Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
Jor-el

Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?

2,645 posts in this topic

Jor el, this is current data on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia....ual_orientation

The relationship between biology and sexual orientation is a subject of research. A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated—various studies point to different, even conflicting positions—but research suggests that a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation.[1][2] Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are more popular,[1] and biological factors may involve a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[3] These factors, which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation, include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

Yes I know, before I started this thread I did some studying on the issue and I was at that wiki page myself. The point is that there is something that is not mentioned anywhere..

Prevalence.

If the norm is heterosexuality and not merely one of many different sexual orientations then it can equally be classified as a deviance from the norm, which suggests a genetic or hormonal imbalance or mutation, which could then be curable by genetic therapy, which will be soon available to many with a wider selection of possible alterations we can will on our offspring. from eye colour to sexual orientation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes I know, before I started this thread I did some studying on the issue and I was at that wiki page myself. The point is that there is something that is not mentioned anywhere..

Prevalence.

If the norm is heterosexuality and not merely one of many different sexual orientations then it can equally be classified as a deviance from the norm, which suggests a genetic or hormonal imbalance or mutation, which could then be curable by genetic therapy, which will be soon available to many with a wider selection of possible alterations we can will on our offspring. from eye colour to sexual orientation.

You havnt answered my question. If intolerance of differences is a deviation from the norm and damages people, shouldn't we isolate those factors and come up with a therepy for it? After it has caused much if the misery and death in the world right?

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jor el what is your point?

That religion is merely the patsy for a much wider human feeling against homosexuality. When religion is removed as in the case of Nazis and Communism, the homosexual community was still treated badly or even worse than badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to read about them fully before you make such stupid statements like this. As so rightly pointed out, they had it in for everyone who were not one of them!.

How can you possibly bring in Hitler on this when the main thing he wanted to destroy were the Jews? bringing in Hitler into that is very low and a big disrespect for ALL those who died!

Bull.

Contrary to what many people may think, those two societies killed more non Jews than they did Jews. So imagine if you please just how many people they did kill.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You havnt answered my question. If intolerance of differences is a deviation from the norm and damages people, shouldn't we isolate those factors and come up with a therepy for it? After it has caused much if the misery and death in the world right?

Absolutely, if it were genetic deviation, instead of human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That religion is merely the patsy for a much wider human feeling against homosexuality. When religion is removed as in the case of Nazis and Communism, the homosexual community was still treated badly or even worse than badly.

Nazies targeted Christians churches aswell and only tolerated them during the war, but there was a plan to deal with church afterward.

You need to step up On your history there jorel. Homosexual behavior was not an issue before abrahamic religions. Not in many native American societies not in ancient Greece. If intolerances existed it was not the norm.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, if it were genetic deviation, instead of human nature.

Hmm I hope you realize that If we are going with the gene theme, then all of human nature is genetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And if a cure fr that was found would you not be as much against it as I am for a similar thing?

Absolutely, it still won't change the fact that it will be attempted.

You seem to be doing more than that though.

Yeah, I can remember seeing Gattaca and saying wow, that would be so nice!! (not :no:)

And? Just by pointing out instances where religion was not involved does not change the instances where religions do.

What it does show is that you are not fighting the correct enemy, you are merely fighting one of its effects.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, it still won't change the fact that it will be attempted.

Not necessarily if people are vigilant and against such attempts.

Yeah, I can remember seeing Gattaca and saying wow, that would be so nice!! (not :no:)

The reason you come off as sounding for it is because you're givin exciuses a to why it would be attempted and you sound pretty on board with them.

What it does show is that you are not fighting the correct enemy, you are merely fighting one of its effects.

Since a religious belief is against homosexuality yeah, it is the enemy not just a 'effect'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nazies targeted Christians churches aswell and only tolerated them during the war, but there was a plan to deal with church afterward.

You need to step up On your history there jorel. Homosexual behavior was not an issue before abrahamic religions. Not in many native American societies not in ancient Greece. If intolerances existed it was not the norm.

Absolutely, but then again so was pedophilia. look how things change and stay the same even then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bull.

Contrary to what many people may think, those two societies killed more non Jews than they did Jews. So imagine if you please just how many people they did kill.

I do apologize, I did not realize that more homosexuals were killed than any one else. That is what you meant isn`t it, otherwise you would not have mentioned it in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily if people are vigilant and against such attempts.

And when it become a crime against your children for not allowing it, I would love to see you then.

The reason you come off as sounding for it is because you're giving excuses as to why it would be attempted and you sound pretty on board with them.

I merely have eyes and they are watching events today.

Since a religious belief is against homosexuality yeah, it is the enemy not just a 'effect'

And if that were so, you would not find such attitudes anywhere else, but the fact is you do, which effectively eliminates religion as the cause.

I do apologize, I did not realize that more homosexuals were killed than any one else. That is what you meant isn`t it, otherwise you would not have mentioned it in the first place?

No, they were one of many different groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes I know, before I started this thread I did some studying on the issue and I was at that wiki page myself. The point is that there is something that is not mentioned anywhere..

Prevalence.

If the norm is heterosexuality and not merely one of many different sexual orientations then it can equally be classified as a deviance from the norm, which suggests a genetic or hormonal imbalance or mutation, which could then be curable by genetic therapy, which will be soon available to many with a wider selection of possible alterations we can will on our offspring. from eye colour to sexual orientation.

This is where you are in your understanding, ( I mean no disrespect to you and I do commend you for trying to explore this none the less, all changes of mind begin with questions.)

So in your case I'd suggest that you look at your premise for starters ( get it more objective) as you are showing a bias by assuming heterosexuality is the norm. The norm is not heterosexuality, the norm is one of 4 sexual expressions which are as follows: homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality and asexuality.

Human sexuality is the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses.[1] Human sexuality can also refer to the way someone is sexually attracted to another person – which is determined by their sexual orientation – whether it is to the opposite sex (heterosexuality), to the same sex (homosexuality), having both these tendencies (bisexuality),[2] to all gender identities (pansexuality or bisexuality),[3] or not being attracted to anyone in a sexual manner (asexuality).

http://en.wikipedia....Human_sexuality

Edited by Sherapy
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when it become a crime against your children for not allowing it, I would love to see you then.

See that right there is why you sound like you support it!

I'd fight any such attempts to do so, as would any right thinking person.

I merely have eyes and they are watching events today.

And you seem pretty complacant about it all.

And if that were so, you would not find such attitudes anywhere else, but the fact is you do, which effectively eliminates religion as the cause.

Religion has homosexuality is a sin, that is part of the problem. Which part of that is, in any way, unclear? Is it the only problem/ no, but it's pretty prevalent.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That religion is merely the patsy for a much wider human feeling against homosexuality. When religion is removed as in the case of Nazis and Communism, the homosexual community was still treated badly or even worse than badly.

This has no bearing on the issues we have with homosexuality today. In the modern day it is religions (some) that are perpetrating the discrimination we have towards gays today. It is these same religions that think that being gay is a genetic mutation for which they offer the solution as altering ones DNA to get rid of. To which I say, I will have no part of it.

Instead I use Science as my guide and it says there are 4 sexual expressions normal to humans and that ones sexual expression is in part genes and in part environment across the board regardless if one is gay, straight or bi.

Science gives me the best possible data with which to inform me on the matter of human sexuality and I base my conclusions on the findings. If I was going to religion to inform me of science I would be practicing ignorance, which does not work for me.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

' biblical' sins are an illusion. What is taboo in one culture may be perfectly normal in another. As western society sheds the influence of middle eastern mythology, the only 'sins' we will keep are the common sense ones. No killing, lieing, stealing etc etc.

I imagine homosexuality is a complicated psychological and biological factor that will be a different mix In the individual. This is what heterosexuality is aswell. No different really were all human and I imagine it's in the best interests of evolution to spread our preferences out as wide as possible. Even if that means some evolutionary dead ends. this would ensure the best gene diversification.

I can assure you my interests in woman are not a choice. If I could turn it off at times I would. I imagine it's the same for a homosexual person ( besides the turning off part). It's silly to call it a sin based on what amounts to primitive social dogmas.

Could not have said it better..... :tu:

Now, I have listened to more then a few Gay Men, that are no longer " Gay "....Not sure what to say after hearing that. If I listen to them, it is a choice.

I doubt anyone will know, unless they are Gay. And even then, they can not explain it to anyone else.

This guy was very interesting.......And warning, it is Howard Stern.....

[media=]

[/media]

This also.......

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nature, just as some humans have blue eyes and some have freckles. I think what is wrong is to spend too much time thinking about why anyone is attracted to another person. That's their business.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nature, just as some humans have blue eyes and some have freckles. I think what is wrong is to spend too much time thinking about why anyone is attracted to another person. That's their business.

Exactly.

Except : Women attracted to guys that treat them like crap.....I never got that one.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where you are in your understanding, ( I mean no disrespect to you and I do commend you for trying to explore this none the less, all changes of mind begin with questions.)

So in your case I'd suggest that you look at your premise for starters ( get it more objective) as you are showing a bias by assuming heterosexuality is the norm. The norm is not heterosexuality, the norm is one of 4 sexual expressions which are as follows: homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality and asexuality.

Human sexuality is the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses.[1] Human sexuality can also refer to the way someone is sexually attracted to another person – which is determined by their sexual orientation – whether it is to the opposite sex (heterosexuality), to the same sex (homosexuality), having both these tendencies (bisexuality),[2] to all gender identities (pansexuality or bisexuality),[3] or not being attracted to anyone in a sexual manner (asexuality).

http://en.wikipedia....Human_sexuality

Not according to biology and nature. According to social values and acceptance sure, you have my vote, but looking at coldly merely from the biological perspective, it is a dead end path. As has been referred to here, it may be natures way of controlling human population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sakari; I have no idea why they are, any more than I understand men who fall for demanding _itches. I guess there really is a cover for every pot, as my grandmother used to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not according to biology and nature. According to social values and acceptance sure, you have my vote, but looking at coldly merely from the biological perspective, it is a dead end path. As has been referred to here, it may be natures way of controlling human population.

What is your argument then Jo rel? You have lost me.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See that right there is why you sound like you support it!

I'd fight any such attempts to do so, as would any right thinking person.

And you seem pretty complacant about it all.

As I said I am merely conveying facts. Whether you and I like it or not it will in fact become popular because the interest in it will be to make all humans better, healthier, stronger, long lived and so forth, the side effects will be ignored, population control, telling us what to think do and say. conformity... Elimination of aberrations and minorities as interpreted by the social structures of that time.

Religion has homosexuality is a sin, that is part of the problem. Which part of that is, in any way, unclear? Is it the only problem/ no, but it's pretty prevalent.

The part that human nature runs deeper than any religion and according to many, religion is merely an extension of human nature, a side effect if you will. If you want to start change that is where it lies. Not in the effect but the cause.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your argument then Jo rel? You have lost me.

That one cannot blame homosexuals for who and what they are, but it is not to be construed as normal behavior in light of our most basic aspects as a species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, but then again so was pedophilia. look how things change and stay the same even then.

I don't recall pedophilia being an accepted part of most societies other than greeks, but you are now arguing cultural realtavism not genetic utility. So which is it? If you are arguing some sort of naturalism based on genetic utility, then we should follow our natures. I should have a haram of young woman with lots of kids, I should kill my Neighbour for his wealth, and let the fittest and most able people get what their skills and dominance can get. The most genetically successful man ever, was ghangis he is an ancestor of 1/3 of northern china. let's follow in his path if we want to maximize genetic strength.

What happens when the science comes about to let men bear children or women inceminare themselves.... Oh it will. What then? If sexuality is just about reproduction, Homosexuality will no longer be an issue right?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put it this way. Is being straight a choice? Does anyone here remember simply CHOOSING to be attracted to the opposite sex? Did anyone walk down the street and say "I'm gonna be straight for the rest of my life?" I highly doubt that. The very belief of sexuality being a choice in itself is an illusion and many people fall for it. Homosexuality is simply the attraction to the same sex, just like heterosexuality is the attraction to the opposite sex. Homosexuality shouldn't be considered a sin at all. If that were so, then heterosexuality would have to be a sin as well.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.