Gay Marriage

[Ohaeri]

i think it is biologically wrong in the way that for homosexuality to exist nature must have gone wrong at some point (probably in early fetal development).

Here is the problem I have with this reasoning. Leaving aside the whole issue of design vs. evolution, which I SO do not want to get into, people are designed to eat until sated. Does this mean that people who decide, for one reason or another, to fast or not eat until they are full have a disorder?

Or is it just a normal part of human expression?

[stgodd]

The human body isn't designed.

I made a bad choice of words

do you realize that you're also saying that genetic differences are wrong?

I'm saying Some genetic differences are wrong.

[stgodd]

Does this mean that people who decide, for one reason or another, to fast or not eat until they are full have a disorder?

I dont understand this sentence.

[Ohaeri]

Let me see if I can reword it, then.

"People are designed to eat until they are full. Do people who don't eat until they are full have a disorder?"

Honestly it doesn't matter though, I think the question you were trying to ask was, "What biological thing happens to cause someone to become gay?"

The jury is out (meaning we don't have a scientific consensus yet) on whether it's primarily biological, choice, upbringing, or what.

If homosexuality is not wrong, you don't have a problem with it, and you agree it's not a disorder, what is it that you're trying to say? Some genetic differences are wrong but homosexuality isn't one of them? Seriously, I'm totally confused and lost now.

[Kamber Parrk]

Let me see if I can reword it, then.

"People are designed to eat until they are full. Do people who don't eat until they are full have a disorder?"

Honestly it doesn't matter though, I think the question you were trying to ask was, "What biological thing happens to cause someone to become gay?"

The jury is out (meaning we don't have a scientific consensus yet) on whether it's primarily biological, choice, upbringing, or what.

Politically (scientifically(?)) though, we have: "I'm on the right track, baby, I was BORN this way!" --Lady Gaga

[blogmatix]

People arent meant to be sexualy attracted to the same sex.

Meant by whom?

The evidence for this is that the reproductive organs arent compatible for reproduction.

Who says sex is only for reproduction? You a Catholic or sumpin'?

I see homosexuality as a disorder in the same way dyslexia, epilepsy or aspergers are disorders.

Er, no. A disorder is something debilitating. Homosexuals are not debilitated in any way.

I'm sure I'm gona get people calling me a bigot now but whatever.

Not a bigot; just uninformed.

[s.ketch]

I'm saying Some genetic differences are wrong.

You still didn't answer the question. Some genetic differences are wrong, okay. I say a genetic propensity for cancer is bad. So in that regard we agree. But I base that on the fact that cancer is bad. Things that lead to cancer are bad. Cancer is bad because it killed my grandparents, both, very painfully. It causes suffering and death. So while based partially in emotion, my reasoning for disliking cancer is reasonable. If cancer caused people to live longer or gave us super powers, I wouldn't have much of a problem with cancer. I'd say it's good. So that would be a good or at least an acceptable genetic difference.

This leads us back to where we were before. If you find some genetic differences to be wrong, and one of them is homosexuality, why? What is the basis of it?

You said that you think it went wrong in the mothers womb. So are you going with the hormone hypothesis? The mother's hormones changed and caused homosexuality? How does that make it wrong? Different than someone who didn't go through that? Sure. Wrong? I don't think so. My parents have different DNA than yours. I go through things you don't.

You may be gay, but all this seems a bit self-loathing. Like you think you're a freak or something.

[blogmatix]

Who are you to say that they aren't "meant" to be attracted to each other; for all you know homosexuality could be nature's way of keeping a population in check, just for example.

Nope. Populations do not voluntarily keep themselves in check, and even if they did, having two or three percent homosexual individuals would hardly accomplish the task. In fact, it would ensure that the gay gene is rapidly lost from the population.

[Ohaeri]

Politically (scientifically(?)) though, we have: "I'm on the right track, baby, I was BORN this way!" --Lady Gaga

In reality it's definitely a mix of the two. A lot of people don't understand how nature and nurture work together to produce a trait, hence why it's usually referred to as nature vs. nurture, as if one or the other could be present but not both. I have some good examples I could share, but I tend to be wordy enough as it is.

I didn't word my last post properly; what I meant to say what that we don't know what proportion informs the statistical average. There are always going to be outliers and people born with very big biological differences that cause them to feel that they were born as the wrong sex (for example). There just haven't been enough studies done to really understand how much of it is biological, how much of it is choice, how much of it is upbringing, etc. etc. for the average gay person.

Honestly, there's a ton of research on the topic but most of it is behind a paywall. For example: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...1991-98036-002

explain why "is homosexuality biologically natural" is a wrong question / discuss how evolutionary theory and methodology provide a better framework for understanding homosexuality than most people realize—in particular, we will explain how it is that something might indeed have "gone right" in the development of homosexuality instead of having "gone wrong"

Sounds like this is extremely pertinent, but I can't show it to you because you have to pay to access it. =/

[stgodd]

Do people who don't eat until they are full

Sorry, I still dont get it. It sounds like your saying the equivilent of 'emptying a bucket of water onto the floor untill the bucket is full of water.

your sentence sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I think the question you were trying to ask was, "What biological thing happens to cause someone to become gay?

No, I wasnt asking a question I was making a statement. I know that there is no conclusive reason for the cause of homosexuality, i'm just saying that whatever the cause is, its something thats gone wrong in nature.

--------------
Ok, so saying "its something thats gone wrong in nature" is probably bad use of language but i'm not sure how else to say it. I just hope you can interprit my thoughts and intentions correctly and not take the meaning of the sentence literaly as the literal meaning of that sentence is probably not what I really mean.

[Elwell]

This is why people are saying "you are ignorant." You have stuff that you don't know. People are telling you that you need to learn more, but what you do instead is argue a bigger hole around yourself. Then you cry when no one takes you seriously. Sorry, but other people have done the work that you're not willing to do, and you refusing to do it is not impressive--it's moronic. And those of us who do know can see that it's moronic.

You win the internet.

[blogmatix]

Granted, I'm also fully aware by saying I don't see homosexuality as a disorder for the above reasons, people will try to play the game of "what about pedophilia, zoophilia, bestiality, etc..."

By the psychological definition of what a disorder entails, those are probably not disorders either.

[Elwell]

I dont have any problems with homosexuals (I am one),

Talk about burying the lede...

[s.ketch]

Ok, so saying "its something thats gone wrong in nature" is probably bad use of language but i'm not sure how else to say it. I just hope you can interprit my thoughts and intentions correctly and not take the meaning of the sentence literaly as the literal meaning of that sentence is probably not what I really mean.

Then don't say anything until you're sure of what you want to say and what you mean?

[Arshes Nei]

By the psychological definition of what a disorder entails, those are probably not disorders either.

Probably not, but I don't want to argue about the ethics or morality of the other ones in comparison to homosexuality.

[Ohaeri]

You win the internet.

Elwell said I won the internet.

My life is complete!

[blogmatix]

The problem with most gay marriage arguments is that people that are opposed to it usually fall back on the sex aspect. "Parts don't fit! Must be a choice! Why you gotta be stickin' yer thing in there, it's gross!".

Contrary to popular opinion, a very substantial fraction of the gay population has now interest whatever in anal sex and finds it every bit as gross as many heterosexuals find it.

And by the same token, a very substantial of heterosexual males desire anal sex with female partners (which is perhaps partly why it is such a popular theme in many porn films).

[blogmatix]

I'm confused by what you mean.

The human body is designed to procreate, so if the mind acts in a way that stops procreation (same sex attraction) something must be wrong.

Okay, so social insects like bees and termites are VERY wrong then, considering that in a hive of thirty thousand individuals, only one is reproducing.

I suggest you go read up on these issues. A lot of research has been done on it, and it is no longer for amateur Aristotles to sit in their armchairs speculating about it.

[stgodd]

1)Meant by whom?

2)Who says sex is only for reproduction? You a Catholic or sumpin'?

3)Er, no. A disorder is something debilitating. Homosexuals are not debilitated in any way.

Not a bigot; just uninformed.

1) Nobody. the way organismes have developed into humans through evolution has resulted in males and females. Nature requires males and females to reproduce. (I know nature isnt a concious being and doesnt want anything but I dont know how else to explain it)

2) So what else is sex for? Sure you can use it for recreation/pleasure but that is not its purpose. (and I know people will want to pick out my use of the word purpose, but again i dont know how else to word it)

3)Ive already been through this with someone else and retracted my use of the word disorder. (again a bad use of words on my part)

[Ohaeri]

Sorry, I still dont get it. It sounds like your saying the equivilent of 'emptying a bucket of water onto the floor untill the bucket is full of water.

There are people who decide "I am not full, but I will stop eating." People on diets, people with religious commitments, etc. However, the vast majority of people eat until they are full. Most people would say that eating until you are full is natural and normal. Are the people who are not eating until they are full unnatural/wrong?

I just hope you can interprit my thoughts and intentions correctly and not take the meaning of the sentence literaly as the literal meaning of that sentence is probably not what I really mean.

I'm getting that you think that something in nature went wrong. To me, it would be better to say that "something is different," in the same way that someone with brown eyes is different than someone with blue eyes. Is this something you can agree with?

So what else is sex for? Sure you can use it for recreation/pleasure but that is not its purpose. (and I know people will want to pick out my use of the word purpose, but again i dont know how else to word it)

Cementing the partner bond. The establishment and maintenance of intimacy. Working off stress or anger. Helping to solve problems in the relationship. Mutual fulfillment of mutual desires. Pain relief. Comfort. Fun.

It seems like you are asking, "why did nature decide that homosexuality is an important trait?" and answering it with, "It didn't. Therefore homosexuality is a mistake of nature." Evolution doesn't work that way. Nature throws out random mutations and the ones that are beneficial or at least not actively harmful pass on. That's all.

[stgodd]

Okay, so social insects like bees and termites are VERY wrong then, considering that in a hive of thirty thousand individuals, only one is reproducing.

I suggest you go read up on these issues. A lot of research has been done on it, and it is no longer for amateur Aristotles to sit in their armchairs speculating about it.

But Insects arent people or even mammals, they have evolved very differently and function in a different way, they shouldnt be compared with humans. I really dont want to start talking about the evolution of insects.

[Ohaeri]

OK, that's enough. I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. Time to go draw.

[stgodd]

Then don't say anything until you're sure of what you want to say and what you mean?

I know what I mean, but I dont know how to comunicate what I mean accurately.


...and saying nothing is not as fun.

[stgodd]

OK, that's enough. I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. Time to go draw.

I feel like a wall is banging against my head.

I have some comments i would make about your previous texts, but it sounds like your no longer interested and ive lost a fair amount of interest too. I'm finished now.

[blogmatix]

1) Nobody. the way organismes have developed into humans through evolution has resulted in males and females. Nature requires males and females to reproduce.

Yes, and humans are spectacularly good at it, as the size of our population demonstrates. If there are such things as gay genes, it is pretty clear that they aid reproduction, and one can think of several possible mechanisms by which they can do so.

Now it is of course possible that there is no such thing as a genetic tendency to homosexuality, and that indeed, it is the result of something that "goes wrong" in fetal development. We don't know for sure. But it seems to me rather unlikely to be the case: we must keep in mind here that when it comes to in utero development, not only the fetal genes, but also those of the mother, play a role. I.e. mothers who have genes that cause their uterus to produce hormones (or whatever) that make gay babies, are mothers who are (presumably) at a reproductive disadvantage. Thus such genes will be rapidly eliminated from the population (or, more likely, became vanishingly rare).

Unless of course they in fact confer some reproductive advantage. Yes, nature sometimes "goes wrong" in that organisms inherit a broken gene or develop abnormally in a way that prevents them from reproducing. Which is precisely why examples of such "wrong" individuals are extremely rare: they don't reproduce, thus their "wrong" genes don't go anywhere. But homosexuality is very common, much more so than any genetic disease that I am aware of.

So if we see something that intuitively seems like it should be a reproductive disadvantage, but then notice that a substantial part of the population follows this lifestyle, then it tells me we are missing something and our intuitive appraisal is probably mistaken.

Incidentally, and on a bit of a sidetrack, it just occurred to me that the world's largest anti-gay organization, that is happy to condemn homosexuality on the grounds that it doesn't lead to reproduction, has a whole caste of members who are banned from reproducing. :-)

2) So what else is sex for? Sure you can use it for recreation/pleasure but that is not its purpose. (and I know people will want to pick out my use of the word purpose, but again i dont know how else to word it)

Studies of primates indicate very strongly that sex plays a very important social role. It's the glue that sticks societies together. Bonobos, for example, are if anything even more rampantly omnisexual than humans, and screw anything that moves.

It is of course perfectly true that sex was originally "invented" for a particular style of reproduction, but if there is one theme that is very common in evolution, it is that a structure or behaviour that originally serves one purpose can easily be modified to serve another. Birds have feathers for flying; it is all but certain that feathers did not evolve for this purpose.

3)Ive already been through this with someone else and retracted my use of the word disorder. (again a bad use of words on my part)

No problem, I understand what you mean. From a purely evolutionary point of view, one could perhaps argue that things that prevent reproduction are disorders. But it is not at all clear that gay genes, if such things exist, actually prevent reproduction. They may prevent it in particular individuals. Just as the genes of worker bees prevent them from reproduction (and your own genes prevent virtually all your cells apart from sex cells and stem cells from reproducing).

But one must be careful not to look at all this in a naive sort of way - you are bound to oversimplify the whole thing.

[Ohaeri]

I have some comments i would make about your previous texts, but it sounds like your no longer interested and ive lost a fair amount of interest too. I'm finished now.

No, I'm still interested. I just need to walk away and do something constructive for a while.

[blogmatix]

But Insects arent people or even mammals, they have evolved very differently and function in a different way, they shouldnt be compared with humans. I really dont want to start talking about the evolution of insects.

Actually, the comparison is very appropriate indeed, because it illustrates that it is genes, not individual organisms, that "want to reproduce." And they will do so in whatever way is effective, which includes ways that can seem very paradoxical or counter-intuitive.

If there are gay genes, the fact that such a surprisingly large fraction of the population is gay should tell us that those genes in fact confer some reproductive advantage that offsets the disadvantages.

Someone else has already mentioned one such possible way. Another possibility, for which there is some evidence, is that female carriers of gay genes are more fertile in general. Thus they have a tendency to produce sons that are, for practical purposes, sterile, but they also produce more children in general, which offsets the disadvantage, so that gay genes are maintained in the population.

This explanation may or may not be correct; the evidence is still ambiguous, and the best we can say at this point is "we don't know." What we can not say is that something is wrong: there is no evidence for such a supposition, and much against it.

[ThabisoMhlaba]

This debate has always been particularly frustrating to me. If two people of the same gender want to live together as a pair with the same benefits as two people of the opposite gender. There is literally nothing, that their relationship does to affect society. It's not a question of morality. It's not even a logistical problem. For me its the same as the difficulty people had (and many still do) with interracial marriage. Two gay people getting married isn't going to MAKE people gay, it may allow more people to be more honest about their sexuality, but really there's no reasonable argument available for a negative impact on society. Even if by some weird phenomenon it did make people gay, it STILL doesn't matter, because as long as people are in the relationship by mutual consent it's nobody elses business.

[Orunitier]

may i ask where the heck did you get that God made "gayness" hmmm??

What dierat said. If God created people, and many people are gay, then God created gay people. Is that really so difficult to understand?

[w176]

LMAO^^^
------
Anyway, here are my thoughts on the whole "Homosexuality isnt natural" thing (kinda).

I think there are issues with the views and opinions on both sides. Though homosexuality IS obviously natural it isnt biologically correct, I get the impression many people in support of homosexuals think homosexuality is biologically correct and this confuses me. People arent meant to be sexualy attracted to the same sex. The evidence for this is that the reproductive organs arent compatible for reproduction.

I see homosexuality as a disorder in the same way dyslexia, epilepsy or aspergers are disorders. In an Ideal biological state the human body isnt meant to be like this but these issues shouldnt effect the individuals rights in any way.

I'm sure I'm gona get people calling me a bigot now but whatever.

Well. You stance if based on two faulty assumtions.

1: That the most sucsessive tactic of reproduction always is that everyone always reproduce.

2: That sex is only about reproduction.


Let me answer both of this assumtions seperatly.


1: Fist off, is not always the optimal tactic that everyone always reproduce. Lets take wolfs. This example don't have anything with homosexual behavior to do but can still illustrate the point. In a wold pack, only the ala pair fuck and mate in general. The rest of the pack don't fuck. "OH noes! The rest of the pack id biologically incorrect! Abstince isn't natural"

Well. That wrong. In the case of the wolf pack, the most successful reproduction isn't that everyone fuck, and reproduce. The wolf that don't fuck and don't reproduce isn't faulty. A wolf pack reproduction strategy is just based on kin selection, and the chance for individual wolf to become alfa later, either by the old alfa pair stepping down/dying, or by wandering off to start a new pack.

So. No. Individuals that don't reproduce all the time isn't biologically incorrect. Their behavior might still be a part pf the breeding strategy of the species.

Assuming the only successive and "right" strategy is that every member of a species always reproduce is wrong.


2. All sex isn't about reproduction. Not even in the animal world. DUH.

Take dolphins and bonobos. Both have a LOT of sex, with partners of both sexes. The sex is really important for pact structure and social interactions. (Read: They have sex because f fun, help them bond, and reduces stress levels.)
But the fact that they also have sex members of the same sex, isn't a problem for their reproduction. Since they still also have sex with members of the opposite sex they reproduce.

Having sex fun and for social reasons with a member for of the same sex don't make you sterile. If you also have sex with a member of the opposite sex you still produce sexually.

All sexual interactions isn't about reproduction.

Edit: And humans are a quite intelligent species. Even if people are exclusively homosexual in their sexual arousal pattern, even homosexual men can close their eyes, think about big dicks, and bang a female if they wanna reproduce. They have the option to have reproductive sex if they want to, and most people who engage in homosexual activities throughout history also had sex for reproductive reasons with members of the opposite sex.