My view on HOMOSEXUALITY.... Am I wrong? how?

[dunkedinsauce]

Damn, never was able to put it together like that but, I agree 100% with the OP.
Alotta debates in this thread are disregarding OPs idea of a humans natural ability to reason and deal with this "mutation" when u guys comparenature/naturality and animals to humans and homosexuality

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey


Again, homosexuality is WAAAAY TOOO COMMON to be a meer aberration.

is it really that common considering 6.7 billion humans? what percentage of humans on this planet would you estimate are gay? I don't think there is any statistical evidence to support such a figure.

again, a genetic mutation keeps surviving if there is no predator. so with every new generation, the mutation continues to survive and will continue to do so, but it doesn't make it any more natural just because it exists.

you keep babbling about predators and mutations. do you even know what you're talking about?

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

...

and just the fact that it exists in nature outside artificial intervention is enough. who cares about the prolificacy of it. it existed before humans. what's your point?

QFE

Numerous mutations ranging from null to deleterious also exist in nature, outside artificial intervention. They pop up every single day and every single second as a consequence of slight deviations from the "normal" DNA replication and translational events, but you certainly wouldn't go around claiming that they are normal. Or should one assume that because they happen so frequently, they cannot possibly be aberrations...taking into account that less than 1 percent of these mutations are actually beneficial to the host organism...

LOL I never said heterosexuality wasn't the "norm"

....I said it was very common is mammals. It is more common than a mere aberration or mutation such as 3 legged cows. Oh by the way, Bonobos are OD gay

. As are Dolphins. Lions. Horses.....basically any mammalian species has that potential. Some more than others.

I only brought up heterosexuality as a point of comparison. I mean, anyone can state that homosexuality is common--but relative to what. There has to be a point of comparison in order to accurately determine just how "common" it is--as you claim it to be. And from my p.o.v, it only seems fair to juxtapose it to heterosexuality simply because these two complexes from a mutual dynamic.

Now considering your statement "... homosexuality is WAAAAY TOOO COMMON to be a meer aberration..." in context and in relation to Heterosexuality, it is more than clear that homosexuality IS NOT COMMON...because in nature, HETEROSEXUALITY > HOMOSEXUALITY...

What does this mean--well in those few instances where scientist THINK (because the only way one can be sure is to actually speak bonobo) they saw evidence of homosexuality, they could have simply witnessed aberrations of some sort.

Also one thing you should consider which I doubt you do--in those animal groups where scientists think they witnessed homosexuality, there is often times a dominance hierarchy with the dominant male securing all the mating rights while inferior males are left with blue balls. Now granted a few of these males may sneak matings, the reality is, the majority do not. And what happens when a sexually primed male cannot secure a female--guess what's the next best thing.

In nature, there is never an instance where a sexually dominant male with access to females will go after males to mate with. THAT'S A FACT. The males that engage in "homosexual" acts do so because they lack access to female mates and the only way for them to have sex is to get a bromance going on...

Now in the case of females, "homosexual" tendencies are simply tactics used to reinforce female bonds while keeping persistent males at bay. This is the case with female bonobos. Even so, during mating season, the majority of these females, if not all of them, that are sexually mature will submit to the dominant male and mate with him--a clear reversion to Heterosexuality. Interestingly enough however, bonobos also exhibit monogamy--where one female couples with one male...no homosexual tendencies here. So in the end, all these accounts of homosexuality in nature, are not even really "homosexual" in the sense of the word. Furthermore, you have to realize that there is no way for me or you to accurately state that a certain behavior occuring between same sex organisms constitutes homosexuality simply because we're not members of that particular animal group...

In nature, "homosexuality" is not the norm or is it natural in the context of evolutionary processes.

...


...


1. Homosexual behavior in other species does not necessarily need a reason (reinforcingbonds/dominance). Bonobos and other animals are very sexual creatures and have been known to have sex for leisure....ie. Bonobos and Dolphins. I said itbefore, sexuality is a contnuum, it isn't as black and white as we humans make it out to be.

2. Human homosexuality may just be a vestigial trait of animal homosexual behavior. All you did in theabove post was give a bunch of reasons and theories as to why homosexuality exists in nature. The truth is and you said it yourself "we don't speakbonobo". From my observation (what I've read and watched in documentaries about Bonobos) I have concluded that Bonobos are super-sexual animals whoengage in both homosexual and heterosexual behaviors for LEISURE. Some of what scientists observed in other mammals was male dominance gay sex. Some of it wasalternative mating (male who don't get females), some of it was just plain homosexual sex for leisure ie. Dolphins and Bonobos.

3. Whatever the reason is.....homosexuality is natural.


Good night. My head hurts....I should be studying for my neuroanatomy final instead I'm herearguing why men screw each other SMH.

 

[jrdnsrnss]

Theres been documented cases of wild animals showing homosexual signs. I remember in my Anthro class my professor was talking about how scientists encounteredtwo male koalas showing signs of homosexuality towards each other. Heres a link to backup some of this info, didn't mention the koalas but lists severaldifferent kinds of animals.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

 

[beavers n ducks]

I'm agnostic. I don't care about none of this +%+ . To each is own. Just don't touch me. I stay in Atlanta. It's the new San Fran but moreflamboyant.


Do you and I do me

 

[alchemiss]

I can reproduce just fine. Sperm and turkey baster. The end

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by DunkeDinSaucE

Damn, never was able to put it together like that but, I agree 100% with the OP.
Alotta debates in this thread are disregarding OPs idea of a humans natural ability to reason and deal with this "mutation" when u guys compare nature/naturality and animals to humans and homosexuality

WHAT? Why does this mutation need to be "dealt with". What does reasoning have to do with homosexualit. Gays are supposed to reason their way out oftheir homosexual feelings. Please elaborate.;.......Aite back to bed.

 

[shadydatguy]

Originally Posted by TrueshotAura

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

I'll say it's a genetic oddity and mutation but its not a defect. +#%@ we need more gays with the rate of overpopulation.

More gay people would not decrease human reproduction since a lot of gay people still reproduce in a way to hide their sexuality.

word. they'll find a way to get a baby.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

SuperAntigen the words being argued was his use of "natural" and "defect" and his subliminal suggestion of a "final solution" whether he wants to man up to the fact that that's what he was getting at or not.

"normal" is relative and subjective. no one was arguing over that. what you consider "normal" might be +%%@*@@ bizarre to me. the point was it occurs naturally, therefore how often you see it occur yourself is unimportant. it's still natural.

How does the proof that it is natural support the proof that it is not a mutation?

 

[s0lefunk]

Originally Posted by ShAdYdaTGuy

Originally Posted by TrueshotAura

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

I'll say it's a genetic oddity and mutation but its not a defect. +#%@ we need more gays with the rate of overpopulation.

More gay people would not decrease human reproduction since a lot of gay people still reproduce in a way to hide their sexuality.

word. they'll find a way to get a baby.

While homosexuality is still looked down upon, it is definitely becoming more accepted in the mainstream. I'm not gonna sit here and look forstats but I would think that, overall, more gay and lesbian couples with a child resorted to adoption over impregnation. All other things aside, homosexualityhas definitely played and continues to play (though arguably to a lesser extent) its part as checking overpopulation.

But OP, I agree 99.9%. While I believe genetics is definitely an underrated player in homosexuality, there are still a good number of cases where it justcomes down to a person's life experience and choice. Thats why I try not to "gay-bash" or anything cause knockin someone for their genetics justaint right..

 

[btonnt]

Are we suggesting a psychological mutation?...wouldnt such a mutation, serving that purpose, rather be expressed physically?

and havent we mapped the Human Genome?

 

[fade on you]

This again?

 

[j671]

I think sometimes its how they are being raised in the child hood years

 

[dirtylicious]

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

Basically, I have always thought that being gay is a genetic defect in the human species..

I believe that if every human was gay, there would be no human race, therefore, being gay is unnatural.

how is it unnatural...when it's basis (according to your theory) is based on genetics?

it may be antithetical to an organism's fitness...but that's completely different from unnatural.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife

Basically, I have always thought that being gay is a genetic defect in the human species..

I believe that if every human was gay, there would be no human race, therefore, being gay is unnatural.

how is it unnatural...when it's basis (according to your theory) is based on genetics?

it may be antithetical to an organism's fitness...but that's completely different from unnatural.

How does it being natural support the claim that it's not a mutation?, by your definition everything is natural.

 

[theone2401]

sexuality is a contnuum, it isn't as black and white as we humans make it out to be.
/thread...why is it so hard to see this simple answer? You dont even need to be a scientist (I am not) to see that this is the case.

 

[dirtylicious]

by your definition everything is natural
..unless manipulated on by others, eg genetic research, or selective breeding.

don't confuse natural with normal in nature

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by Nako XL

SuperAntigen the words being argued was his use of "natural" and "defect" and his subliminal suggestion of a "final solution" whether he wants to man up to the fact that that's what he was getting at or not.

"normal" is relative and subjective. no one was arguing over that. what you consider "normal" might be +%%@*@@ bizarre to me. the point was it occurs naturally, therefore how often you see it occur yourself is unimportant. it's still natural.

How does the proof that it is natural support the proof that it is not a mutation?

Homosexuality is too common to be just a mutation.....it has hereditary (not necessarily your simple mendelian inheritance as some are implying in this thread)and environmental (probably pre-natal hormone exposure??)

MUTATION RATES ARE VERY SMALL and RANDOM.

More generally, the mutation rate in eukaryotes is in generally10[sup]-4[/sup] to 10[sup]-6[/sup] mutations per base pair per generation[sup][4][/sup], and for bacteria the rate is around 10[sup]-8[/sup] per base pair per generation[sup][5][/sup]. The highest mutation rates are found in viruses, which can have either RNA or DNA genomes. DNA viruses havemutation rates between 10[sup]-6[/sup] to 10[sup]-8[/sup] mutations per base per generation, and RNA viruses have mutation rates between 10[sup]-3[/sup] to10[sup]-5[/sup] per base per generation[sup][5][/sup]. Human mitochondrial DNA has been estimatedto have mutation rates of ~3×10[sup]-6[/sup] or ~2.7×10[sup]-5[/sup] per base per 20 year generation (depending on the method of estimation)[sup][6][/sup]; these ratesare considered to be significantly higher than rates of human genomic mutation at ~2.5×10[sup]-8[/sup] per base per generation[sup][1][/sup].

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by BTonNT


Are we suggesting a psychological mutation?...wouldnt such a mutation, serving that purpose, rather be expressed physically?

and havent we mapped the Human Genome?

They haven't found a definite gay gene, they have however found genes that play a roleand seem to increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior.


And psychology and behavior are controlled by neuro-chemical mechanisms which are influenced bygenetics. So mutations don't have to be expressed physically. Good question tho.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

by your definition everything is natural

..unless manipulated on by others, eg genetic research, or selective breeding.

don't confuse natural with normal in nature
And i think this is why there is always a debate surrounding this kind of talk...we're all defining the one word differently...

Cool...

Now I see where you and Anton seem to be coming from. From my interpretation of things, you both seem to suggesting that because homosexuality occursindependently in nature, free of external manipulation, it's "natural"...cool that's very understandable...

But like you already brought up yourself...don't confuse [natural] with [normal in nature]...so in other words, though homosexuality may be a"natural" occurrence that arises spontaneously in certain individuals, it doesn't mean it's normal in nature...

Correct...

 

[be4chst]

Originally Posted by Lizaker4Lizife


I believe that if every human was gay, there would be no human race, therefore, being gay is unnatural.

This statement by itself completely blew my mind....
Thank you I just learned the lesson of the day.

 

[btonnt]

Good question tho.

thanks

not necessarily your simple mendelian inheritance as some are implying in this thread

that's obvious or I dont think the topic question would even be relevant for debate.

psychology and behavior are controlled by neuro-chemical mechanisms

controlled or influenced?

So mutations don't have to be expressed physically.

would you clarify? how else would mutations be expressed? are we suggesting mutations can occurpsychologically?


imo seems so much belief is predicated upon speculation and disconnected theories and choice. to the point that it seems itmight as well be established as its own religion. no offense intended towards anyone, it just seems from what I see. seems there's lots of selectivewording as well.
I wouldnt deny genetics plays a role in influencing an individual's behavior perhaps making one more susceptible toenvironmental factors....but why is there such a preemptive drive and resolution in holding that homosexuality must somehow be genetic? if there wereany substantially solid evidence it would have been promptly submitted and publicized given the intense desire for that to be the reality. I don't thinkit's sensible to actually have a desired outcome if one is approaching something scientifically or objectively. Could we at least sincerely consider thepossibility that it's not determined genetically?

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by Nako XL

SuperAntigen the words being argued was his use of "natural" and "defect" and his subliminal suggestion of a "final solution" whether he wants to man up to the fact that that's what he was getting at or not.

"normal" is relative and subjective. no one was arguing over that. what you consider "normal" might be +%%@*@@ bizarre to me. the point was it occurs naturally, therefore how often you see it occur yourself is unimportant. it's still natural.

How does the proof that it is natural support the proof that it is not a mutation?

who's drawing lines between the two except MAYBE the op (and Anton whenever someone asks him this question) but why are you asking me that?

if you want to know my position, no homosexuality is not a mutation. but i never addressed that before this post...

 

[cycopth]

so gay people r mutants?....................looks like we r going to need some setinels to track down these mutants.

 

[doctorshoes]

Of course homosexuality is biological. That's why it's found in nature as well. I don't know why it matters anyway, just accept gays and move onwith your lives. And no, homosexuality can't die out just because it's evolutionary disadvantageous. The gene will always exist, it's hard toactually wipe out a gene because of so many factors involved and the complete randomness associated with the passing down of genes. Homosexuality is entirelybiological, that's a fact that just cannot be disputed.
Homosexuality is only a problem because society makes it a problem.

 

[st0nefayce]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html