some say gay=unnatural

[mitchymo]

I blame dolfette for my bisexuality, I clearly sat too close to the bitch on the train

and those with stolen pics because they're secretly fat truckers are natural.

PMSL :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:. I have'nt laughed so hard since Incognito's first post!

 

[Incocknito]

The vast majority of animals are failures as relates to the "natural cycle" as I have already stated. All that means is that most animals do not fulfil the intent of nature. It doesn't suddenly invalidate the process of life > procreation > death.

All it means is that most animals fail to comply with the "course of nature" and are by definition unnatural in that regard and in that regard only.

I have never said that homosexuals are completely unnatural or some sort of abomination. Only unnatural in the sense that they do not reproduce.

The study you linked to is biased and set out with a goal to look for a genetic cause to homosexuality. It even dismissed candidates who didn't fit their 'model'.

It also mentions that homosexuality is complex and due to a combination of genetic and socio (environmental) factors. It does not say whether they are interdependent or whether one factor can cause homosexuality without the other.

I am done going over things I have already said. I will stop responding to this thread.

In all honesty, there is no evidence on the cause of homosexuality (whether natural or environmental, fated or opportunistic).

Someone asked whether it was unnatural and according to the dictionary, it is. Now if you want to susbtitute "unnatural" for a different word then you do that. Since some of you are obviously attributing negative connotations to the word.

Maybe the question was poorly posed.

 

[mitchymo]

Someone asked whether it was unnatural and according to the dictionary, it is.

Wrong again, the dictionary does not attribute the term unnatural to homosexuality:- homosexual definition | Dictionary.com

Secondly the natural cycle is Birth, Creation and Death not Birth Procreation and Death and even then is subject to interpretation as not all that lives is born.

 

[dolfette]

if only back pedaling were an olympic sport...

 

[Incocknito]

Title of thread: some say gay=unnatural

My answer: According to the dictionary, it is unnatural.

Additionally to that, I tried to argue for an environmental cause to homosexuality. To be honest I got tired and am giving up since a lot of you are defensive and most of you can't even write simple sentences.

Mitchymo...I'm not even going to try to explain it to you anymore. Look up unnatural in the dictionary. I've posted the definition twice. It means "does not follow the laws or course of nature".

The purpose of life is to create more life and continue the species. If this is not achieved then it is unnatural to that extent and to that extent only.

Its not bad, its not unholy, its not evil. It is unnatural as defined in the dictionary. That is all.

 

[mitchymo]

Incognito

You are using the term natural yet you are firstly seperating life from nature, then seperating humans from animals and then homosexuals from heterosexuals...this would indicate you are isolating homosexuality from nature and the only reason i can logically think why is that you are homophobic otherwise you wouldn't care enough to suggest it was unnatural in the face of the explanation of natural being all encompassing. The ONLY things which are not natural are supernatural and even they may become natural once deemed undeniably to exist.

 

[DiscoBoy]

Title of thread: some say gay=unnatural

My answer: According to the dictionary, it is unnatural.

Additionally to that, I tried to argue for an environmental cause to homosexuality. To be honest I got tired and am giving up since a lot of you are defensive and most of you can't even write simple sentences.

Mitchymo...I'm not even going to try to explain it to you anymore. Look up unnatural in the dictionary. I've posted the definition twice. It means "does not follow the laws or course of nature".

The purpose of life is to create more life and continue the species. If this is not achieved then it is unnatural to that extent and to that extent only.

Its not bad, its not unholy, its not evil. It is unnatural as defined in the dictionary. That is all.

I repeat:

"These findings provide new insights into male homosexuality in humans. In particular, they promote a focus shift in which homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait (due to the reduced male fecundity it entails), but, rather, should be considered within the wider evolutionary framework of a characteristic with gender-specific benefits, and which promotes female fecundity. This may well be the evolutionary origin of this genetic trait in human beings. The possible widespread occurrence of sexually antagonistic characteristics in evolutionary processes, which play their evolutionary game by giving a fecundity benefit to one sex while disadvantaging the other, has only recently begun to be appreciated. This is understood as a key mechanism through which high levels of genetic variation are maintained in biological populations."


Ergo, homosexuality helps to create more life and continue the species, just as Dolfette theorized.

 

[mitchymo]

Title of thread: some say gay=unnatural

My answer: According to the dictionary, it is unnatural.

Additionally to that, I tried to argue for an environmental cause to homosexuality. To be honest I got tired and am giving up since a lot of you are defensive and most of you can't even write simple sentences.

Mitchymo...I'm not even going to try to explain it to you anymore. Look up unnatural in the dictionary. I've posted the definition twice. It means "does not follow the laws or course of nature".

The purpose of life is to create more life and continue the species. If this is not achieved then it is unnatural to that extent and to that extent only.

Its not bad, its not unholy, its not evil. It is unnatural as defined in the dictionary. That is all.

And likewise i have corrected you upon deaf ears, you are misinterpreting what the definition of unnatural means....your interpretation is uncompatible with the dictionary definition of natural.....PLEASE LEARN!

 

[Incocknito]

And I told you that "those findings" were biased and had an agenda from the outset.

mitchymo: You have just not understood. Stop taking whatever drugs you are taking. Or maybe start taking drugs.

 

[dolfette]

I repeat:

"These findings provide new insights into male homosexuality in humans. In particular, they promote a focus shift in which homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait (due to the reduced male fecundity it entails), but, rather, should be considered within the wider evolutionary framework of a characteristic with gender-specific benefits, and which promotes female fecundity. This may well be the evolutionary origin of this genetic trait in human beings. The possible widespread occurrence of sexually antagonistic characteristics in evolutionary processes, which play their evolutionary game by giving a fecundity benefit to one sex while disadvantaging the other, has only recently begun to be appreciated. This is understood as a key mechanism through which high levels of genetic variation are maintained in biological populations."


Ergo, homosexuality helps to create more life and continue the species, just as Dolfette theorized.

and rather than dive into a debate on whether this could be the case, giving thoeries as to why this is not the case, he will yell ''I HAVE A DICTIONARY.''

1...2...3...go!

 

[dolfette]

And I told you that "those findings" were biased and had an agenda from the outset.

mitchymo: You have just not understood. Stop taking whatever drugs you are taking. Or maybe start taking drugs.

this is even better than caps & bold.

the 'you must be on drugs!' line.

next you'll be saying your dad will beat his dad up.

 

[Incocknito]

So you are saying that the dictionary definition of unnatural needs to be changed?

Because you don't like it? Let me know when the definition changes and I'll get back to you.

 

[DiscoBoy]

And I told you that "those findings" were biased and had an agenda from the outset.

That link was the second study. The first study proved that females in the maternal line of male homosexuals were more fertile than average. Proved, not opined. Not in any way biased. If you're going to argue with empirical data then there's no point in continuing this.

Francesca Iemmola and Andrea Camperio Ciani (2008) New Evidence of Genetic Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation in Men: Female Fecundity Increase in the Maternal Line. Archives of Sexual Behavior, IN PRESS - DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9381-6

ABSTRACT: “There is a long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality because the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction according to which natural selection should progressively eliminate the factors that reduce individual fecundity and fitness. Recently, however, Camperio Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217–2221, 2004), comparing the family trees of homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual probands from the maternal line but not in those related from the paternal one. This suggested that genetic factors that are partly linked to the X-chromosome and that influence homosexual orientation in males are not selected against because they increase fecundity in female carriers, thus offering a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. Since then, new data have emerged suggesting not only an increase in maternal fecundity but also larger paternal family sizes for homosexuals. These results are partly conflicting and indicate the need for a replication on a wider sample with a larger geographic distribution. This study examined the family trees of 250 male probands, of which 152 were homosexuals. The results confirmed the study of Camperio Ciani et al. (2004). We observed a significant fecundity increase even in primiparous mothers, which was not evident in the previous study. No evidence of increased paternal fecundity was found; thus, our data confirmed a sexually antagonistic inheritance partly linked to the X-chromosome that promotes fecundity in females and a homosexual sexual orientation in males.”

From the DISCUSSION: “Blanchard’s predictions were also confirmed in our study: we found that the homosexuals had an excess of older brothers compared with their own number of older sisters and compared with the heterosexuals’ number of older brothers. The homosexual and heterosexual groups did not differ with regard to the other three classes of siblings.”

 

[mitchymo]

And I told you that "those findings" were biased and had an agenda from the outset.

mitchymo: You have just not understood. Stop taking whatever drugs you are taking. Or maybe start taking drugs.

I understand....that you have learning difficulties.

One more time.

The dictionary definition of unnatural can be interpreted in TWO ways one of which is your way the other everybody else's and when you compare both interpretations to the dictionary definition of natural then your interpretation no longer stands up.....you are wrong simple as!, no need to change the definition of unnatural just people need to interpret it correctly.

 

[chrispy]

Anything that is not intrinsic to one's own nature is unnatural to that person.

As a gay man, having sex with a woman would be an unnatural act for me. While I do aesthetically appreciate the beauty of woman, it is not in my nature to be sexually attracted to a woman.

I think it is pointless to try and define humanity by any one standard. The great beauty of our species is how, for every similarity we have, there are differences. Perhaps that is a reason for the evolutionary leap we have made in relation to other intelligent species.

One of the best I've ever read regarding the natural/unnatural debate was from Frank Zappa: 'The only unnatural act is one which you cannot perform".

 

[dolfette]

So you are saying that the dictionary definition of unnatural needs to be changed?

Because you don't like it? Let me know when the definition changes and I'll get back to you.

dictionary definitions are oft revised.
they are not written by experts in science.
they are written to explain the basicsmeanings of a word in few words to the simplest of minds.
the definitions do not often do justice to a scientific definition.
and can be easily warped.
a dictionary is not a gospel, or a scientific study, or proof of anything beyond who's winning at scrabble.

if your entire arguement depends on tilting a dictionary entry slightly to the side so that it looks right to you, you've no hope of being taken seriously.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

One of the best I've ever read regarding the natural/unnatural debate was from Frank Zappa: 'The only unnatural act is one which you cannot perform".

QFT!

 

[MarkLondon]

Title of thread: some say gay=unnatural

My answer: According to the dictionary, it is unnatural.

Additionally to that, I tried to argue for an environmental cause to homosexuality. To be honest I got tired and am giving up since a lot of you are defensive and most of you can't even write simple sentences.

Mitchymo...I'm not even going to try to explain it to you anymore. Look up unnatural in the dictionary. I've posted the definition twice. It means "does not follow the laws or course of nature".

The purpose of life is to create more life and continue the species. If this is not achieved then it is unnatural to that extent and to that extent only.

Its not bad, its not unholy, its not evil. It is unnatural as defined in the dictionary. That is all.

But, Incocknito, you've taken one dictionary reference and extrapolated that to cover a relatively new and complex area of study of animal behaviour and evolutionary theory.

"The purpose of life is to create more life and continue the species." Well, yes. But animals (and people) who are exclusively homosexual, or never successfully breed themselves, can still contribute to the continuation of the species in any species that has any form of social interaction. Which is most of them, I think. I was going to say above the level of bacteria, except I just remembered that they usually exist in colonies.

Then there's slime molds. Unicellular organisms that live in the soil. When it is time to reproduce they coalesce into a motile mass, which when it finds a suitable location organises itself (themselves) into a stalk-like structure with sexually-reproducing individuals at the tip, which produce spores to continue the species. Only a small percentage of the individuals in the organised mass achieve reproduction, but the species relies on the greater percentage to provide the means for the success of the few.

 

[joyboytoy79]

dictionary definitions are oft revised.
they are not written by experts in science.
they are written to explain the basicsmeanings of a word in few words to the simplest of minds.
the definitions do not often do justice to a scientific definition.
and can be easily warped.
a dictionary is not a gospel, or a scientific study, or proof of anything beyond who's winning at scrabble.

if your entire arguement depends on tilting a dictionary entry slightly to the side so that it looks right to you, you've no hope of being taken seriously.

You're my new favourite person. Will you bear my children? :biggrin1:

 

[DiscoBoy]

You're my new favourite person. Will you bear my children? :biggrin1:

But that would make you a natural, non-failure!