sense is that the construction and location of specific sexual organs in the bodies of a male and a female accommodate sex between a male and a female and not among members of the same sex. Therefore, the conclusion once again is that homosexuality is an unnatural and an irrational behavior.

Then there is the social consequence; Aids, and the cost of treating it.
AIDS Rate 50 Times Higher in Homosexual Men: Center for Disease Control

HIV statistics

@epoche Can you please explain this to me then? It appears your logic is flawed, as nature proves otherwise.

Your an animal?

@epoche Yes, I am a mammal. I gave you example of other natural occurrences of homosexuality.

Well, @epoche , despite your rather forensic breakdown of male and female anatomy which also applies to animals, BTW the Q was “Is there really something wrong with being gay?” not “How does being gay interfere with reproduction?” It was a question about subjective moral judgment, not the purpose of sex.

@SpatzieLover,

I don’t converse with animals. :) Read this and then reconsider your argument of Appealing to nature

@epoche

To quote Baba Brinkman:

“They “No homo!” I say “No, homophobe,
Get it straight – it’s in the chromosomes”
They say “But my religion says it’s a sin”
I say “Sell your daughter into slavery then”
They say “It’s unnatural, it makes me uneasy”
I say “Actually it’s found in four-hundred species”

From The Evolution of Gayness

@JilltheTooth,

I know what the question asks. I answered it. I feel it’s dysfunctional and thus wrong. I used logic and statistics to support my claim.

@crisw,

Cool story.

@epoche

“I feel it’s dysfunctional and thus wrong.”

Our brains and hands and feet did not evolve with driving cars in mind. Is it wrong to drive a car?

Our digestive systems didn’t evolve to process Diet Coke- am I wrong to take a drink of one?

Our ears didn’t evolve to listen to electronic music- should I turn off my stereo?

@epoche

And you are flat-out wrong about the purpose of sex. Especially in intelligent and highly social animals- and yes, we ARE animals- sex is often about bonding and cohesion, not about reproduction- as anyone who spends any time around bonobos or dolphins can attest to.

Searches on 3 different thesauri, and not a one listed “wrong” as a synonym for “dysfunctional”. Go figure.

Let the flames begin.

@epoche . . . Doesn’t that same line of logic make masturbation wrong as well?

and if masturbation is wrong, well, i don’t wanna be right. high fives!!!

ok, maybe high fives aren’t the right way to celebrate excessive masturbation but my hand, er, my heart is in the right place.

@crisw Yes, bonobos are a great example of sexual bonding and of homosexuality and bisexuality in nature. Milwaukee happens to be one of the zoos that are studying this.

@crisw,

Biological imperative is part of evolution. Are you denying evolution?

If we’re animals, then why are you punishing animals (people) when they kill?

@JilltheTooth,

So according to you, aids is not dysfunctional and thus not wrong. Interesting.

Um, you know HIV is spread through all body fluids, through any body opening, right?

I do, and I also know statistics don’t lie.

If it’s gay guys who are getting HIV and you think they’re inherently wrong, then why does it matter to you whether they die of HIV or AIDS?

@epoche Oh you mean the stats from Asia & Africa about heterosexual sex?

@epoche Do you hold all human activity, all human diversity to this same level of absolute evaluation?

@Seelix,

I don’t care if they die. Hiv was only one of my points as to why homosexuality is wrong.

@SpatzieLover,

No, I mean the stats globally.

@epoche : AIDS is neither right nor wrong, it is a disease, not a moral judgment. Awful, yes, “wrong” no.

And the statement that you “don’t care if they die” is just trollish. Have fun with the flame war you’re trying to start (and may well succeed at) since that seems to be your goal.

@epoche

“Biological imperative is part of evolution. Are you denying evolution?”

Huh? Are you seriously claiming that all sexual behavior in animals is reproductive in nature?

“If we’re animals, then why are you punishing animals (people) when they kill?”

Are we trying to have a serious discussion here, or are you just trolling? I am voting the latter. If you want to have a serious discussion, I am game, but I am done feeding trolls for now. We’ll see where this discussion goes from here.

I can see that there’s no way to make @epoche realize that (s)he’s the one who’s wrong here, so I’m out. Sometimes it’s not worth trying to make the argument.

Not high fiving or shaking @Blondesjon hand.

Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.

@chyna : We can still kiss him, right?

@SpatzieLover : I don’t think there’s any logical discussion to be had with that user, leaping in to flame and troll seemed to be the point. I, however, appreciate your links. Thanks for doing the research.

@crisw,

Did you just respond to my question with a question? You’re displaying your ignorance then. I think you’re trolling me. Answer my question. Do you believe in Evolution? If you do, then you believe in biological imperative which means sex is a means to an end, the end being survival. Denying this, or consorting to other means is maladaptive behavior, thus is dysfunction and unproductive.

If you wish to appeal to nature,(“oh, but the animals do it”) then you should actually read what it’s you’re appealing to and whether it is credible to do so. Appeal to nature

@SpatzieLover,

Where is the source? Source it, or it’s a lie.

@epoche . . . If you really want to cling to the imperatives evolution, couldn’t one argue that, because of evolution, homosexuality is the most natural thing in the world?

With human overpopulation being a very real threat to our own survival as a species, couldn’t I use your logic to argue that we are becoming predisposed to a lessened procreation via an evolutionary modification in our libidinous system?

Last I checked, queers can’t have no babbys between themselves.

I disagree that overpopulation is a threat. So, no.

There were studies that stated you can put the entire United States population into a state the size of Texas and live comfortably.

@epoche Wait…why is @SpatzieLover ‘s link less viable than your Wikipedia link?

Does this look like Wikipedia to you? It’s from the Center for Disease Control.

AIDS Rate 50 Times Higher in Homosexual Men: Center for Disease Control

HIV Statistics

And Wikipedia is a reliable source since every statement has a footnote that leads to the source.

@epoche “I disagree that overpopulation is a threat. ” I get it. This is just flamebait. Color me outie.

@6rant6,

I get it, anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot and a troll, and whatever other name you have in your arsenal.

Seems that common sense went out the window long ago.

@epoche . . . Until the first major natural disaster hits and then Texas is Japan. Despite their population density, they all lived together pretty comfortably on that island until a few weeks ago.

Where we all fit aside, it’s not the space we displace anyway. It’s the resources we consume. All of those folks in Texas would still continue to eat, shit, and watch Oprah.

I breathe a sigh of relief and silently applaud every single time I see two members of the same sex making out in public. Where other folks see some needless PDA I see Mother Nature ensuring us another few hundred thousand years.

@epoche is entitled to their out of touch, ignorant opinion and I prefer that we allow self-identified homophobic bible thumpers to speak their minds. We have the right to reject their views and promote respectful and accepting views that include homosexuals as part of our diverse society.

@Blondesjon,

Ah, the running out of resources myth. Yes, we’re all doomed. Homosexuality is the answer according to you.

This is where I point out the difference between opinions and facts.

I’m still watching this, and I love that the troll is editing his posts. Seems he had a Jerk Store moment.

@Dr_Lawrence,

I hear a lot of personal attacks, but no logical arguments.

Oh well, fight irrationality with irrationality.

@epoche . . . Ah, the running out of resources myth. Yes, we’re all doomed. Homosexuality is the answer according to you.

I kind need some, uh, facts to back 1st third of that ^^ statement.

and for the record, i’ve made no personal attacks. i’ve only made sense.

@Blondesjon,

Um, what?

I wasn’t referring to you on personal attacks. I quoted Dr. Lawrence and the others who know who they’re.

I’m just showing the rationality here.

It almost seems implied that according to the logic of some here, the sphincter in the anus was not meant to keep fecal matter in, but rather it was designed to make it difficult for homosexuals to insert foreign objects in there. A challenge of some sort.

A challenge of some sort.

Well, that’s what makes donut-punching fun. The more challenging, the better.

@epoche does that mean if a person chooses to not propagate that there is something wrong with them?
That would mean there is something wrong with Nuns, and people who simply do not want children? Are people who can’t have offspring in this same category to you?

Choosing not to propagate, or not being able to, is one thing, but willfully resorting to dysfunctional sex is something completely different.

@epoche But that does not stand up to just gay sex. My reference was to your statement:
“The end being the propagation of the human race (See biological imperative). Denying this is maladaptive behavior, and is thus, dysfunctional and unproductive.”
Thus you are stating anyone who does not participate in this as being dysfunctional and something wrong with them.
Do you measure function then by how many offsrping you have?
Is someone who have one child less functional that someone who has five?

@JilltheTooth Yeah, I don’t use off the wall links. I only go to World Health Organization links. That way the stats aren’t skewed toward a religious standpoint.

@epoche What is willfully resorting to dysfunctional sex? Bonobos, our closest mammal relative has the same type of sexual relations we homo-sapiens have.

So going with @blueiiznh, I must really be a disfunctional human being as I chose to not have children.

Not meaning that @blueiiznh was serious about that, I was agreeing with @blueiiznh sarcasm.

@chyna phew! ty

@SpatzieLover,

I told you, you’re appealing to nature. This is a fallacious argument.

You can also read about the naturalistic fallacy as well as the is-ought problem, along with the moralistic fallacy. It’s closely related.

Huh?! I must’ve missed that the new rule that stated I need to present facts in a certain way to appease the new guy.

I’m a catholic mom. In my opinion, homosexuality is natural. Period.
Well, ‘nuff said from me to the troll.

Opinions are fine, but don’t try to debunk my premise using your opinion, especially when I’m using science, logic, and statistics.

This site’s called Fluther, not Say-Things-You-Don't-Mean-to-Make-The-New-Dude-Happy.com.

@all Yep, I think I’ve now summed up who this was now.

If I recall correctly, you wanted to argue with me. Now that I challenge you on your assertions, you get nasty. I’m actually not surprised because irrationality is the norm these days. As @SpatzieLover said, “I don’t need to present facts”. You just simply state, and that makes you right and myself wrong.

Yet another assumption. Since this “Summum” fellow must have had similar thoughts as me, I must be him. Oh, what brilliant logic.

@epoche interesting how you ignore feedback that does blow holes in your sails.

@blueiiznh,

I wish I knew what you just said, but I don’t.

I rest my case!

Right…

ok, I said I was done but I gotta say it…

@epoche

“Choosing not to propagate, or not being able to, is one thing, but willfully resorting to dysfunctional sex is something completely different.”

I hope, then, that you have never had a blowjob.

Nope. I don’t follow the logical fallacy of “but…but…the animals do it!”

You’re on the same page with the animals when it comes to homosexuality, but when it comes to murder, you’re above them in this matter. Too funny.

I know @epoche is gone, but I’m still chuckling at how s/he kept trying to support a subjective moral judgment (“wrong”) with a bunch of links and the word “dysfunctional”. Hmmmm.

Umm aah, neptune ate @epoche. Bet he has indigestion now.

@epoche would have been much more at-home on Sodahead.

Hmm head… somehow I think @epoche would find that unnatural and dysfunctional.

I’m a little surprised that @epoche doesn’t find the whole damned Internet unnatural and dysfunctional. I know I do! That’s why I love it so!!

@JilltheTooth I agree on the internet dysfunctional comment.
Leave it to Al Gore to invent something dysfunctional!!!

Can a man get another man pregnant? If god wanted the Same sex to be with one another he wouldve only created one sex.

^^@epoche coming back as @milkshake1978?

@chyna : Kind of a downgrade on the gravity of the name, huh… Bit of a different style, maybe a different user?

Actually, the profile would indicate a new user…

@milkshake1978 . . . Why would a fervent believer, such as yourself, capitalize Same but not god?

if God wanted men to quote him improperly he wouldn’t have created puncuation

@milkshake1978 : Welcome to Fluther. (I genuinely mean that.) You won’t find much agreement with the view you just stated here, we are, in general, a pretty liberal group, but there are so many different things to discuss here that I hope you’ll find something to your liking on this site.

“If we consider the construction of the bodies of the male and female, what is noticed at once is that the construction of a body of a male (the penis and the anus- i.e no vagina) does not accommodate having sex with another male. Nor does the construction of a body of a female (no penis, a vagina) accommodate sex with another female.”

Although @epoche is gone, I want to address some of the above issues. The problem with the analysis, as has been partially mentioned, is that it assumes pursuit of pleasure in a sexual manner for reproduction as something which negates an ability to seek pleasure in other manners.

Other people brought up behavior in other animals to contradict this, and @epoche accused them of making an appeal to nature. However, the problem is of course that @epoche was in fact making such an appeal to nature. When others tried to show that animal behavior in others undermined this appeal, @epoche accused them of the naturalistic fallacy.

The argument, of course, is problematic because (1) the naturalistic argument is not a fallacy when it is used to contradict a claim based on nature (as @epoche was making) and further (2) the argument was not made in order to claim that such behavior was appropriate or moral because other animals did it, but merely that it was natural, and therefore a claim that it is not natural falls short.

Further, the appeal to nature (or biology) above falls short because it neglects the facts that (1) the female biology in humans actually is built prior to first intercourse in order to make penetration resulting in conception difficult (the hymen naturally blocks the canal) and (2) that the male sexual pleasure center (the prostate) is located in the anus.

It also has nothing to do with attraction, as it refers to an act. Anal sex is not limited to homosexual behavior, nor is female oral sex.

Finally, the argument that the anus was meant, somehow, there is an argument implied that the anus was “designed” to keep “foreign” objects out. Besides the prostate issue, the various openings involved in the digestion process allow for both insertion as well as excretion. But none were “designed” with a “purpose” and therefore meant for that purpose alone. They simply exist as methods that have worked so that they don’t create a disadvantage.

@iamthemob,

Hi, I’m a friend of epoche. He was no longer allowed on here and has asked me to sign up to respond to you.

The scientific perspective is that sex is a function reserved strictly for reproduction, and the pleasure associated with sex is an evolutionary trait which ensures reproduction and continuation of the species. Homosexuality is a dysfunction of the pleasure function, which negates the scientifically essential result of reproduction due to sex amongst heterosexuals.

In order to imply that heterosexuality is a perversion or dysfunction, one would have to take an irrational approach to science, as well as morality, even if the morality of homosexuality is never brought into question. Science can prove it is perfectly natural that homosexuality exists, as well as heterosexuality, but the ultimate function-reproduction, is lacking in homosexuality, and therefore may be labeled a dysfunction, while heterosexuality cannot using the same logic, or any other rational logic for that matter.

It is not an anomaly that homosexuality occurs amongst normally heterosexual creatures. My argument isn’t based on the “need” to procreate, rather the scientific function of reproduction. Without procreation there is no continuation of the species and procreation relates to all animals. Even if we accepted your argument, due to biologically perfected pleasure receptors throughout our reproductive system, we would still procreate, even if all of us were bi-sexual because if the moral choice of sexuality is eliminated there would be no difference between having sex with a male and having sex with a female, and heterosexual copulation would occur at random. Eventually the procreators would outnumber the non-procreators, making this, again, a reproductive society based on who has the most children, the largest families… guess where we would end up? Exactly where we are now…

Though there are sensory organs within the anus that can cause “pleasure”, scientifically they are intended to produce sensations within the muscles for bowel movements. The anus is the opposite end of the digestive tract from the mouth, and is known throughout the animal world as the excretion point of feces. This is not a sexual function. Amphibians, “reptiles” and birds use the same orifice for excreting liquid and solid wastes, and for copulation and egg-laying; this orifice is known as the cloaca. Monotreme mammals also have a cloaca, which is thought to be a feature inherited from the earliest amniotes via the therapsids. Marsupials have two nether orifices: one for excreting both solids and liquids; the other for reproduction, which appears as a vagina in females and a penis in males. Female placental mammals have completely separate orifices for defecation, urination and reproduction; males have one opening for defecation and another for both urination and reproduction, although the channels flowing to that orifice are almost completely separate. The clitoris provides lubrications for penetration, while the anus does not. The cell wall within the clitoris is 3 inches thick, while the cell wall within the anus is 1 inch thick, which explains why there are so many life threatening incidence due to anal intercourse, where the inner wall of the anus is torn, causing internal bleeding and the contraction of infections and various diseases such as Aids, as well as the spread of it. Therefore, your assessment is irrational and unscientific.

Perversion is a concept describing those types of human behavior that are perceived to be a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal. Although it can refer to varying forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are seen as abnormal or excessive. Dysfunction is abnormal or unhealthy interpersonal behavior or interaction within a group.

It was mentioned earlier that homosexuality was observed in animal sexual behavior, but necrophilia, pedophilia, rape, cannibalism, violent assault, torment, and cross species (bestiality) has also been observed in animal sexual behavior; does this mean that since it is natural, and we’re animals, then there is nothing dysfunctional or unnatural when human sexual behavior is the same as the animals?

it returns

Amusing username for the creator of such an…er… involved post. Just sayin’.

The extremes some people will go to just to get their silly point across. Asking a friend? Seriously?

^tee hee

@Seelix Is that allowed?

@queenie – Probably not, especially because it’s probably the same person posting from a different IP address.

and it still does not answer the original question. Taking an anatomical argument is preposterous. Its become comical,

@apatheia

The problem with the statements you make is that you waiver between talking about sex as an act, sex as reproduction, pleasure as sexuality, sex as sexuality, acts as desire, etc., etc., etc. What you never deal with is the fact that sexuality is about attraction, and therefore separate and apart from the pleasure associated with sex as an act (although clearly related).

The obsession with defining what is a perversion or dysfunction is where you’re stuck. An infrequently occurring trait or characteristic is not dysfunctional merely because it is infrequent…even rare. Sexuality as a characteristic is shared by all humans…like height. However, someone in the top 5% of height isn’t dysfunctional because of that. And it is constant, unlike the act of sex.

That pleasure encourages sexual activity means only that it is encouraged. When we seek that pleasure in a manner that clearly won’t result in reproduction doesn’t stop us from reproducing by necessity – we’re constantly making reproductive materials such that most never ever get used. That we have a whole lot of different kinds of sex as a species means that inevitably some of that sex will be reproductive in nature. When it comes to reproduction, you see that nature rarely works as you seem to think it does – in a targeted manner where everything is built and directed to one single act. Sexual activity from a reproductive standpoint is rarely a laser – it’s more like a shotgun, or a water balloon. Even when dealing with human reproductive sex, you have the one egg that you repeatedly throw millions of sperm at – hoping one will stick. Aquatic and plant life is even more haphazard – oftentimes just tossing their genetic contributions without any idea of whether there’s anything for it to really stick to.

You also seem to think that there are “rules” for our bodies. In terms of pleasure-seeking behavior, that makes little sense – and we see contrary examples in human sexual behavior constantly. Our mouths are clearly not primarily for kissing….but we do it. A lot. And that’s great. But more importantly, you miss the entire earlier point – not all gay men have anal sex. Many, many straight men and women do with each other. It’s an act. Many gay men are thoroughly grossed out by the idea of anal sex. Clearly, it is not the act that attracts them – but the person.

The final bit goes once again into the whole naturalistic fallacy ridiculousness. We’ve covered that. Because homosexual behavior happens across species, it is fallacious to say that it’s “unnatural.” That’s all. That’s also not homosexuality as we talk about it in humans.

Those of the perversion ilk do like to focus on MSM anal sex and HIV/AIDS transmission. That begs the question, of course, what about lesbian HIV/AIDS transmission? As far as I know, it’s essentially zero. Which of course, in the end, means that gay sex is the best sex of all!

@iamthemob,

Can ones psychology be projected upon their sexuality, and what kind of psychology would be most inclined to develop a homosexual orientation?

You’re trying to distance homosexuality from the concept that lust developed in the same manner as hunger – a physical need which encourages the relevant activity. A need naturally selected for as it facilitated greater reproductive chance, and therefore, a greater survival chance for the organism.

Any similar need contrary to this eventuality can then be considered a maladaptive mutation which survives parasitically through sheltering, and yes, tolerance.

It was not that this need evolved to serve a purpose (reproduction), because nothing evolves for a purpose, it is that random mutation over millions of years eventuated an advantageous psychological impetus which encouraged sexual reproduction between organisms of differing gender of the same species.

Those that did not possess an urge to copulate with the opposite sex therefore had lesser or no chance of reproducing their peculiar inclinations, and so represented an evolutionary dead end. This is natural selection, the path of least resistance.

But in the modern era, where reproduction can be accomplished or prevented through artificial means (in vitro, contraceptives) sexuality has been trivialized into a form of social bonding ritual or hedonism. Like in Brave New World where the masses seek oblivion in huge orgies.

So it gets to the point where an institutionalized contemporary male extends his submission to the state into a sexual context and starts to find other men, representing that concept of masculine authority (or spirit, or power, whatever) which he bends to, sexually attractive. In this way, he further diminishes himself and becomes even more of a dame. One should consider the future ramifications of the rehabilitation of sexual dysfunction in society, both in individual psychologies and in a wider sense the reproductive potential of a given group.

So it is little wonder why such behavior is encouraged…

In any group, where exceptions and compromises are made in order to include the less able, the general standard of that group will be measurably lowered. This is advantageous to the ones controlling the group as it makes the average member more simple-minded and offers the prospect of universal inclusion as an appeal to the most potential members… ensuring a popular sentiment to reinforce ones rule.

@apatheia

“Those that did not possess an urge to copulate with the opposite sex therefore had lesser or no chance of reproducing their peculiar inclinations, and so represented an evolutionary dead end. ”

You don’t understand evolution. This is absolutely wrong.

Any behavior that facilitates the chances of an individual’s genes making it into the next generation will be selected for by evolution. If the “best” way for an individual’s genes to spread are to not reproduce, that behavior will be selected for.

And yes, this happens. It happens as one possibility, because you share genes with your kin, and it may increase the prevalence of your genes more to assist your kin than to reproduce yourself. Two examples of this are wolves and California ground squirrels.

Generally, only one pair of wolves per pack reproduces. This is because cubs require an immense amount of resources to rear. If there were too many, all would starve. So the beta animals, who are related to the reproducing pair, help care for their cubs and propagate their genes in that manner.

In ground squirrels, the “sacrificial” sentries, who are most likely to get gobbled up by predators, further the survival of their kin, in a different manner.

There are some theories that gay humans may have evolved for the same reasons. But another, more plausible, theory, is also one of evolutionary benefit- in a very different way. Some studies have shown that the sisters of gay males are markedly more fertile. If a gene could cause a fertility boost in women, but gayness in males, evolution would still favor that gene for its survival advantages to females, and it would persist in the population.

So, it is entirely possible for gayness to be genetic yet to be evolutionarily favored.

I’ll let @iamthemob blow holes in the rest of your argument :>)

@apatheia

But in the modern era, where reproduction can be accomplished or prevented through artificial means (in vitro, contraceptives) sexuality has been trivialized into a form of social bonding ritual or hedonism. Like in Brave New World where the masses seek oblivion in huge orgies.

I don’t quite see how thinking about sexual activity as a means of social interaction and bonding is somehow trivializing it where the former thinking was that it was solely a means to an end. The separation of sex from reproduction actually gives it a more complex meaning. Regardless, you seem to think that sex has been re-marketed/repackaged as something new in order to make it more attractive. I think that the opposite is more accurate – people enjoy sex already, and therefore sex is used in marketing other unrelated things in order to make those things more attractive.

So it gets to the point where an institutionalized contemporary male extends his submission to the state into a sexual context and starts to find other men, representing that concept of masculine authority (or spirit, or power, whatever) which he bends to, sexually attractive. In this way, he further diminishes himself and becomes even more of a dame. One should consider the future ramifications of the rehabilitation of sexual dysfunction in society, both in individual psychologies and in a wider sense the reproductive potential of a given group.

In all honesty, this paragraph is quite demeaning. But not really to gay men – to women generally. Somehow, it seems you think that homosexuality (in men only) is an extension of acceptance of government dominance – some strange form of reverse-sublimation. Gay men are so thoroughly submissive that they need to express it physically. Somehow, therefore, they are able to psychologically convert this into desire for men – but, specifically targeted only to men who represent the authority of the government (or whatever authority).

Therefore, homosexuality is a need to submit. This, you argue, causes him to need to further diminish himself in some sexual act. And as he is diminished, he is made more like a woman.

What is utterly offensive about that statement has nothing to do with sexuality – but rather everything to do with how you apparently perceive women. They are not empowered. They are submissive. They yield to the will of men. I’ll not even try to counter – if this is what you actually believe, please, share it with people constantly, face to face. You really just need to test that opinion yourself, in the real world.

What is utterly ridiculous about it is that, apparently, there is only one type of gay man – and then there are those men who have sex with those gay men. But they’re not gay, right, because they are sexually dominant? They’re like, rough trade? I’m not surprised that your concept of a sexual relationship between men is based on such a heterosexist binary…but you should try to break out of that.

So it is little wonder why such behavior is encouraged…

In any group, where exceptions and compromises are made in order to include the less able, the general standard of that group will be measurably lowered. This is advantageous to the ones controlling the group as it makes the average member more simple-minded and offers the prospect of universal inclusion as an appeal to the most potential members… ensuring a popular sentiment to reinforce ones rule.

This is an argument that I didn’t think would rear it’s ugly head – but I guess I should have expected it, as it was one of teh main arguments supporting the proliferation of miscegenation laws in the U.S. prior to the Loving ruling. Whites were not to marry members of other races, because the offspring would inevitably bring down the average of the races as the pure and exceptional white DNA was soiled while it pulled the African DNA up from its inferiority. The damage that would be caused by the creation of these mongrel races!

Of course, this new version has this new and entertaining new world order style conspiracy of the man element to it. Imagine the elite cabal – thrilled at the emergence of these men who have physicalized their submission to their authority in this new, exciting way. So of course they must promote the behavior wherever they see it – which is why our government and leaders are always speaking out in favor of gay rights (...wait…) and the people are being softened to believe the civil rights call (trying…to keep…straight…face….). Eventually we’ll be seeing the men in power with enormous harems of these newly subservient gays…all of them thinking just like their leaders want them too. All of us happy, happy sheep.

And people say television is ruining our imaginations.

But seriously, I’m glad that you finally brought up the whole gays will ruin our country argument. It’s been a while since I’ve heard that version of the “infiltration” part of the “gay agenda.” Recently, people have only been focusing on the Muslim “dhimmitude” that is going to ruin America and put us all under the control of the man behind the curtain. As a gay man, I was beginning to feel left out. ;-)

…

Oh – PS…You still seem to be ignoring the lesbians. I don’t see how a woman can diminish herself anymore than she’s already been diminished, right? Because women by submitting to men sexually are clearly expressing their inferiority? That the gay men are mimicking? Right?

@crisw

Whether an organism aids its kin in reproduction or not does not allow that organism to reproduce its own distinct genetic code. Or am I to believe that kinship entails genetic identicality? Therefore that organisms unique DNA is not being inherited and it is indeed a genetic dead end.

Thus the only possible benefit to the individual for this behavior is immediate rather than generational, in the sense that it is part of a group which sustains it but does not interbreed with it, and extends only for the duration of that individual’s lifetime.

I think it is you whose understanding of evolution is fundamentally wrong, sweetheart. Nice try.

@iamthemob wrote, “What is utterly offensive about that statement has nothing to do with sexuality – but rather everything to do with how you apparently perceive women. They are not empowered. They are submissive. They yield to the will of men. I’ll not even try to counter – if this is what you actually believe, please, share it with people constantly, face to face. You really just need to test that opinion yourself, in the real world”

The consequence of a value system is that the subjects of these values will come to occupy a hierarchical order, entailing a disregard or contempt for those occupying the lower end of this order and an admiration and sense of respect for those occupying the higher end. A discriminating taste which does not allow for the concept of “rights” being applied to an organism simply because it exists. Which is another subject which this one is a manifestation of. (You may want to call me a fascist at this point. Go ahead.)

That you see in my estimation of the masculine spirit a hatred, fear, or other hyperbolic emotional motivation towards women speaks volumes about your intellectual limits and the positions you start from when attempting to understand reality.

But on the subject of women, their sexual role is to allow a foreign body to penetrate theirs and deposit its seed in order to reproduce. Don’t you suspect that this might require that a particular psychological mindset be selected for which would better facilitate this eventuality? A more submissive attitude which would be receptive to the domineering, penetrative act of the male….? An attitude that searches for the most dominant, most worthy male to submit to, in order to produce the most successful offspring.

Conversely, what does this imply with regard to the necessary attitude of competiveness, dominance and challenge that is encouraged in a male?

Natural Selection again, sweetheart. Best not to think about that; the genders (and the potential for psychological peculiarities which they instill in the individual) are a social construct which has been surpassed, after all. Keep reciting the mantra.

Aside from that, when one speaks about generalities…. one speaks about generalities. Individual exceptions to the rule are not particularly relevant when one is attempting to describe the emergence of patterns of behavior in a large selection of distinct individuals. Therefore it is possible to posit a masculine woman or an effeminate man as illustrative of the contrast between biological role and the actual outcome of nature/nurture in an individual.

I love women and I cherish femininity as expressed by women. Under the modern impetus of leveling, however, even this is being reduced.

@iamthemob wrote, “therefore, homosexuality is a need to submit. This, you argue, causes him to need to further diminish himself in some sexual act. And as he is diminished, he is made more like a woman.”

Indeed yes, my friend. As above.

@iamthemob wrote, “What is utterly ridiculous about it is that, apparently, there is only one type of gay man – and then there are those men who have sex with those gay men. But they’re not gay, right, because they are sexually dominant? They’re like, rough trade? I’m not surprised that your concept of a sexual relationship between men is based on such a heterosexist binary…but you should try to break out of that.”

Yes, that’s an interesting point actually…

Could a sufficiently youthful, effeminate male appear sexually attractive to a heterosexual male…. to the point that he appears girlish? Perhaps a priest sees in his choirboy a representation of youthfulness and femininity which attracts him….. even though the signals are being given off inadvertently by the wrong source and that he might possess a particular psychopathy which derives gratification from what is vulnerable and undeveloped. Perhaps an appraisal of his own inadequacies manifesting itself in a sexual preference towards an individual who is easy to dominate – a child, rather than an adult female for whom he would have to compete.

Again, this further reinforces my point that genders may become blurred as members of each are capable of adopting the sexual symbology of the other. Especially in the case of young males who in comparison to older are far more feminine.

And in the case where an individual may possess ideals or respect for the concept of his own gender or that of the other gender, offence may be taken by the perceived insult to these ideals.

And we wouldn’t want to give offence, would we?

So, as always, it is not a matter of either/or dichotomies, not a matter of absolutes, but one of degree wherein the subject meets an ideal to an extent but never perfectly.

@apatheia

You’re concept of the type of feminine psychology that would be selected for is completely backwards. I have to ask what you’re basing this on and if you could provide references, because that may show why you have the misconceptions that you do.

The fact that women “receive” a man during sex doesn’t mean that a submissive psychology is beneficial to a woman or the species. General submissiveness would, in fact, be a disadvantage as if it were a trait in the interaction between men and women men would not have to demonstrate any sort of fitness in order to gain sexual access to women. Because women have a significantly greater investment in the reproductive process, they have a greater interest in being highly selective (not submissive) in their sexual performance. Men compete with each other to demonstrate fitness, but it is the woman who must carefully choose who to mate with – because if she makes an error, there are drastic genetic consequences. Competition between men is, therefore, for the benefit of women.

The act itself, which you view as a submission to male dominance, is the end point. The entire process of selection up to that is to gain the attention of women, who choose the winner. It seems like your view of competition, banking on the submissive psychology of women, views the contest as between men, and the winner gets the trophy (the woman) as if winning means the prize is the forgone conclusion. No – it’s more akin to a plaintiff and a defendant in court. The compete to see who’s better fit, and the decision of who wins in the end is up to the judge – or, the woman. Men compete to get selected. Women make the selection.

Now, of course, when you bring up the whole social construction of gender, you assume a mantra that biology has been overcome by our ability to recognize it as a construct. Of course you’re right to criticize that – we haven’t. Our basic biological drives still inform our behavior generally. But we aren’t absolute slaves to them as we once were, or as other organisms are.

What’s ironic is that you work under the assumption that since our biology still has a significant role, a dominant one, in our sexual selections despite the development of reason, that the masculine/feminine dynamic plays itself out in same sex relationships. Of course, any glimpse into gay culture generally reveals a good diversity in butch/femme roles, but there is a significant showing that the characteristics generally found to be attractive by a member of the opposite sex are the ones that make a person of the same sex attracted to that individual when homosexual. View any gay male media and you’ll find that there’s an almost discriminatory preference for hyper-masculine, fit men in terms of appearance and a complimentary shunning of men who come off as girly or effeminate. Gay male couples tend to be aesthetically similar.

The ideal of gay male beauty and attractiveness is essentially the same as that for straight women. Perhaps you’ve heard the common lament of women that all of the good men are either taken or gay.

Knowing that, your description of this masculine male figure/feminine boy dynamic is abnormal. In fact, it seems to suggest that you are confusing pederasty, or even pedophilia, with homosexuality. You also seem to think that certain psychological disfunctions are reconciled by playing them out sexually so that one supresses their concerns about their own masculinity by imposing themselves on someone more vulnerable or weaker.

Where are you getting this conception of homosexuality in men, may I ask? I’m guessing, but I’ll give you the opportunity to provide support.

@apatheia

“Whether an organism aids its kin in reproduction or not does not allow that organism to reproduce its own distinct genetic code. Or am I to believe that kinship entails genetic identicality? Therefore that organisms unique DNA is not being inherited and it is indeed a genetic dead end.”

No, neither is correct.

(This is more for the benefit of anyone reading the conversation, as apatheia clearly has his/her mind made up and doesn’t want to be confused with the facts…)

Let’s say you are a female wolf. Your parents are the alpha male and female of the pack. Therefore, any other offspring that they have will share, on average, 50% of your genes.

You have two reproductive “choices.” (I put “choices” in quotation marks because none of this is conscious decision-making.) Reproduce, and without enough food, all your pups will probably die. Or help care for your parent’s offspring.

In Scenario 1, none of your genes get passed on.

In Scenario 2, 50% of your genes get passed on.

So evolution will favor Scenario 2. And, as I pointed out, this has happened many times in nature, from acorn woodpeckers to African wild dogs.

Now let’s look at the second hypothesis above- a gene that confers a fertility boost to females but causes gayness in males. You can read the original research here. As they point out, ”...in a given population (α and η fixed) the presence of the GFMH always induces a positive increment Δf of the total fecundity, with respect to the baseline value in the absence of the GFMH. ”

What that means, in plain English, is that populations that have the “gay gene” are overall more fertile than populations that do not, even though some of the males in those populations are gay. Therefore, the gene will be conserved. If your sister, with whom you share 50% of your genes, has the gene, she has more kids- who have 25% of your genes- and thus, more of your genes get into the population.

This is all simply how evolution really works.

I haven’t even gotten halfway through, but I need to point out something. @epoche said:“I do, and I also know statistics don’t lie.”

This is patently false. As Mark Twain put it “There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” Statistics are really shifty ways to say lies through completely truthful numbers, often by ommitting how the numbers were gleaned, by ignoring other factors in the results, and often enough simply by making numbers up. In fact, @epoche‘s own use of these statistics to argue something almost entirely unrelated is a great example of lying by statistic.

My only other real contribution to the conversation is to tell people that they should really get a basic understanding of how humans have lived for most of our history, and how our evolution has actually worked. Especially @apatheia. My friend’s essay series is a pretty good way to get a broad picture.

Most of what I’ve skimmed by @iamthemob is pretty good, so extra kudos. :)

@crisw,

You just self-defeated yourself. You claim to know how evolution “really” works, yet you can’t even read a scientific study properly.

If you have actually the study you linked me to, you would notice this, “However, a comparison with available data, which we perform here (see below), shows that one-locus models do not properly account for the observed GFMH dynamics. Most such models, indeed, are too unstable and cannot guarantee polymorphism under the normal variability of population conditions, such as average fecundities. These results may lead to speculate…The above conclusions indicate these models are inadequate for describing the known evidence on human male homosexuality.”

@iamthemob,

I’m going to keep this as simple as possible for you and crisw. Show me REAL scientific peer-reviewed studies that can demonstrate how a genetic dead end (homosexuality) or as @iamthemob likes to argue (sexual attractions), is not maladaptive, but can rather be selected for.

If you can’t provide such information, then homosexuality is by definition maladaptive, and this dysfunctional behavior is surviving upon human intervention through sheltering, technology, & tolerance.

A form of life that cannot survive on its own, that cannot replicate itself, is called a parasite.

Definition from (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology)

“An animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it.”

“An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.”

@apatheia

I am afraid that the one who cannot read a study properly is you. You are quote-mining, like a creationist, and, as most quote-miners do, you are utterly failing to understand what you copied.

In your quote, the researchers are describing why a one-locus model (a model describing one location for gene alleles on a chromosome) doesn’t adequately fit the data that they collected. These researchers are very clear that their model is a two-locus model and that using a model with two loci fits the described data very well. In no way are they saying that their own study is inaccurate! As they state, “We show that only the two-locus genetic model with at least one locus on the X chromosome, and in which gene expression is sexually antagonistic (increasing female fitness but decreasing male fitness), accounts for all known empirical data. ”

So I have already given you a study that shows that homosexuality can be selected for.

@crisw,

Again, stop pretending to display a scientific mind. You’re manipulating data to support your dogmatic claims. Read carefully.

”The above conclusions indicate these models are inadequate for describing the known evidence on human male homosexuality.”

They’re, in fact, concluding that this says nothing on human male homosexuality.

So, you didn’t show anything.

The previous models are inadequate.

The presented model is not.

No scientists publish a paper to state “Here is our model, but we know it doesn’t work.”

Some people are gay. Get over it.

I konw I’ve posted this before but given some of the replies to this thread I thought it might be worth repeating

@apatheia

I would like to point out that @crisw has been almost Christ-like in her forbearance here.

Please understand what she means by quote-mining, or data mining generally. When you strip a context away from the quote, it appears that the data is saying the exact opposite of what the research says. The article actually states as its conclusion: “We show that only the two-locus genetic model with at least one locus on the X chromosome, and in which gene expression is sexually antagonistic (increasing female fitness but decreasing male fitness), accounts for all known empirical data.” Indeed, that “Our results help clarify the basic evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality, establishing this as a clearly ascertained sexually antagonistic human trait.”

Part of the problem here seems to be that you are solely considering the survival of the individual in terms of adaptiveness, rather than that of a species. Specific behaviors that are, indeed, maladaptive or abnormal in terms of individual reproduction have been shown to have potential and actual evolutionary benefits on a species level, while still increasing the potential for that individual’s genes to be passed on.

One of the books that might be helpful in clarifying this is Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene.” When we consider that the drive to pass on our genes is in many ways driven by those genes, it is about the individual survival of the genes, not the vehicle. So, consider a mother who is compelled to risk or sacrifice her life for her child’s life. At a healthy reproductive age, such an act would be considered ridiculously maladaptive on an individual level. She is potentially cutting off her ability to spread her genes. However, on average in a species that strong desire ensures that more offspring will survive, even though some mothers will be lost.

@crisw‘s article clearly shows the genetic model and benefit that can provide evidence of the adaptive aspects of male homosexuality. The behavior evidence and hereditary benefit, as well as additional individual benefits, of it can be seen in articles here and here.

Now, I’ll just comment on the supremely fallacious nature of your ultimatum. You state that if we are unable to provide peer reviewed evidence that it can be adaptive, then it is by definition not adaptive. Of course, the failure to prove that something is caused by explanation 1 doesn’t prove explanation 2 – PROOF of explanation 2 does. I will note at this point, I asked you to provide evidence from your sources for your assertions, which you failed to do. Of course, now the ball is in your court.

Further, you seem to forget the very beginning of the debate – it was admitted that homosexual behavior has been seen as almost universal cross-species, and it exists in humans to this day. To argue that there wasn’t a hereditary, natural, or otherwise non-cultural reason for it seems utterly counter-intuitive as there’s no cultural dependence.

Finally, to argue that there has historically been some social approval or cultural sheltering is one of the most, well…insulting arguments that I have ever heard. Homosexuality has, somehow, been sheltered culturally and therefore it survives? The consistent persecution of homosexuals in human society seems to have escaped your mind, or you’re attempting to white-wash it in order to make an argument to support it. Either way, you must clarify how that can possibly be true, and you must provide evidence now, as we have to you.

Waits for the goal posts to be moved, yet again.

@iamthemob,

Alright, suppose it is natural as the study says; Are you saying what is natural is good?

Again, studies have observed pedophilia as a natural sexual behavior, does this mean it’s good? Captive biology of an asocial mustelid; Mustela erminea

We’re arguing whether this is good or bad right? However you and I are using natural and unnatural to say if something is good or bad, but you agreed this is a logical fallacy.

@crisw,

According to this study, since homosexuality is genetic, does this mean I can have my wife genetically screened in order to abort a homosexual baby if we choose too? If you say I can’t genetically screen for this, then it isn’t genetic?

Lust (sex drive) is genetically programmed into men because that’s the way genes make more copies of themselves, a tendency for anything that promotes the genes to promote the genes, therefore, a rapist may say that it’s genetically programmed in him to lust after women, and therefore he rapes them. However, this is false. At most your genes program lust, but they don’t program rape. You control your lust and if you don’t, you’re responsible. Then wouldn’t the same response apply to a homosexual in which he/she would be responsible for his/her homosexuality in the same way as the rapist? You can control the desire.

Let’s even imagine that person is not responsible, would it follow that homosexuality is an equally valid lifestyle? Color blindness is 100% genetically determined. There is no way to change it, and the person is not responsible, but that doesn’t make it equally valid. It’s a tragedy because they would love to change it if they could. if they can alter the genes they would, why would the person want to suffer?

Argh! The irony and hypocrisy is blinding! Turn it down, @apatheia.

If I’m a hypocrite, then it’s all the more reason to conclude that whether or not homosexuality is good or bad is based upon personal tastes and distastes, unless you have an alternative objective argument for why it’s good?

If it’s based on tastes, then why’re you trying to convince me that homosexuality is not bad?

Good? Bad? Geez, it simply is. It doesn’t harm anybody, there’s been no appreciable detrimental effect to the species because of it. For pete’s sake, “good” or “bad” has nothing to do with it.
Such a kerfuffle.

@apatheia : @iamthemob and @crisw have already done an adequate job of building up a case, despite your continual insistence that it’s somehow less “scientific” than your pseudo-scientific ramblings. If you’re going to pull the “be more scientific!” card, learn a bit about not just empirical research, but also formal logic. One big logical no-no is the assertion that someone critiquing your argument needs to present a counter one, by the way.

All I can add is an evolutionary theory I’ve pondered but not investigated much, which is that homosexuality exists as a species-wide way to limit population. Indigenous societies worldwide already do this through various forms of birth control, and we see that by and large they have huge success in using that to limit their numbers based on how many people their landbases can support. I had the idea when hearing about research that suggested women who are highly stressed during a certain period of pregnancy, if they were pregnant with a male child, would be more likely to give birth to a son that later grew up to be gay. Overpopulation, typically being a huge stressor to people, would influence the birth of more gay people. This adaptation might aid the cultural adaptation of birth control. In terms of this theory, it also makes sense to note that numerous indigenous peoples venerate homosexuals, whereas cultures that are based on the idea of exponential growth disparage and often vilify them.

So in terms of the original question, not only is there not anything wrong with being gay, but it’s quite possibly a pretty natural and neat adaptation for our species to have some gay people.

You didn’t answer my question though. The arguments presented here are saying that what is natural is good. This is the naturalistic fallacy. In order for you remain consist in this logic, pedophilia is natural, thus good. Necrophilia, zoophilia, rape, cannibalism, etc.. is all natural, so it is good according to you.

@incendiary_dan : GA before it gets modded.

Why, because I questioned your rationalism? Be consistent in your arguments. Selective reasoning is a fallacy.

I hope you don’t get modded, because the fact that you can’t answer me, proves my point.

@apatheia Okay, here’s my answer. First, your assertions are false. None of those things are natural as behavior for our species. Rape doesn’t exist in wild human cultures, despite the normalizing myth perpetuated in our patriarchal society. I don’t think I even need to address the other idiotic examples you give. Oh, aside from cannibalism, because people have the stupid ass idea that cannibalism was practiced as a primary means of subsistence by some people, and it was not. Most of the time, cannibalism is the rare occurance of indigenous peoples consuming their own family’s remains. And it’s rare.

Secondly, giving a naturalistic reason for why homosexuality might be good does not hinge on the belief that pedophelia and cannibalism are, for instance. Each needs to be examined on their own terms, so no, my argument about natural utility of homosexuality is not in any way diminished or even related to the other issues. I not only did not say “something that is natural is good”, but I did not mime it, semaphore it, or even begin to imply it. So stop inferring it.

Otherwise, as I said, I don’t need to give alternative ideas to critique yours. [removed by Fluther via internal edit] Like @iamthemob said, quote-mining and unable to properly understand the own studies you use. Take twenty minutes to read about formal logic, please.

Spiders Rape

Dolphins Rape

Dolphins Rape

Elephants Rape

Ducks, Geese, bee-eaters rape
R.O.Bailey, N. R. Seymour and G.R. Stewart, ‘Rape behaviour in blue-winged teal’, Auk 95 (1978), pp. 188–90. Also D.P. Barash, ‘Sociobiology of rape in mallards (Anas platyrhynchos): responses of the mated male;, Science197(19 August 1977) pp. 788–9

S.T. Emlen and P.H. Wrege ‘Forced copulations and intraspecific parasitism: two costs of social living in the white-fronted bee-eater’ Ethology 71 (1986) pp.2–29

*Moles and Stoats are pedophiles”:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/zoo.1430050407/abstract

Hayenas are pedophiles
H. Kruuk, The Spotted Hyena, (University of Chicago Press, 1972), p. 232

Bonobo pedophilia;
Dawkins, Richard (2004). “Chimpanzees”. The Ancestor’s Tale. Houghton Mifflin

I’ll keep going if you want. I got more on necrophilia, cannibalism and cross species(bestiality).

This is all natural, and thus good according to your logic, or are you discriminating in saying that homosexuality is natural and good, but all these other natural sexual behaviors are not?

It is you who needs a course in logic 101. You’re selectively reasoning, this is fallacious.

@apatheia Wow, you really can’t read. I said, third sentence “None of those things are natural as behavior for our species”. (New emphasis)

Read what I fucking wrote. I distinctly said that I make no claim that something being natural makes it good. FUCKING READ OR SHUT UP!

@incendiary_dan,

How is it not natural? And if it isn’t natural, then why is homosexuality natural and these aren’t?

Or you changed your mind? Which is it… So much inconsistency in your logic.

@apatheia Maybe if you’d read even a tenth of the first link I posted in this conversation, you’d have a fucking clue about what I’m talking about. (Thanks for proving you’re a self-centered dick who doesn’t bother to read other peoples’ contributions, by the way). I wasn’t kidding when I said people need to have a realistic basis for understanding how humans have existed for most of our history.

Those behaviors, with the exception of cannibalism (as I already addressed), don’t exist in wild human populations. Rape is a relatively new behavior, as far as we can tell. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is something we find in basically all human cultures, and has probably existed since homo sapiens became its own species.

@apatheia

Please, point out where the argument was that because it was natural, it was good.

The most recent posts were a response to your assertion that somehow homosexuality was maladaptive and there was no benefit to the species generally, or the organism individually.

Therefore, the most recent posts have not been about whether it was good or bad, but rather to discuss your mistaken assertions about adaptiveness, fitness, etc. – issues that are in essence morally neutral.

Now, please return to the posts that were previous to that, and you will see that we have already dealt with the issue of the naturalistic fallacy. Your argument, and that of your friend, have been mostly about questioning the biological mechanisms as “unnatural” or “maladptive.” And therefore, “bad” or “wrong.” That argument, in fact, is the naturalistic fallacy – because it is not natural, it is bad or wrong. Since we have shown the aspects of it that are natural, and how it can be adaptive, that is not an argument that speaks to the moral aspects of it.

I have already mentioned this difference repeatedly, if you will note. As you were discussing the biological aspects of it, we responded to show the flaws in what you were saying. As such, you now seem to be asserting that because of that, we’re making a point about whether one should accept being gay.

The classic comparison to pedophilia, or other behaviors that we as a society have generally agreed to be wrong, as occurring nature is the creation of a false dichotomy – if it is in nature it must be all good, or we can’t look to nature at all. Of course, that is not the case.

What’s disturbing is that you are again neglecting the fact that homosexuality in humans causes “pain” not because there is anything bad about it, but because there is a negative attitude towards homosexuality – to the persecutory level. That there’s something inherent in wanting to change it, etc. The argument that you’re presenting is that such a desire is natural, rather than a socially constructed one.

So, no one is arguing that because it is natural, it is good. But there are adaptive aspects to it from an evolutionary perspective, as have been shown. Arguments about other natural behaviors are outside the scope because they are not counter arguments to whether homosexuality is natural or adaptive. They are merely other behaviors that one finds in other animals.

Your argument now is going back to the control issue – which isn’t about whether or not homosexuality is natural, or whether it is good or bad, but rather assumes that it is still bad: “You control your lust and if you don’t, you’re responsible. Then wouldn’t the same response apply to a homosexual in which he/she would be responsible for his/her homosexuality in the same way as the rapist? You can control the desire.” The problem is that you must first show that the behaviors are equivalent, which you’ve avoided – you’ve merely stated that they are also natural.

You also state that it is equivalent to something like color-blindness, assuming that it is a tragedy and further that all who have it would want to change it. That is not the case, absolutely. Further, people don’t treat those as color blind as a category different from other sighted people as morally inferior, socially unacceptable, etc. You continue to ignore that the concept of it as immoral is wholly a cultural or social one, as all questions of morality are.

Therefore, you are committing now the fallacy of false equivalence as you need to first demonstrate that (1) there is a similarity, (2) what that is, (3) why it is relevant, and (4) what the source of that similarity is. Further, before you argue whether or not there is something bad about being gay, you must put forward how you are judging it as such – what standards you are using, how it fits those, and why those are now the relevant standards.

@incendiary_dan,

There is/was no rape and pedophilia in human populations? Exactly where is the evidence for this assertion?

And again, who cares that homosexuality is in all human cultures, what does this have to do with good and bad as the question is asking.

@iamthemob,

I’m not arguing now that it is natural or not. I said suppose it is natural, what does this have to do with good and bad. If it morally relativistic, then we have nothing further to discuss, right? I don’t like it, you do, as with all politics.

@apatheia You mean aside from my eight years of studying hunting, gathering, and gardening peoples? It’s called the sum total of ethnographic data.

I think you seriously have cognitive problems. I’m not even upset anymore. I first thought you were just being annoying, but now I think you have issues. First I give a functional reason of why I think homosexuality is a proper adaptation that serves us well, you wrongly point to naturalistic fallacy, I prove you wrong, and now you ask what it has to do with it being a good adaptation? Seriously, get your brain checked for short term memory problems.

@incendiary_dan,

But you didn’t prove me wrong. You called me a fucking idiot instead of giving me a logical answer. Where are the peer reviewed scientific studies? There are no rapes now? There is no pedophilia now? We’re not animals? We don’t perform the same sexual behaviors as observed in the animals? I’m not interested in your opinions. If you wish to present opinions, then it’s a matter of moral relativism.

Ugh. READ. That’s not what he said.

@apatheia Seriously, get checked out.

I proved you wrong in your assertion that I committed naturalistic fallacy, which was false, and then acted like the naturalistic fallacy was my whole argument, instead of having nothing to do with it at all.

Further, scientific peer reviewed articles are not the sum total of all true knowledge, and are often demonstrably false. They’re useful, sure, but without understanding research methods and such, as you clearly do not, they’re basically useless. My arguments hinge on logic as a source of trueness, something you are clearly unfamiliar with.

If you want to use biological studies of non-human animals, start by using highly social apes for comparison, because that is basically what we are. And by the way, the whole elephant rape thing only occurs in captive populations.

Gotta wonder what the OP thinks about all this, now.

@JilltheTooth I bet s/he’s put the emails from Fluther on block by now.

@apatheia “You based your argument on what is natural.”

I did not, and have now told you so three times. I also did not say scientific studies are false, just that they are not necessarily true. Please actually read my posts.

P.S. I’m at work now, so I don’t have my books, but if you want me to actually start digging out my pile of anthropology texts when I get home I will. And once again I say that first link I posted has the information you’re looking for, and you didn’t actually read it, because it has thirty huge essays with extensive notation.

Oh, @incendiary_dan , it’s obvious that @apatheia isn’t bothering to actually read through anyone’s posts, S/he’s just trolling away, now.

What did you base it on then? And how are scientific studies not necessarily true. If you know how the scientific method works, you can prove the hypothesis wrong. Gravity is not necessarily true? If you prove this hypothesis wrong, by all means, the scientific community would glorify you.

@JilltheTooth Yea, I’m getting that impression. Anyone happen to know how to report a troll?

@apatheia If you don’t know how a study could turn out to be false, then you know nothing of research methods, or reality for that matter.

@incendiary_dan,

I know how a study can be false, I’m asking you to show me which study is false.

@apatheia

I have asked you why you think it might be wrong. I asked you to provide what metrics you use to support that.

Behavior, particularly natural behavior, is considered neutral (or should be) until proven otherwise. The OP asked whether there really is something wrong with being gay. That requires someone to argue no, which requires no evidence either way because that doesn’t mean it’s good either, or right – just not wrong, or to argue yes, and then provide reasons why.

So, if you think there is something wrong, please suggest why, now that we are talking about moral standards, and what your reasoning is (e.g., what kind of harm is done).

Gee, @iamthemob , I tried to address that waaaaaay up there ^^^ with a previous incarnation. Good luck. There was double talk and ranting but no addressing of the moral judgment aspect.

@iamthemob,

Who cares what my reasonings are if it’s morally relativistic?

I’m not the one looking for equal rights, you’re. So if anything, you need to be convincing as to why it should be excepted. As you mentioned homosexuality has been consistently persecuted through out history.

@incendiary_dan, “P.S. I’m at work now, so I don’t have my books, but if you want me to actually start digging out my pile of anthropology texts when I get home I will. And once again I say that first link I posted has the information you’re looking for, and you didn’t actually read it, because it has thirty huge essays with extensive notation.”

You’re trying to tell me why homosexuality is good without conforming to the naturalistic fallacy, right?

If so, just link me to at least two scientific peer-reviews supporting your assertions, and there is nothing else to argue about. If you can’t, then what you said is not evidence.

@apatheia

I’m not the one looking for equal rights, you’re. So if anything, you need to be convincing as to why it should be excepted. As you mentioned homosexuality has been consistently persecuted through out history.

You’ve utterly avoided the question. In a country like the U.S. where one is meant to be guaranteed equal rights, prejudice against a group of people remains the burden of the State to prove. The assumption is equality, and in order to deny certain groups equal rights, there must be a valid reason to do so.

Historically, where rights have been denied a group for no reason other than they were historically persecuted, those on the side of supporting the discrimination have been shown to be on the wrong side.

This isn’t about moral relativism, or at least absolute moral relativism. Moral relativism does not entail by necessity the statement that every moral code or belief is equal to another. There can be generally accepted moral wrongs, agreed to by the majority. Where that moral heirarchy is based on the history of persecution or the desires of the majority, though, that’s exactly why the U.S. was set up as a constitutional republic – to prevent the minority from suffering under the tyranny of the majority.

Under this structure, then, it’s clear that behavior that is neutral, or traits that are neutral, cannot be persecuted in a legal or rights sense. Those advocating such must demonstrate a reason for it that is sufficiently weighty to do so.

Again, please, if you are trying to say that there is something wrong with being gay, please do so.

One second, we vote here, right? Why is it that the majority vote that homosexuality should not be legal?

How am I suppose to give you evidence when it’s a subjective answer? How are you suppose to give me evidence, if it’s a subjective answer? How is @incendiary_dan suppose to give me scientific evidence, if it’s a philosophical topic?

@apatheia : Why do you care so much? You’ve gone on and on and on and on about how it’s “wrong” or “bad” for so many biological reasons etc etc, I ask again, why do you care so much? If you have been hurt by homosexuals, I am truly sorry that that happened, but it speaks more the individual person doing the hurting, not their sexual orientation. Straight people hurt other people, too. Your vehemence on this subject seems rather overblown.

If you scroll up, I said it was wrong for X reason. I never addressed anyone specifically. I gave my opinion as you gave yours, right? I didn’t argue with you. I cared enough to give my opinion. You cared enough to give yours. You and others chose to argue with me. You could of left my statement as is.

Not really an answer to my question. I was asking out of curiosity, the level of your vehemence seems out of proportion to simply thinking it is “dysfunctional”.

Well if I called you a liar, you wouldn’t defend yourself?

I was told I’m wrong for X reason, so I argued back, until truth is established.

I don’t know how to word my question more clearly. Never mind.

You’re asking me why I’m so forcefully asserting that homosexuality is bad, no?

The answer is for the same reason you’re forcefully asserting that it’s perfectly normal.

If I still didn’t get what you’re trying to ask, apologies.

Gosh, I just went back through the thread and I can’t find anywhere that I “forcefully” asserted anything. Can you point out where I “forcefully asserted it’s perfectly normal”? It’s a very long thread, I can’t seem to find it.

Side note: I just found that the filter on the computers here blocks a lot of stuff related to gay culture as being “Adult Material”. The filter even specifically said something about LGBT stuff. I work at a state institution, by the way. What the hell?

When I said you, I wasn’t implying literally you. You were saying exactly what I’m saying now, that it’s a subjective matter. Prior to this I was justifying my subjective answer through nature. The opposition was trying to justify their subject answers through nature as well.

The scientific study that crisw linked shows that it’s natural, fine, but the answer still remains, is it good or bad. Science does not answer such questions as this is philosophical which is why I don’t see how @incendiary_dan expects to justify something to be good based on science.

@apatheia

“Why is it that the majority vote that homosexuality should not be legal?”

At one time the majority believed in a flat earth and a geocentric universe. That doesn’t mean that therefore the earth is flat and the center of the universe.

A majority of some states in the 1950’s and 60’s voted for racist politicians. Would you therefore have also supported white supremacy in those decades?

Well there is your answer, right? It’s personal distastes that don’t require evidence.

@apatheia

If it’s a subjective manner, than there is no reason why it should be illegal.

If some people think it’s wrong to be Muslim, but right to be Christian, they can advocate their position as much as they want, but they must prevent strong evidence to support the fact that it should be illegal.

If some people think that blacks are inferior to whites, it’s their right to think so, but if they’re going to advocate that there should be a legal aspect to that structure, they must present a reason for that.

One second, we vote here, right? Why is it that the majority vote that homosexuality should not be legal?

Please see above the comment on how a constitutional republic works. The Constitution emphasizes the rights of all men (and now women) are equal. The government cannot legally privilege, benefit, or regulate one person or another unless there is a reason to do so. If the majority simply doesn’t like that group, but that’s the only reason, the government is actually under the Constitution, not allowed to diminish that group’s rights.

Your argument is that since the majority of people don’t like homosexuality, they should be able to make it illegal – based on the above quote. That’s the opposite of what the U.S. is about. That is the government acting in conjunction with the tyranny of the majority.

Is it then, now, your argument that since it’s subjective about whether people like it or not, then the majority wins? That they should be able to make it illegal, or deny people rights because they’re in the majority?

I argue again that, since it IS subjective, it is no one’s right to have it legislated against even if they are in the majority. If it is subjective, then, the law MUST remain neutral about it.

Again, majority vote is not in line with constitutional republican principles on this topic.

Therefore, if it’s your personal taste that you don’t like it, you cannot use that as a reason to say that there should be laws favoring against it. You must show other objective evidence as to why your position is more reasonable.

Please do.

At the ballots, is there a requirement for me to give a dissertation? Or do I just pick an option?

You were telling me a while back that I’m setting these “rules”, but you’re doing the same thing now.

If something is subjective then who are you to say who has what right to do/say what they want?

It is the way it is.

Oh, pooh.

I just ate linguine carbonara, which contains bacon, therefore I am happy. What are others eating tonight?

Little crab cakes and an egg sandwich. Had I known we’d delve into the culinary, here, I would have planned a more interesting dinner.

@JilltheTooth Make anything interesting recently? I had a really good semi-wild meal with a bunch of my wilderness skills friends the other night. Goat neck roast, fermented cabbage and other brassicas (kimchi and sauerkraut), parsnips, carrots and some other roots I forgot what they are, a salad of mixed lettuce and wild greens, and plenty of cups of kombucha and maple beer.

I am so on my way over for those leftovers! I love game, and my BIL used to supply me with all sorts of lovely Bambi cuts. I used to do a Bam-chop thingy with a Sangria style reduction, chanterelles and wild rice. And yes, somehow they always go best with roots.

@JilltheTooth You’re now officially invited to the next feast.

Drooling, now!

Wow, I’m surprised @apatheia hasn’t complained about my obvious derailing of the argument with food talk.

In case you’re unaware, it’s something of a social convention here to start talking about food when a thread is obviously going nowhere. Because I and several others here consider you a troll, likely looking for attention more than anything else, I assumed you would make a kerfuffle about it. And really, stop calling people you don’t agree with idiots. That’s another of those basic logical fallacies, you know.

@incendiary_dan wrote “I think you seriously have cognitive problems.”

Forgot this one.

@apatheia

You have yet to respond to my request, however. Please explain how you can reconcile legal discrimination, or even advocating for legal discrimination, on a matter that is subjective or a matter of personal taste, in a system where legally the default is non-discrimination, without resort to the theories already discussed.

Who says I have to do anything? Why are you setting rules?

That’s good you think I’m a troll, all the more reason why you’re thinking emotionally instead of logically. This is how an irrational person responds when he/she has nothing clever to say.

Nope, I don’t think it @epoche or @apatheia I know it. You said it yourself up there^^^ Hi, I’m a friend of epoche. He was no longer allowed on here and has asked me to sign up to respond to you.

You came back to railroad this question. It’s pathetic.

@SpatzieLover,

Your words hurt me deeply, really. Keep derailing the topic, it’s easier to call someone names then to argue with reason.

@apatheia

“Who says I have to do anything?”

You don’t have to do anything. You’re completely free to leave your massively untenable arguments shredded on the floor of this debate.

You have no obligation to re-inflate the empty balloon of your beliefs. :-D

I’m going to stop following this question, but before I go, I wanted to say a couple of things.

It seems that @apatheia (formerly known as @epoche) just wants to argue. He’s only trying to find arguments that he thinks make sense and have to do with the topic at hand, but unfortunately it’s not working.

@apatheia / @epoche / whoever you are, you’re just wrong. You can come up with any argument you wish, but it’s not going to make gay people go away. Get the stick out of your ass and realize that not everyone thinks the way you do. We’re willing to accept the fact that you think differently than we do, but you won’t leave it at that. So, in my opinion, you’re just wrong. If you want me to cite a bunch of useless studies and articles from newspapers to support my opinion that you’re wrong, I’m not about to do that, because it’s my opinion. Just as it’s your opinion that homosexuality is wrong.

I hope that if you ever breed, your kids are gay. I’d love to see how you’d react to that.

All right, well, I’m out. I hope the rest of you also choose to give up the fight. People who don’t want to listen won’t listen, and there’s not much point in trying.

@Brian1946,

This is the smartest reply here. On a philosophical topic with no objectivity, I’m free to state something to be bad without giving reason. Thank you.

@Seelix,

You started to argue with me, not I with you. Scroll up to see that careful detail.

And I will have my wife genetically tested to see if my child will turn out to be homosexual, since homosexuality is genetic according to crisw study, and thus my wife will have an abortion if the child will likely be homosexual. This is after all the womens right to abort, right?

@apatheia

No one is saying that you have to respond. However, in response to your requests for a defense of my position, I responded, and provided you with the background information that you asked for. You have denied repeated requests from me for the same courtesy.

If you are simply saying that you don’t like it, you need to clarify that is your position. But you must also admit that you have no right to agree that there should be discrimination based on that dislike, or defend why this type of discrimination should be an exception to the general principles of the U.S. Constitution and a constitutional republic generally, again without resorting to the arguments that have shown to be failed in the past (e.g., resort to historical tradition or appeal to the majority).

If you do rely on those as support, you should show why this case is different than the others.

As you mention in response to @Brian1946, you have the right to state that something is bad without giving your opinion. And if that opinion is just the way you feel, then say that and it’s fine. However, maintaining that you have a reason to pursue a legally discriminatory framework which supports a hierarchy privileging heterosexuality over homosexuality, your opinion is not support for that. And, further, it would again simply be respectful to respond to the direct questions asked, as we have.

@iamthemob,

Isn’t that what I’ve been saying? How can I provide evidence for a subjective topic? I can only base it on personal distastes where evidence is not necessary. I can try to give evidence, but it would conforming to the naturalistic fallacy.

Keep in mind, you didn’t answer why you think it isn’t bad. You didn’t clarify your reasoning.

@apatheia

If it’s simply a matter of subjectivity, and personal taste or distaste, then you cannot advocate for legal discrimination against people who don’t do as you like.

Therefore, if you would admit that you have no right to impose your taste such that an entire group is discriminated against, we’re actually at a good conclustion.

If you continue to feel like you need to advocate for a legal imposition of discrimination you think is appropriate, then you’re doing more than stating you’re opinion on a subjective matter – you’re saying that you’re opinion is right, just and should be reflected in law, and is in keeping with constitutional rights.

I only ask for clarity on which it is.

PS – see above re: what I said about the OPs question. It is not bad because I can’t think of anything wrong with it. It’s about two consenting adults doing what they want with each other, finding members of their own sex attractive, and perhaps building a life together. I cannot see anything bad or wrong with that just as I cannot see anything bad or wrong if it involved a man or a woman. As mentioned several times above, it just is.

You’re telling me what I can’t do based on what?

What doesn’t give me the right to say that my distastes are right and should be reflected in law?

The freedom of speech allows me to discriminate just as long as it doesn’t advocate violence.

There must be a god in heaven somewhere that has allowed me to completely miss this thread and consequently the insult to my intelligence from the likes of the user above with two names/accounts. The answer to the original question is NO and I clap for the energy of my fellow flutherites in standing up to homophobia and bigotry dressed up in ‘objectivist’ morality/philosophy/etc. Well done!

@apatheia
Freedom of speech and opinion are fine. You are trolling/flaming.

You went from this argument:
Opinions are fine, but don’t try to debunk my premise using your opinion, especially when I’m using science, logic, and statistics.

To this argument:
How can I provide evidence for a subjective topic? I can only base it on personal distastes where evidence is not necessary. I can try to give evidence, but it would conforming to the naturalistic fallacy.

@SpatzieLover Um, your mom is a naturalistic fallacy. ....Sorry, go on :)

[mod says] @apatheia has left the building.

@augustlan What?! I don’t get to play, even? grumble

@augustlan

Dern you. I was coming up with a good one.

I maintained the calm for too long to be deprived of my reasoned victory against that! ;-)

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I’ll play with you ;P

@SpatzieLover – that’s what she said. ;-)

Sorry. I was hungry!

How does one prepare an @apatheia ? I bet simmering in a lot of vinegar would remove most of that unpleasant taste.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I wondered where you were!

@chyna I know! Life has been uber-busy and one kid is sick and now that Alex works two jobs, I have to take care of a lot more things around here and work is still there and my community work etc. Ugh, but it’s all for the best because I’d have gotten maaaaad.

Phew!

Well, considering that poster’s last username ( @apatheia ) we should probably be on the alert for someone coming with the name “Lethargia” or the like…

Having grown up in a Christian home, and still being a believer, I should be completely against homosexuality. But I really don’t care anymore. To each his own, right?

And holy FUCK! That troll who’s already been deleted (lmfao) on this thread makes me want to track him down and start making out with another woman on his front porch. A man like that makes me WANT to be gay…

@WillWorkForChocolate I feel the same way. If we could track him down I say you & I invite @Simone_De_Beauvoir for a 3 way….You bring the chocolate covered strawberries and body paint, okay?

You’re on! But if there’s gonna be chocolate, it’ll make me thirsty. Think you couldbring a couple of Dr Peppers?

MmmHmmm! I’ll bring ‘em along in a mini cooler with ice ;)

I’ll bring pants. For @iamthemob , of course. Or for anyone who wishes to adorn their head.

Oh goodie! Maybe we should just send the invite out as an orgy?

I’ll bet Auggie’s already nekkid and just waiting for us!

Did I hear something about Tequila?

@JilltheTooth Pffft, Auggie’s always nekked! I’m just waiting for her to get her whip out.

@JilltheTooth No, don’t bring @iamthemob pants! <leering at @iamthemob>

Only for hat purposes, I promise. Or I could make a special pair for him. <wink wink, nudge nudge>

Okay, Thank you soooo much guys for your answers. I had no idea my question would be so…discussed! I really appreciate that you guys really helped me understand that everyone has thier own ways and how science is really envolved in peoples choices most of the time. Thanks everyone! :D

Just the fact that the question had to be asked shows that it is wrong.
It is wrong to act upon homosexual desires just as it is wrong to act upon insestual desires or sexual desires for little children etc. I am a man and I have a natural sexual desire towards the opposite sex. However, even though that desire is natural it is still wrong to have sex outside of marriage (Just ask your wife if you don’t believe me). Stealing is always wrong even if you were born with the “natural” desire to steal. Everybody, not just those with homosexual desires, have desires to do bad things and just because those desires are “natural” (you were born with them) in no way can justify acting upon them.
Not only is homosexuality always wrong but it is also an UNATURAL desire.

@CarpenterBret You know, because I was brought up as Southern Baptist, I used to feel the same way. Until I grew up and began thinking for myself.

So WillWorkForChocolate, you have acted upon your desire to rebel. And what might I ask led you to believe differently than how your parents raised you?

Here we go again… eyeroll

@DominicX chuckle

Just wondering how much of a coincidence it is that a brand new user finds this exact Q about the validity of being gay when there are so many to choose from? Could this possibly be @epoche or @apatheia (or were they one and the same?) come back to revisit the subject???? A mystery, for sure!

Well, you can’t say that some trolls aren’t persistent…

@CarpenterBret You want to know what led me to believe differently? People like you who look down their nose on other lifestyles, simply because you think it’s “wrong”.

If I’m going to be judgemental towards people, I’m usually judgemental towards those who are doing something to harm themselves. I’m even judgemental of myself because I smoke and eat junk food. I refuse to pass judgement against gay people. They’re not hurting anyone, not even themselves. So what if they’re attracted to members of the opposite sex? As long as both parties are consenting adults, then I see no reason to put them down for it.

It’s a lifestyle, nothing more. Should I also be judgemental towards heterosexual couples who enjoy a little bondage play? I myself really enjoy being bitten and spanked. Am I going to Hell for it? No. I will likely have a lot to answer for when I stand in front of God, but I refuse to answer to any other human who looks down their nose at me for who I am.

I smoke, I drink, I dance, I cuss, I will personally torture and murder anyone who touches my kids, I’d like to have sex with a woman to see what it’s like, I eat meat, I spank my kids when they’ve seriously misbehaved, I watch porn with my husband, I have tattoos and piercings, I like a little S&M, I write erotica, I’ve played poker for money, I’m addicted to chocolate and my computer, I’m angry with God a lot of the time and I feel no shame in that….... I could go on.

We all have “sins” and “skeletons in our closets”. We are ALL hypocrites. But at least I admit to being a hypocrite. Closet hypocrites like you, who pass judgement on other people and have some stupid notion that you’re above it all, well… it just makes me sick.

JilltheTooth, you and your cohorts are a little paranoid don’t you think?

In before “I’m not a troll, I just have different beliefs and you guys label everyone that’s not liberal as a troll blah blah blah…”

And just to potentially head off some of the clusterfuck:

@CarpenterBret Whether or not you are the same person returning, I request that you take the time to read over what many of us have said in our comments above, so we don’t end up just rehashing what we’ve already said.

Also: “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.”

WillWorkForChocolate, so you judge smoking and eating junk food to be wrong but no homosexuality? You judge youself and me to be wrong but you draw the line at homosexuality?
So your criteria for deciding what is right and what is wrong is “both parties are consenting”? So if an adult gets consent from a 5 year old boy (let’s say for arguments sake his own son) then that kind of father-son insestual sex is OK?
So if I can show that somewhere in the world that homosexual sex has harmed someone (those committing the act) then you will accept that it is wrong?

WillWorkForChocolate, you are about the most judgemental person I have seen. I guess you were just trying to brag about your hypocrisy like you like to brag about your other sins.

And actually you are wrong about what goes on in your marriage:
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

You can’t even practice legitimate sex without a bad conscience.

WillWorkForChocolate, I didn’t just make up the idea that homosexuality is wrong and I don’t hate homosexuals. But they will be judged (no not by me.)
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

“Closet hypocrites like you, who pass judgement on other people and have some stupid notion that you’re above it all, well… it just makes me sick.”

WillWorkForChocolate, When did I say I was above it all?

So if I don’t agree with you I make you sick?

Why are you so hateful?

@CarpenterBret /facepalm
1. I said consenting adults. Learn how to read.
2. I’m perfectly within my rights to be judgemental of myself
3. a man having sex with a man is not hurting himself, or anyone else, no matter your opinion
4. we may all be judged, but that doesn’t give you the right to say we’re wrong.
5. If you can’t say anything remotely logical, other than to quote scripture, then put your foot back in your mouth and swallow it.

My cohorts, @CarpenterBret ? No, I claim my paranoia as all my own! <looks behind me, eyes darting side to side> The circumstances of you picking this one Q out of so many choices just made me wonder. Well, have a good time, I can smell the smoke already…

“1. I said consenting adults. Learn how to read.”

WillWorkForChocolate, SO YOU DO THINK IT IS WRONG, SINFUL, BAD ETC. in other cases?

“2. I’m perfectly within my rights to be judgmental of myself.”
But you are not in your rights excusing other peoples sins.

“3. a man having sex with a man is not hurting himself, or anyone else, no matter your opinion”
I actual do know of homosexuals who have passed STD’s to their partners. Don’t tell me that homosexual activity has never been harmful. Talk about living in a closet.

“4. we may all be judged, but that doesn’t give you the right to say we’re wrong.”
God says you are wrong. I didn’t write the Bible.

“5. If you can’t say anything remotely logical, other than to quote scripture, then put your foot back in your mouth and swallow it.”
You are the one who brought God into this discussion. Your hypocrisy is showing again.

Wow, you really do sound those other folks up there, @CarpenterBret , with your cherry picking of points and circular arguments. If you’re not them, then maybe you’re a cousin?
Hey, @incendiary_dan, what did you have for lunch? I always love your food posts!

I see a pattern in this forum:

Hate truth, hate goodness, hate your neighbor, hate the Bible, etc.

Love evil, love sin, love hypocrisy etc.

Judge those who don’t agree with sin.

Excuse those who sin.

I just came across the Question in a Google search and thought I would answer how I believe.
I did not know that the question was insincere.

@carpenterbret “I actual do know of homosexuals who have passed STD’s to their partners. Don’t tell me that homosexual activity has never been harmful. Talk about living in a closet.”
Men pass it on to women and women to men also.

I will leave this forum now (I have a feeling I will be kicked out anyhow).

You will all believe like me one day anyhow.

I will give everyone else the last word. Well at least until the God of the Bible has the last word.

Bye.

@CarpenterBret : Did you read the thread before you jumped in?

Good riddance

See ya! Don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!

Wait…what? No food? Damn, I am so losing my touch! This is the second time in recent days I’ve failed to get food going. Crapdoodle. Besides, I wanted to see if we could take this to 300 answers…

If Carpenter man is so stuck on sin, I bet he had a problem with my naked Dave Navarro avatar… bwuahahahahaha!!

So Ms. Tooth… tell me… how do you feel about… canteloupe?

I like chocolate better, hee hee but in the heat of summer…a juicy cantelope…running down my chin…yeah. A good thing…

Mmmmm. I’m spending the night with a friend tonight, and I think there’s supposed to be barbeque and melon for us to pig out on.

And I already had chocolate today… but I might be really bad and have some more later!

@CarpenterBret However, even though that desire is natural it is still wrong to have sex outside of marriage (Just ask your wife if you don’t believe me).

I took your advice and asked my wife. She agrees with you that sex outside of marriage, based upon our commitment to each other, is wrong. Oh, and by the way, I am a female as well.

@Pied_Pfeffer LFMAO! ;D

I was actually gardening and researching natural fertilizers. So food related. Mostly, though, I just stopped following this thread.

Oh Jesus, this again? @CarpenterBret, I have a piece of wisdom for you: quoting scripture that says homosexuality is wrong to a bunch of people who either are homosexual or are 100% cool with homosexuality isn’t going to get you anywhere.

Just let him rant, kids. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was @epoche or @apatheia back again.

@Seelix :So you’re in my paranoid camp, too, huh? Come sit next to me, Sweetie, I’ll give you a cookie.

Wait… there’s cookies?

C’mon over, @WillWorkForChocolate , cookies for you, too!

:(

@CarpenterBret

So if I can show that somewhere in the world that homosexual sex has harmed someone (those committing the act) then you will accept that it is wrong?

If you knew that it was only sex with men, for either gender, that was harmful, would it therefore prove that it is sex with men that is wrong?

Because I can do that…

@queenie : C’mon, sweetie, we didn’t forget you. I have many cookies. You, too, can have many cookies.
You too, @iamthemob .

@JilltheTooth – you should have all the cookies – you caught this one before I did. I want to be the first to call out someone’s true colors, dern it! ;-)

@JilltheTooth purr… mkay ^-^

Cookies for everyone! Well, maybe not @epoche , @apatheia , and @CarpenterBret , I’m sure they’re contaminated. They’re GAY cookies! Which, BTW means happy in some circles…

Gay cookies are yummy!!

Did you know that “GAY” stands for Great And Yummy?

@JilltheTooth I do now :D Thanks for sharing that Jill