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

Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?

2,645 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sherapy

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.

How so? I am not following you.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

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.

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.

Jor el, what facts have you presented and for what? You are not making sense to me.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

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?

It was an accepted part of many societies. Including the Roman, Persian and many others you would care to name. And if I remember correctly it was you that brought it up.

As you yourself stated:

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

As we can see a number of things weren't an issue back then, but society evolves, we have simply picked and chosen on what to "evolve" on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

How so? I am not following you.

Did you not state that all 4 sexual inclinations are the norm?

I propose to you that that is an error. Acceptable socially yes, the norm? NO.

The norm is defined by the function and the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

As we can see a number of things weren't an issue back then, but society evolves, we have simply picked and chosen on what to "evolve" on.

Some chose a religious belief which does not accept homosexuals, you call that evolving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Did you not state that all 4 sexual inclinations are the norm?

I propose to you that that is an error. Acceptable socially yes, the norm? NO.

The norm is defined by the function and the majority.

I did posit based In Science that there are 4 sexual orientations that are considered normal.

How is this in error?

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.

http://www.apa.org/h...rientation.aspx

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

I propose to you that that is an error. Acceptable socially yes, the norm? NO.

I will agree, its is not the norm, socially acceptable? not every where.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

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.

By 'facts' you mean a horror story of humanity completly destroying itself for the sake of 'perfection'. Because that's what you're sayin. That humanity will take itself apart piece by piece until nothing is really left.

If that alternation ever happened what you'd have left wouldn't be human by any stretch of the imagination. Everything that makes us human would be purged in the search of perfection.

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.

Like I said to pa, ignoring the religion has to play is dangerous and just result in creating a scenario like in his society where religion can do what it likes to gay people becaue it's not thought of as part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sundew

Can you point out to me where it does so?

Easy enough, do a Google search on the Bible and homosexuality:

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13

Romans 1:26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

By 'facts' you mean a horror story of humanity completly destroying itself for the sake of 'perfection'. Because that's what you're sayin. That humanity will take itself apart piece by piece until nothing is really left.

If that alternation ever happened what you'd have left wouldn't be human by any stretch of the imagination. Everything that makes us human would be purged in the search of perfection.

Like I said to pa, ignoring the religion has to play is dangerous and just result in creating a scenario like in his society where religion can do what it likes to gay people becaue it's not thought of as part of the problem.

Indeed because Science has posited this position since 1975. I do not disagree that their are specific groups that do not know this (ignorance) or if they do disregard it, and put forth data that is misleading and in error and harm producing.

http://www.apa.org/h...rientation.aspx

Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being. The prejudice and discrimination that people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual regularly experience have been shown to have negative psychological effects. This information is designed to provide accurate information for those who want to better understand sexual orientation and the impact of prejudice and discrimination on those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

I think is more than fair to ask why one adheres to ideas that are not founded in actual fact-- known to be harm producing. At the very least I would ask what is the point in spreading them? I would seek to start a conversation as often this clears up misunderstandings or misinformation..

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

Did you not state that all 4 sexual inclinations are the norm?

I propose to you that that is an error. Acceptable socially yes, the norm? NO.

The norm is defined by the function and the majority.

In reality there are multiple situations where more than one thing is considered normal.

He's a few: eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, IQ. Take hair colour. Blonde hair, ginger hair, black hair and brown hair are all conidered to be normal. It doesn't matter which is the majority, the fact is that all of those are considered normal, natural variations. Same with skin colour. And eye colour. And a laundry list of other things.

Humanity is based on variation. Like I said, there is no such thing as a 'normal' person in the terms you describe due to that variation. You have to accept that the variation exists and not rely on what is in the majority alone.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

In reality there are multiple situations where more than one thing is considered normal.

He's a few: eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, IQ. Take hair colour. Blonde hair, ginger hair, black hair and brown hair are all conidered to be normal. It doesn't matter which is the majority, the fact is that all of those are considered normal, natural variations. Same with skin colour. And eye colour. And a laundry list of other things.

Humanity is based on variation. Like I said, there is no such thing as a 'normal' person in the terms you describe due to that variation. You have to accept that the variation exists and not rely on what is in the majority alone.

Indeed for very good reason as it helps contribute to a culture in a fair and harmless way.The point of an education is to use it in a way that brings the greatest good for all involved. We are responsible to contribute in a way that is beneficial to all involved, even when they are not part of our group. It is called tolerance and this is the act of respecting diversity. and any disagreements have to be handled in a way that is based in justice and dignity and we have to be mindful of our part in understanding what it means to be tolerant, it is our responsibility. For ex: If my kids are in error on a position it is my job to point them to resources that are up to date and sound in understanding, not limited to my POV.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

Indeed because Science has posited this position since 1975. I do not disagree that their are specific groups that do not know this (ignorance) or if they do disregard it, and put forth data that is misleading and in error and harm producing.

http://www.apa.org/h...rientation.aspx

Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being. The prejudice and discrimination that people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual regularly experience have been shown to have negative psychological effects. This information is designed to provide accurate information for those who want to better understand sexual orientation and the impact of prejudice and discrimination on those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

I think is more than fair to ask why one adheres to ideas that are not founded in actual fact-- known to be harm producing. At the very least I would ask what is the point of spreading them?

I wonder that as well. Why maintain a belief that causes harm and has no basis in fact, especially when the harm is obvious for all to see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I wonder that as well. Why maintain a belief that causes harm and has no basis in fact, especially when the harm is obvious for all to see?

I think it is a good question, in all fairness. I would hope someone would ask me if it was me, and correct me if I was misinformed -- in the end I'd appreciate it. I could be in error-- that is why we have feedback and conversations.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

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.......

They are probably just bi an waffling, but a big misunderstanding is the difference between homosexuality and homoerotica. Many people consider the Greeks homosexual because of some of their practices but much of it was actually homoeroticism rather than actually haveing preferences for the same sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmoonlady

There is a fair difference between biological predetermination and whether or not a society or culture accepts that biological determination. Arguing that culture should determine whether a biological determined state is acceptable is prejudicial. Look at how certain cultures treat women, by their biological determination they are female, that does not mean they are incapable of being in control of themselves and their own future, however throughout history various cultures deemed women as property. Being gay is a biologically determined state, otherwise why or how would it occur in nature? Do animals choose their sexuality or is it predetermined? When do straight people decide or choose to be straight? They don't question it they are what they are but they turn their prejudice to homosexuality because of culture and nothing else. As for "population control" I highly doubt that, however having ten percent of your "tribe" as it were attracted to same sex, not reproducing but helping rear young and helping with hunting and gathering, that I could see from a biological standpoint being highly advantageous.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

There is a fair difference between biological predetermination and whether or not a society or culture accepts that biological determination. Arguing that culture should determine whether a biological determined state is acceptable is prejudicial. Look at how certain cultures treat women, by their biological determination they are female, that does not mean they are incapable of being in control of themselves and their own future, however throughout history various cultures deemed women as property. Being gay is a biologically determined state, otherwise why or how would it occur in nature? Do animals choose their sexuality or is it predetermined? When do straight people decide or choose to be straight? They don't question it they are what they are but they turn their prejudice to homosexuality because of culture and nothing else. As for "population control" I highly doubt that, however having ten percent of your "tribe" as it were attracted to same sex, not reproducing but helping rear young and helping with hunting and gathering, that I could see from a biological standpoint being highly advantageous.

Not only that.., but there is presidence in the animal kingdom... Not in mammals or birds... That if the population demands it the animal can switch sexes. There is no way to tell for sure but I have a hunch that transgender and other gender related issues might have genetic throw backs to this. I do think that the psychological factor and other biological issues probably out weighs this. But if you pull enough factors into the right person then you get what you get. Wether it be a kind hearted monk, a sociopath killer, a 'normal person', a heterosexual or a homosexual. I prescribe to the live and let live policy, the deep dynamics are to complicated for us mere mortals, so live your own life as best you can and don't worry about other things unless there is direct suffering being perpetrated on others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

My thing....

I do not care what anyone else does with their life, it is not my business, and my life is not theirs.

The only criteria.....

As long as they are not hurting me, my family, society, or the Earth.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

I did posit based In Science that there are 4 sexual orientations that are considered normal.

How is this in error?

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.

http://www.apa.org/h...rientation.aspx

Hi Sheri,

You quoted a text that is oriented specifically to the sociological aspect of this discussion, and in that respect it is the norm. The term being used by me is not being used in the sociological context but the biological context.

Within the biological context, it is considered a natural but also deviant form of sexuality that has no apparent evolutionary survival benefit. Although there are some proposals that try to address this issue.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/evolution.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

In reality there are multiple situations where more than one thing is considered normal.

He's a few: eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, IQ. Take hair colour. Blonde hair, ginger hair, black hair and brown hair are all conidered to be normal. It doesn't matter which is the majority, the fact is that all of those are considered normal, natural variations. Same with skin colour. And eye colour. And a laundry list of other things.

Humanity is based on variation. Like I said, there is no such thing as a 'normal' person in the terms you describe due to that variation. You have to accept that the variation exists and not rely on what is in the majority alone.

I don't think the comparisons are equivalent. Do you think a person with green hair is the norm, or about someone with yellow eyes?

We are not talking of variation here, but of biological traits that are caused genetically due to mutation. It may not even be a gene that is the cause of homosexuality but other biological factors, in any other case where equivalent situations occur, we call them genetic disorders, why should we be calling homosexuality anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

I don't think the comparisons are equivalent. Do you think a person with green hair is the norm, or about someone with yellow eyes?

We are not talking of variation here, but of biological traits that are caused genetically due to mutation. It may not even be a gene that is the cause of homosexuality but other biological factors, in any other case where equivalent situations occur, we call them genetic disorders, why should we be calling homosexuality anything else?

The big problem here with you is you have started with homosexuality being a disorder a default position. Now, after seven pages of ddicussion, you still hold that, despite what everyone else tells you about it being natural variation.

We are absolutely talking about variation. The problem is you see sex (and reproduction) as the number one biological fuunction and so, anything thata disrupts that, is automatically a bad thing that must be 'cured'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

The big problem here with you is you have started with homosexuality being a disorder a default position. Now, after seven pages of ddicussion, you still hold that, despite what everyone else tells you about it being natural variation.

We are absolutely talking about variation. The problem is you see sex (and reproduction) as the number one biological fuunction and so, anything thata disrupts that, is automatically a bad thing that must be 'cured'.

I asked a question, I go with the answers given, naturally I do have a personal position on the matter, and as it so happens so do you. I don't see that as a problem.

What I have found though is that due to the sensitivities attached to the issue, many prefer a more diplomatic phrase such as "variation", but a variation is not an evolutionary dead end. That is a term that is more aptly called a mutation. Variations do not hinder the biological imperative of a species.

As I have repeatedly said, these are not moral judgments, but are merely expressions of the facts. Socially I recognize the need for accepting these sexual "variations". The people involved are still human beings with feelings. But biologically the truth is exactly that. it is a biological dead end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

I don't think the comparisons are equivalent. Do you think a person with green hair is the norm, or about someone with yellow eyes?

We are not talking of variation here, but of biological traits that are caused genetically due to mutation. It may not even be a gene that is the cause of homosexuality but other biological factors, in any other case where equivalent situations occur, we call them genetic disorders, why should we be calling homosexuality anything else?

Jorel... Don't ignore me on this.., I have faith in your kindness. What we call geneictc DISORDERS are things that prevent the person from living a happy life. What you are preposing we call a DISORDER does in FACT not prevent the person from living a happy life unless SURROUNDED by intolerant people. Think about it.

Edited by Seeker79
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Jorel... Don't ignore me on this.., I have faith in your kindness. What we call geneictc DISORDERS are things that prevent the person from living a happy life. What you are preposing we call a DISORDER does in FACT not prevent the person from living a happy life unless SURROUNDED by intolerant people. Think about it.

I agree and that is not the point is it, because again this is a social argument.

Let us make distinction here, my argument has got nothing to do with accepting or rejecting homosexuality. It is purely based one thing alone. Biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

I asked a question, I go with the answers given, naturally I do have a personal position on the matter, and as it so happens so do you. I don't see that as a problem.

What I have found though is that due to the sensitivities attached to the issue, many prefer a more diplomatic phrase such as "variation", but a variation is not an evolutionary dead end. That is a term that is more aptly called a mutation. Variations do not hinder the biological imperative of a species.

As I have repeatedly said, these are not moral judgments, but are merely expressions of the facts. Socially I recognize the need for accepting these sexual "variations". The people involved are still human beings with feelings. But biologically the truth is exactly that. it is a biological dead end.

It's not a 'diplomatic' phrase, but one that reference the facts of the situation.

As a species we are a rather strange one. Many species on the planet go through mating cycles (often anually), often reproducing as often as possible between sexual maturty through to death. If we were such a species, acting on pure biological instinct, you could have a point.

As such, we as a species choose to when we have children. That first child can be the only one, or the firt of several. it is completely down to the choices of the indivduals involved. Some people choose to have no children, some 8 or more. But, fact is, it's all down to choice. We are not driven by a biological impulse to have children a often as possible. And, like unlike most species, there's really no need. We have no natural predators who eat us. Our told population is over 7 billion, so we're not in danger of extinction. On top of that gay people make up less than 10% of the population. With 90% being hetrosexual and the vast majority being able to have children, well, the excuse to 'get rid of it' really seems bizare.

So ultimately, the biologial reasoning you use is a dead end.

There's also the point that, thanks to science, gay people can have children to reproduce if they wish.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.