151 replies to this topic

[Odin11]

Mr Walker, on 06 October 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

Just to be pedantic. No other animal can engage in homo sexual beahviour, in that homo means man.  Other animals engage in same sex sex,  not homosexuality. If they did, that would be beastiality from our perspective.

If you feel the need to be pedantic, you might want to be sure you actually know what you're talking about.
Homo is a greek prefix meaning: the same, not human. It is the opposite of hetero meaning: different.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Mr Walker, on 06 October 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

Just to be pedantic. No other animal can engage in homo sexual beahviour, in that homo means man.  Other animals engage in same sex sex,  not homosexuality. If they did, that would be beastiality from our perspective.

All animals (with a few exceptions) are driven by a strong sexual urge which causes some strange behaviors, like our desexed lab humping my wife's knee, a blanket, and anything else which takes his interest. He doesn't have an attraction to them perse, just a driving need to hump something. Perhaps his lack of opposable thumb and manual dexterity, leads him to these measures.
I would find any human who modelled this "natural" behaviour, just a tad offputting/disturbing, I must admit.

Well, no. In Latin, Homo means "man, human, self", sure.
In science, however, Homo means "same" and hetero means "different", i.e. homogeneous and heterogeneous, homosexual, heterosexual.

There is no such thing as "natural human behavior", as the phrase is used today, to edify. Unless you were born before thousands of years before the advent of civilization, you mean "human cultural behavior". Big distinction.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 06 October 2012 - 05:49 AM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Odin11, on 06 October 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

If you feel the need to be pedantic, you might want to be sure you actually know what you're talking about.
Homo is a greek prefix meaning: the same, not human. It is the opposite of hetero meaning: different.

Boom. You just got served.

Jokes aside, if someone wants to come on this thread and argue about how homosexuality is "unnatural", don't bother trying to engage me in conversation.


You spend ten years researching biology, then come talk to me.
.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 06 October 2012 - 05:52 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Odin11, on 06 October 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

If you feel the need to be pedantic, you might want to be sure you actually know what you're talking about.
Homo is a greek prefix meaning: the same, not human. It is the opposite of hetero meaning: different.

Its not often I learn something new. But i am happy to admit it when I do.
See the post below by imaginary number. I was educated in latin and am an english teacher.   I never learned greek.  Homo sapiens means sapient man, not sapient same  (I am also a history teacher). Why should homo sexual mean same sex?  Am I caught out by the illogicality of english? Perhaps.

And yet the ancient greeks and romans called homosexual men, man lover or lovers of men. In the etymology of the word the greek meaning was only attested in the early 1900s Given the historical overlap of greek and latin in ancient times i am not  absolutely convinced which etymology is correct, but given modern understandings  I am prepared to accept that, currently, homosexual means between the same sexes.  Fair cop. But it has no wider ramification than that. While you can call same sex sex between animals homosexual sex (even if it grates on me persoanlly) that has no bearing on the wider isue of the nature of such attraction

[Rlyeh]

Humans are also the only animals who can deceive themselves into not only worshipping imaginary friends, but killing those who have different imaginary friends.

[Mr Walker]

Imaginarynumber1, on 06 October 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

Boom. You just got served.

Jokes aside, if someone wants to come on this thread and argue about how homosexuality is "unnatural", don't bother trying to engage me in conversation.


You spend ten years researching biology, then come talk to me.
.

I am not arguing that it is unnatural, just that natural doesnt automatically mean the best or optimal form of anything and that one should not argue that because a  condition  is natural it is automatically right or productive. Homsexuality is a natural genetic condition. So is infertilty in many cases  That alone doesn't make either an acceptable or productive  alternative.  Should an infertile person be condemned ,denigrated, looked down on, treated poorly, disciminated against, etc., or loved less for a condition thay had no say in? No of course not. Neither should a homosexual person.

Will their natural condition affect all things about their life and lifestyle, and define/separate, them from fertile/heterosexual people in many ways? Yes, of course.

Will the removal of all prejudices and discriminations  make them fertile or heterosexual and restore to them the attributes and consequences of fertility and hetero sexual attrction ? NO .

Therefore,will real physical barriers, Including their tiny minority status, constraints and effects (including harmful  effects), remain while they are infertile or homosexual, without any discrimination or prejudices? Yes of course.

Edited by Mr Walker, 06 October 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[Timonthy]

So we just show more love than other species. More hate too yeah?

[shadowhive]

Mr Walker, on 06 October 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

It is a silly and usless comment. Of course humans are the only animals who are homophobic. They are the only animals capable of creating this linguistic /symbolic construct and applying it.

You've missed the whiole point of the original comment. The natural part was addressed at homophobic people that say 'homosexuality is unnatural'. Hece, that was what the comment was aimed at.

Personally I find nature a rather odd thng to argue. Homophobic people certain shouldn't use 'it's unnatarural' as a valid arguement since our lives are filled with things that are unnatural. It's funny how the people that say 'it's unatural' are more than willing to benefit from or use other things that are unnatural if it suits them.

Mr Walker, on 06 October 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

Its not often I learn something new. But i am happy to admit it when I do.
See the post below by imaginary number. I was educated in latin and am an english teacher.   I never learned greek.  Homo sapiens means sapient man, not sapient same  (I am also a history teacher). Why should homo sexual mean same sex?  Am I caught out by the illogicality of english? Perhaps.

And yet the ancient greeks and romans called homosexual men, man lover or lovers of men. In the etymology of the word the greek meaning was only attested in the early 1900s Given the historical overlap of greek and latin in ancient times i am not  absolutely convinced which etymology is correct, but given modern understandings  I am prepared to accept that, currently, homosexual means between the same sexes.  Fair cop. But it has no wider ramification than that. While you can call same sex sex between animals homosexual sex (even if it grates on me persoanlly) that has no bearing on the wider isue of the nature of such attraction

As others have said the pre-fix 'homo' has two different meanings. That shouldn't really come as a surprise, many words have different meanings depending on the situation in which they're used (one of the reasons that makes English a tricky language to learn). Also, since there have been many languages in the world, it's hardly surprising that the same word can have completely different meanings in other languages.

Whether the term grates on you personally makes no difference to the actual meaning of the word.

The oddest thing about you is that you use pretty much the same logic as a homophobic person does and come up with the opposite conclusion. ie a homophobic sees a gay person as different and thus reason to hate them, you see a gay person as difference and thus reason to pity/love them. Is that better? Yes and no. Yes because, well love is better than hate, but no because (all things being equal) you see homosexuality with a degree of negativity. Don't believe me? Look at the comparison you constantly make to infertility. You constantly compare homosexuality to something which is negative, why? And how is that much better than homophobic that compare homosexualty to pedophilia?

[Ron Jeremy]

I can't recollect the source, but I remember reading that humans have a very unique tendency of being hostile to other humans with different sexual behavior, which means reproductive strategy. That's why many people do not tolerate promiscuous behavior or homosexuality.

You know, I try not to be homophobic. But ironically working at the entertainment industry as a production artist made me hate some gay people. Some gay people (mostly in the showbiz) do not respect others sexuality, meaning they don't care if others are straight. They will still want to bone you no matter what. Many of the casting couch BS are gay affairs and I am afraid that I will have to face that kind of situation someday.

[Beckys_Mom]

Ron Jeremy, on 06 October 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

They will still want to bone you no matter what.

I hate it when a straight guy acts and thinks in the same way.. Ohh look another part of human nature at it's most  greedy and idiot stage...Animals the lot of em   lol

[Ron Jeremy]

Beckys_Mom, on 06 October 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

I hate it when a straight guy acts and thinks in the same way.. Ohh look another part of human nature at it's most  greedy and idiot stage...Animals the lot of em   lol

Gay or straight, men are pigs.

[Mr Right Wing]

Still Waters, on 05 October 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

Stephen Fry has denounced critics of same sex marriages claiming there are 260 animal species that have gay tendencies but only humans are homophobic.

The author, actor and presenter also accused the Church of England of caving in to “screeching” extremists who he claims have spread lies about gay marriage.

Fry, who is gay, spoke out in a new video, for the Out4Marriage campaign, which has persuaded a string of celebrities and politicians to back its calls for reform.

During a three minute monologue, he says gay people “used to be regarded as villains because we were so bohemian and outrageous and we eschewed family values, but we’re not.

"We’re human beings like everybody else and we believe first and foremost in love.

http://www.telegraph...homophobic.html

So is this an attempt to reduce us down to being mere animals by Mr Fry?

Humans have a spiritual dimension which animals dont and thats why people are against homosexuality.

[Mr Walker]

Imaginarynumber1, on 06 October 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Well, no. In Latin, Homo means "man, human, self", sure.
In science, however, Homo means "same" and hetero means "different", i.e. homogeneous and heterogeneous, homosexual, heterosexual.

There is no such thing as "natural human behavior", as the phrase is used today, to edify. Unless you were born before thousands of years before the advent of civilization, you mean "human cultural behavior". Big distinction.

I missed your last comment, last time round This is not quite true. Some behaviours are genetic such as our sexual orientation/behaviour. Some are evolved biological responses such as the fight or flight mechanism.

Certainly some behaviours are cultural or more specifically they arise from our human self aware sapient state. Ie we know cause and effect, we undertaand the nature of time; and so we do things like hide a crime, put off immediate gratification for greater later gratification.

And we create societal laws and rules around all three of these responses and possibly  others. Eg a human can't just follow a biological impulse as other animals do, which causes problems for others, and say, "My biology made me do it" Or "she made me angry so i killed her. "

We cant just say our genes made us do it either, if it harms others. And we cant justify anti social behaviour which we chose, if it harms others.

So sex is a natural human behaviour, as is eating and breathing. It is biologically driven. The forms of sex we undertake as humans may be driven by our genes, our biology, or our aquired tastes and cultural norms. Not all forms of sex are eqaully productive, safe, or equal in outcomes.
That is true in  biological terms, genetic terms and cultural terms.

[Mr Walker]

shadowhive, on 06 October 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

You've missed the whiole point of the original comment. The natural part was addressed at homophobic people that say 'homosexuality is unnatural'. Hece, that was what the comment was aimed at.

Personally I find nature a rather odd thng to argue. Homophobic people certain shouldn't use 'it's unnatarural' as a valid arguement since our lives are filled with things that are unnatural. It's funny how the people that say 'it's unatural' are more than willing to benefit from or use other things that are unnatural if it suits them.



As others have said the pre-fix 'homo' has two different meanings. That shouldn't really come as a surprise, many words have different meanings depending on the situation in which they're used (one of the reasons that makes English a tricky language to learn). Also, since there have been many languages in the world, it's hardly surprising that the same word can have completely different meanings in other languages.

Whether the term grates on you personally makes no difference to the actual meaning of the word.

The oddest thing about you is that you use pretty much the same logic as a homophobic person does and come up with the opposite conclusion. ie a homophobic sees a gay person as different and thus reason to hate them, you see a gay person as difference and thus reason to pity/love them. Is that better? Yes and no. Yes because, well love is better than hate, but no because (all things being equal) you see homosexuality with a degree of negativity. Don't believe me? Look at the comparison you constantly make to infertility. You constantly compare homosexuality to something which is negative, why? And how is that much better than homophobic that compare homosexualty to pedophilia?

I absolutely see homosexuality as a negative thing.  But i dont see it reflecting on   the nature of the person who is, by no choice of their own, a homosexual. Thats not logical  i see it as a form of genetic disability and something which limits and restricts humans affected by it. That is because, viewed logically, rationally, and dispassionately, it is.

One only has to look at the negative statistics in every area of homosexual life, compared to a similar cohort of heterosexuals. Much of this data comes from homosexual health and other sites. Eg Homosexuals often find it almost impossible to find a hiomosexual doctor or health professional with a personal understanding of the issues they face That makes them both more reluctant to seek help and less likely to be given the best and most helpful advice. This affects health outcomes.

Homosexuals have a higher rate of depression and suicide because of the social isolation they face especially in rural communities They have higher rates of cancer of various types, some cause by the forms of sexual activity forced upon them, and inpart because of the lifestyles forced on them by being a very small minority.

I compare it to infertility because; first genetically it is very similar and creates similar issues, and secondly to illustrate why it should not be used to fear hate discriminate etc against a person forced by the genes to be homosexual We dont fel this way about peole whose genes make them infertile. Why on earth should we feel this way about people whose genes give them an attraction to the same sex.
Homosexuality, without any prejudice or discrimination, is still a dangerous and limiting  condition. First because of all the physical and social disadvantages which come form being part of a very small minority group, and in part the real health problems especially  for men, which come from same sex, because of huma biology.

  It distresses me that, understandably, many people exist in a state of denial about the efects of homosexuality on themselves and  other homosexuals.  To adress a problem one has to be honest and open abouthe nature of the problem and firt s to admit tha there is a problem.  Homosexuals need not just a lot of exra love but a lot of extra care and support. Even then they cannot live a life equal to hetero sexuals in many respects, just as an infertile person can't live a life equal to a fertile one, and enjoy the same outcomes.
We all learn to deal with our nature, and it may even make us stronger and more resilient if we face hard times and difficulties. That doesnt make it a good thing  to have to face those issues. It destroys, or at least damages in many ways, as many as it toughens up.

Edited by Mr Walker, 06 October 2012 - 12:26 PM.

[Mr Walker]

Double post

Edited by Mr Walker, 06 October 2012 - 12:32 PM.