Gay sex is not natural?

[AlteredEgo]

I'm interested in this post. I referenced it before.

Penguins confined to a cage or tank in a zoo are not, in any meaningful sense, in "nature". And, since we've been selectively breeding dogs for something on the order of two hundred centuries, their connections with "nature" are also tenuous.

But if 'we've been selectively breeding dogs for two hundred centuries' what have we been doing to our own species bigdirigible since time immemorial? I put the question out there simply for consideration.

Excellent point! Further, I have seen gay ducks who refused females outright, even when outnumbered by them. I have yet to stumble accross lesbian ducks, however.

Consider this, if you dare.

Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Females perform courtship rituals, like tossing their heads at each other or offering small gifts of food to each other, and they establish nests together. Occasionally they mate with males and produce fertile eggs but then return to their original same-sex partners. Their bonds, too, may persist for years.
Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate. Researchers have noted that in some cases same-sex behavior is more common for dolphins in captivity.
Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex.
Paul L. Vasey, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, who studies homosexual behavior in Japanese macaques, is editing a new book on homosexual behavior in animals, to be published by Cambridge University Press. This kind of behavior among animals has been observed by scientists as far back as the 1700's, but Mr. Vasey said one reason there had been few books on the topic was that "people don't want to do the research because they don't want to have suspicions raised about their sexuality."
Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.

 

[Dr Rock]

Gay sex is not what nature intended[/SIZE]

you know what "nature intended", do you? that's a pretty damn big claim for a dumb kid on the internet, ya know.

Because gay guys choose not to pass on their genes by having sex with men and excluding women entirely, they are going against the Natural Order.

since you're the sole arbitor of the Natural Order, i'd like you to explain how gay people even exist when according to you they don't "pass on their genes." wait i got a better one: how come i've fathered at least 2 kids, yet i regularly enjoy sex with men?

OOPS.

welcome to the bozo bin. getting mighty crowded in there lately, but i'm sure you'll find a cosy spot somewhere between stronzo and faceking.

The whole human genome has been mapped, and there is NO such thing as the "gay gene".

uh, you just made that up. you are a pretty shitty troll for someone who claims that jesus has their tool in his hand.

 

[episcalo]

I think almost everyone mixes two completely different things:

1) What we do for our pleasure
2) our genes programmation

In the first case, what we do for our pleasure is as diverse as there are beings. Some like to go the the cinema, some others like golfing and you can always find many people saying that entertainment XXX sucks and YYY is much better.
It's the same thing with sex. Some enjoy oral, vaginal, anal etc. etc. there is nothing to judge about being natural or not, whatever is the sexual orientation. Just like Golfing isn't more natural than bowling. The natural argument part just doens't apply to the things we do for fun.

Now our genes are coded to make us reproduce. The very only purpose of the first cell on Earth was to reproduce.
Although organisms progressively became more and more complex the very essence of life, reproducing is what drives 99.9% of the living speicies, from the plants to the animals.
Evolution made that flowers have beautiful flowers to get the bees come and fertilize them with pollen.
Males often have a more beautiful fur to attract the females (i.e Lions...or birds, like the paon) etc.
the evolution made physical attributes to PLEASE the other sex.

To my knowledge, in nature, all the spiecies that have been found having homosexual sex were not exclusive. They were bisexual.

So playing golf, having oral sex or homosexual sex is not wrong at all, it's not unatural at all and it shouldn't be more of a problem in our society than the discrimination agaisnt movie goers. (unfortunately, we're not there yet...)

What is not normal (and it's normal. not natural. natural has nothing to do in this question) though is not having desire at all for the opposite sex compared to the average of the entire specie.

It's an abnomaly just like being myopic. I'm myopic to hell. I can't see shit. if we were 20000 years behind, i'd probably have died very young because i couldn't find the food myself, or hunt, or do anything for that matter.
I needed glasses to fix my survivability. I know that if i have children (i plan on having someday) they are likely to ended with glasses too. Do i give a shit? yes a little. will it prevent me of transmetting my genes? no. Not at all.

Being gay doesn't affect your survivability. that's why it doesn't "need to be fix".
those saying that "we should cure gays" sound as pathetic as if they were saying "we should fix blonds, they are the minority, most humans have black hair" or anything like that.

So being gay, although being a anomaly, doens't need to be fix more than blonds should be fix.

Those agruing on the "htey don't contribute to the specie reproduction" should first worry about the majority of women and men using birth control (or STFU too )

So i hope i've been clear on the subject. English isn't my mother tongue so sometimes have problems to say exactly what i want to say....If i sounded homophobiac, i CLEARLY haven't been clear enough...i hope not.

 

[lellelind]

Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy thread! :wink:

 

[vinny_spiruccino]

i regularly enjoy sex with men?

Hey, whats that noise? Can anyone else hear the Hallelujah Chorus playing in the background?

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy thread! :wink:

Margo Channing reference? There has been much of casting pearls before swine on this thread. The original swine is an idiot, but I grant that at least he provoked some interesting posts.

 

[dong20]

Something being natural means it is inherited and a part of our DNA. Universally, it is in the DNA of animals to pass on their own genes. Because gay guys choose not to pass on their genes by having sex with men and excluding women entirely, they are going against the Natural Order.

I've said before I have no problem with gay guys or anything, just that it is not natural. I've said it might feel natural to gay men (and women). Biologically though, its abnormal.

Perhaps your 'natural instinct' is to reproduce (unfortunately) but mine is not. Additionally I know many people who do not consider 'mating' in any of its implied forms 'natural' to them.

Good point, as was Wonderboy's. At an elemental level any species most fundemental imperative is (generally) to survive...in order to reproduce and thus ensure the continuation of the species.

On that level I don't believe sexuality is at all relevant. Homosexuals are just as capable of procreating as Heterosexuals; they are the same species remember.

Ignoring pyshiological causes, in humans where procreation does not happen, it's almost certainly choice and/or circumstance. Humans, as sentient creatures make that choice, not nature. Nature merely empowers us to make it. NOTE: I'm not talking about sexuality as a choice here.

Many Heterosexuals choose not to reproduce for no deeper reason than not wanting to. Homosexuals can and do make that exact same choice. As a crude analogy; Vegans choose not to eat animal products, they are not biologically programmed to be unable to do so.

From your argument I can only conclude that in your mind you see the 'typical' process employed as being one a Heterosexual would find 'appealing' or 'natural' and by implication one which a Homosexual would not. That may be be valid in some or even many cases but that still doesn't preclude the process from occuring in either case. Or, if that option is unacceptable or unavailable then science has alternatives, in both cases.

In essence and the reproduction 'argument' aside, I would say Gay sex is atypical statistically but not unnatural except in the eyes of those who choose to see it that way. To revert to my earlier analogy; Veganism is atypical in those same terms yet I don't see many saying it's 'wrong' and marginalising vegans en masse. And especially not doing so from behind a framework of legislative and religious dogma. Like many arguments on such issues it's almost entirely personal opinion and perception. You have yours I have mine.

It's important to distingush between natural in 'nature' and natural in personal or social stereotyping. The two are NOT the same and I think you have them confused, at least to a degree. The latter being 100% choice and 0% nature.

Stonzo I hope that's not too much crap.

 

[invisibleman]

I told this gay guy at work that gay sex is not natural, and he totally flipped out!

Flipped out like this?:
"Not natural?! Darling, you MUST be doing SOMEthing wrong!!! "

Yeah, not natural for heterosexual men. It is natural for us gay men and a few select bi fellas. Yeah, if you are a straight man--of course you want the full topography of women. You aren't going to find men sexy because you are straight. Makes a lot of sense. You feel that since you have a devout fondness of women you assume that all men are PUSS-y Chasers. Maybe not the minority.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Stonzo I hope that's not too much crap.

Oh hell luv, it's ALL 'too much crap' generally. Life's "too much crap". But characteristically you make sound analogy and can back them up with an Englishman's sense of fair play and sturdy logic.

So 'crap' be damned.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Margo Channing reference? There has been much of casting pearls before swine on this thread. The original swine is an idiot, but I grant that at least he provoked some interesting posts.

Yup, yup colonel. That's a roger. I've found many of the most superflous threads here have given rise to the most enlightened discussion.

 

[chico8]

Detailed research conducted my Exodus International shows that a vast majority of gay men while they were kids lacked an intimate, emotional, and meaningful relationship with their father. The study shows as these boys grow into men, they seek this type of intimate, emotional and meaningful relationship that should have come from their father while they were growing up. Hormones during puberty, and into adulthood, turn these desires for closeness into sexual desires towards men.

Would you care to post that research along with all the raw data? Somehow I can't imagine that EI carried out any sort of "scientific" study. I'm sure there will be all sorts of obscure bible references and claims by "reformed" gays that can't be backed up.

 

[B_back.sliden]

Now that the consensus is gay sex is unnatural, what are you going to do about it?

 

[Lex]

Now that the consensus is gay sex is unnatural, what are you going to do about it?

Weren't you a woman a few hours ago?

 

[AlteredEgo]

*observes*

uh, you just made that up. you are a pretty shitty troll for someone who claims that jesus has their tool in his hand.

*laughs*

*is dead*

 

[dcwrestlefan]

*observes*

*laughs*

*is dead*

did jesus have a big one? anyone have pics?

toodle loo. signed, unnatural and abnormal.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Now that the consensus is gay sex is unnatural, what are you going to do about it?

Which thread have you been reading? I'll turn it into a poll with pretty colors like the books we used to read when we were little.

 

[Isabella]

Why is Ann Coulter posting here????

 

[Thedrewbert]

This seems to be a very hot thread I've posted. All of these perspectives are intrigueing.

Tell me what you think:

The whole human genome has been mapped, and there is NO such thing as the "gay gene". There are genes for blue eyes, for black hair, what have you. But there is no such thing as the "gay gene". Therefore, gayness cannot be inherited, and we cannot be born gay.

Secondly,

Detailed research conducted my Exodus International shows that a vast majority of gay men while they were kids lacked an intimate, emotional, and meaningful relationship with their father. The study shows as these boys grow into men, they seek this type of intimate, emotional and meaningful relationship that should have come from their father while they were growing up. Hormones during puberty, and into adulthood, turn these desires for closeness into sexual desires towards men.

1st. The human genome has been mapped for some physical traits. It hasn't been mapped for anything. Besides, you can't prove a negative in this case.

2nd. Exodus International has no credibility. Their own leader had come out and said that it's a crock. They have a nearly 100% failure rate.

The existance of homosexuals in all cultures, races, religions, societies, and regions of the world eliminates the posibility of there being a single social interaction <or lack there of> as being the one cause of homosexuality.

I have, as many other men on this board also likely have, a close relationship with my dad. My husband has a very close relationship with his dad and his 4 brothers.

 

[chico8]

Now that the consensus is gay sex is unnatural, what are you going to do about it?

So is cunnilingus and fellatio. Neither serves any procreative need, what are you going to do about that?

 

[bluekarma]

I told this gay guy at work that gay sex is not natural, and he totally flipped out!

Question for you back.sliden: Do you or have you EVER stroked your own cock then ejaculated into your hand, on your chest, or in a sock then throw it away??

*taps foot* well???????

Okay then. Ever PICKED UP A BIBLE - it says that self pleasure is not only unnatural but downright sinful - *gasp*! In fact - I believe there is scripture re: (from memory) 'it is better to plant your seed in the belly of a whore than to spill/waste it'....

Yea! So remember that the next time your online rubbing one off looking at all these beautiful gay and str8 cocks on this site. Unless of course you eat your cum, and in that case - does that make you gay??

I sure hope he figures all of this out.... ......it would wear me out to be that freakin judgemental on top of being wrong!