So what your saying is that the majority of people in the world are bi-sexual, since “pure” heterosexuality and homosexuality is rare?
wouldn’t that also mean the majority of homosexuals are actually bi?
Also, please acknowledge my point that if homosexuality isn’t by choice, wouldn’t they be destined by genetic heritage to follow one path only. Would this not contradict the view that human’s can vary from natures blueprints? (and if anyone says nature doesn’t have a blueprint, they’d be ignoring our food chain, photosynthesis, animal/human instincts and anatomy, all precipitation etc;)
…the smile was unintentional
**Rook wrote:
My grounds for saying homosexuality is not natural is the fact the nature SUGGESTS heterosexual sex for the survival of our species (Has everyone agreed on this yet or are there still those who choose to ignore the facts?)**
Okay, I’ll agree that heterosexual sex is necessary for the survival of the species, but what of it? Why do you then insist on saying homosexuality is therefore “unnatural.” Why the vehemence on this point? You insist on using this word without defining it specifically for your meaning.
If you wonder why people are angry or frustrated at you, please remember the arguement about homosexuality being “unnatural” has been used as a basis for denying that group basic civil rights. Is that what you’re trying to do? If not, then what are you trying to do?
If such a gene exists, to me it’d be classified as a mutation. A change in genetic make-up that’s out of the “norm” and doesn’t clearly serve as an advantage for survival, such as albino mutations.
Given the premise that homosexuality is genetically based, then when it first appeared, yes, it could be considered a mutation, but now, since it’s reached a stable distribution in the general population, no, it’s not longer a mutation. It’s just one of many traits that have variations within a given range. Think of hair color or blood type.
Kinsey’s scale of human sexuality (in which I’ve never heard of before this thread) was defined as a scale of sexual expression.
If you’ve not heard of Kinsey or his scale before this, then PLEASE do some serious reading. Just enter Kinsey scale in a web search engine and that’ll get you started.
quotes from
http://www.raw-psych.com/biod.html
“Problems arise when peers attempt to classify each other as pre-teens and adolescents. Some males go through the equivalent of sexual harassment as other teens try to seek out and label people who seem gayer than themselves. It’s like nobody wants to be the “gayest” so who is called gay eventually gets displaced from person to person. The guys all the way down the bottom of the spectrum end up having no choice in the matter of their own sexual preference in the future. They’ve been rejected by mostly all heterosexual peers and can not identify with their own gender. These males are forced to identify with either female oriented activity and/or seek out males with similar queer or feminine characteristics in the future. Ultimately, sex with another male will be the quintessential form of gender acceptance and assimilation to maleness”
“There can be so many more factors in what goes into an entire human being’s sexual preference. Suppose for example, a male who had enjoyable sexual experiences with another male when very young ended up entirely gay as an adult. He may have been accepted by other guys and had masculine characteristics yet his mind became quite homosexual. Many other sexuality scenarios can arise but I think there is still great worth in my theory mentioned here. For the most part, by general observation and interviewing people who call themselves gay, it seems to hold true for the majority of the cases.
An even better approach seems to be to study the inverse – the cause of heterosexuality. In other words, something has to “cause” one to be heterosexual. One possibility is this: Heterosexuality is caused by acceptance from one’s gender and assimilation to that group. There may be some homosexuals who have had this acceptance and assimilation. But it’s unlikely that there are very many heterosexuals who haven’t had it. All of this seems to support the theory of a sexuality spectrum or a Kinsey Scale very nicely. We each need different levels of acceptance from our gender, we each have different levels of feminine and masculine characteristics, and we each meet fulfillment of sexuality development at different levels and different times in our lives. Therefore, a spectrum would exist rather than a trichotomy of conditions. If this is the case, we may be able to change sexual preference to some extent but an all out “cure” for homosexuality would be out of the question. With these circumstances taken into account, it’s hard to say that there really is any actual sickness to cure. Sexuality, in general, seems to be a combination of how we are innately (biologically) designed and society’s influence on us as a youth”
This theory suggests many homosexuals have a choice
I’d just like to clearify the argument I intended from my first expression……
“I’m not a religious freak and think that people should be able to do what they want, but it’s obvious that nature didn’t intend same sex relationships. So by saying that gay people were born gay is like saying nature screwed up- If that’s true, it’s hard to believe it screwed up every time someone accepts they are gay. That’s a lot of screw ups!”
let me brake this down for you……
“I’m not a religious freak and think that people should be able to do what they want,”
by saying that I let everyone know I wasn’t prejudice in any way (which I’m not)
“but it’s obvious that nature didn’t intend same sex relationships”
by saying that I only pointed out nature most certainly suggests heterosexual. If the first two human were homosexual or had the “gay gene”, our survival would not have been insured and human life would’ve ceased to exist.
“So by saying that gay people were born gay is like saying nature screwed up….”
I realized I could’ve put it in a more diplomatic way but I meant a gay gene would be abnormal, and if this gene was to create itself in the majority of the human race, it would threaten our survival. Basically a mutation of the original DNA that’s suggests heterosexual sex.
“If that’s true, it’s hard to believe it screwed up every time someone accepts they are gay.
In this I was saying I find it improbable that everyone who claims to be homosexual has the mutation.
“That’s a lot of screw ups!”
Upon reading this comment, I do see I could’ve worded my questions much better and I apologize to anyone I’ve insulted. I honestly wasn’t calling homosexuals screw-ups. My meaning was it’s highly unlikely a mutation could be so common.
I would say exactly the opposite. Read the final sentence again. It says that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological design and environmental influence during childhood. In other words it is determined by factors outside the individual’s control, and before the individual is able to “choose” for himself or herself. By the time the individual would be in a position to “choose” for him/herself, the sexual orientation has already been determined.
In other words, the quote that you provided backs up everything you have been told by the gay and lesbian posters here, and it directly contradicts your assertion that “many homosexuals have a choice.”
You may want to try reading these quotes before you cite them in the future.
I don’t understand what that means.
Nature suggests that the female of the species should eat the male of the species after sex (praying mantises). Nature suggests that individuals should sniff each other’s butts to identify each other (dogs). Nature suggests eating one’s own children if too large a litter is born (many species that give birth in litters).
Nature does NOT suggest: marriage, kissing, wearing clothes, art, literature, jet engines, space flight, disco music, and polyester pants.
I’m being facetious, of course. But here’s the point: Nature suggests whatever works for that particular species. In the case of many non-human mammals, survival is ensured by the individuals forming into groups of a single male and a large harem of females. The male fights off or kills all other males that challenge his dominance, and the females all sire the males offspring. That is what works best for those particular species. It’s what helps their species to survive. It’s what nature “suggests” for them. It’s what is “natural” for them.
In the case of the human species, the ratio to homosexuals to heterosexuals has remained roughly the same throughout all of recorded history (at about 5-10% of the population), as far as research has determined. And this is despite the fact that homosexuals reproduce at much lower rates than heterosexuals. Certain societies have even attempted to wipe out all homosexuals, in the hope that some sort of “mutant gene” like you keep suggesting would be eliminated from the species along with them. But with each new generation the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals remains the same. This indicates that having a 5-10% ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals is “natural” for the human species. It is what “nature suggests” for the human species. It’s not just an errant gene. It is “nature” for the human species.
Does the existence of homosexuality in the human race play a positive role that enables the human species to survive better? One can definitely make that argument. Homosexuals may not benefit the species in terms of having lots of children, but they may increase the survivability of the species as a whole in other ways.
But all that is tangential to the main argument here. The main point is that homosexuality is “natural” to the human race just as being left-handed is natural. Homosexuality can’t be eradicated, even if you were to kill every homosexual in the world. It will still be just as much a part of the next generation of humans as it was part of the previous generation. It is “natural.” It is what “nature suggests” for the human race.
Is any of this information sinking in yet, Rook?
Let me amend that. It really is necessary to spell these things out for some people.
The main point is that a 5-10% homosexual population is “natural” to the human species just as a certain percentage of left-handed people is natural. Homosexuality can’t be eradicated, even if you were to kill every homosexual in the world. It will still be just as much a part of the next generation of humans as it was part of the previous generation. It is “natural.” A 5-10% homosexual population is what “nature suggests” for the human race.
Do you put even a minor amount of thinking in what you’re asking, or do you just type in anything moronic? It’s like you just barely skim what people write and then come back with some stupid question that was answered in what they wrote to begin with or, as noted, by something you’ve posted yourself.
Absolutely not. See, this is what I’m talking about. Where the hell would you get that from what I wrote?
With the Kinsey scale, which you clearly have still not read anything about, people can fall anywhere on the scale, but the vast majority fall to the sides - either straight or gay. The existance of a middle does not necessarily mean that most gay people are in the middle.
I don’t really understand what you’re saying, so I can’t really acknowledge it.
Regarding “nature’s blueprint,” someone addressed that earlier - where did you get the charming idea that nature has a logical thought process? Where is this “view” you’re talking about? I don’t know where anyone other than yourself has proposed it.
There’s one thing that I think you don’t understand, and now that we’re in the Pit, I get to tell you - when I see a naked man, my dick gets hard. A lesbian gets wet when she thinks about Sandra Bernhard’s titties. That is what makes someone gay. A heterosexual man will get hard fingering a hooker’s twat. These are not choices, they are (dare I say it?) instinctual reactions. No one has fully explained how they came to be, but you persist in the delusion that somehow someone somewhere is controlling my dick getting hard. What gets your dick hard, Rook? Did you “choose” that?
[minor grammar notes]
your - belonging to you
you’re - contraction for “you are”
predjudiced - adjective
predjudice - noun
A person can be prejudiced, or hold a prejudice, but cannot “be prejudice.”
brake - to slow down
break down - to break into smaller pieces for easier comprehension
Put it all together:
“You**'re** all misunderstanding me, let me break it down for you so you don’t think I’m prejudiced.”
[/minor grammar notes]
The man is arguing about homosexuality and has never even heard of Kinsey for Christ’s sake! Why bother?
Esprix
Actually, she scares me…
:d&r:
**Rook explained:
“but it’s obvious that nature didn’t intend same sex relationships” by saying that I only pointed out nature most certainly suggests heterosexual. If the first two human were homosexual or had the “gay gene”, our survival would not have been insured and human life would’ve ceased to exist.**
You’re making the old “what if” arguement, here. What if everyone turned homosexual; humanity would die out in a generation! What if an asteroid came crashing to earth; we’d all die because of catastrophic changes in the enviroment! What if by some strange quirk of fate all the nuclear weapons suddenly went off; the earth would be plunged into a nuclear winter!
The likelyhood of that ever happen is so infintesmaly small you could safely ignore it. Look at it this way, in the distant past, homosexuality was pretty well accepted in socieity (within certain social contexts, especially for people in leadership positions). In each case, homosexuality never “took over” or started spreading as if to infect the entire population. What makes you think it would do so now?
There are over 6 BILLION people on this planet, I think we can safely assume that humanity will not have a problem of dying out because of a lack of breeding instinct.
Yeah, someone needs to update the Lesbian stereotypes list.
Please remove Sanda Bernhard from your list. Please replace with either Angelina Jolie or Gina Gershon. Thank you.
Rook:
Excuse, but what are you asking here? That if homosexuality was genetic, that homosexuals would be destined to only have homosexual relations? If so, then answer to that would be “yes”.
Rook, instead of asking “what is the one thing nature suggests?” Try asking “does nature suggest only one thing?” or “does nature abhor diversity?”
If you can raise a case that nature has no interest in producing a diverse population, then we’ll talk. However, for now your point of view is way, way, waayyy too narrow.
DavisMcDavis re: our earlier discussion
I see your point and I concede the point. Homosexual activity in these women does mean orientation. Oh, but one small nitpick, some lesbians do like penetration…as long as it’s done right.
I didn’t mean to perpetuate any stereotypes - my one good lesbian friend just adores Ms. Sandra (sexually) so I that’s what popped out of my mouth. Plus I love Sandra Bernhard - her centerfold issue is the only copy of Playboy that I’ve ever bought.
Angelie Jolie - now THAT’S scary. Her lips are just creepy looking and deformed, both her and Esther Canadas both look like someone rhinoplastied a vagina in the middle of their face. Eeeks. But I guess if I liked vaginas I’d find that attractive…though I never found Nixon attractive, so maybe not…
[aside] [the capitalization of the word lesbian reminded me of] That same friend of mine once found an old folk record from the '70’s called “Living with Lesbians” that cracked us up - the liner note told how only a Lesbian ear could appreciate this Lesbian’s music. You just draw out the “L” - “LLLLesbian.” You know, a native-born Lesbian. Ida know, I thought that was funny. “It’s not that my record sucks or I can’t sing, it’s just that you’re not gay enough to appreciate it.”[/aside]
Pretty much is I guess. My wifes nefew Gene is gay so …must be others
So how many homosexuals do you believe could contribute their sexual preference to the environment during their childhood or family upbringing?
First you need to explain what “contribute their sexual preference to the environment” means.