some say gay=unnatural

[Tremaine]

It is always worth going to the source - as far as we are ever able. That means when possible readign a text in the original language and not in translation. I have read a goodly amount of the New Testament in NT Greek but unfortunately I don't read Aramaic or Hebrew. But I have read books by leading academics who did and that is the closest that I am able to get. But when reading a text it is always very important to understand that any translation corrupts the original meaning and also that one needs to endeavour to understand why the text was being written - what was the purpose and intent of the author/s.

There are confusions galour between English English and American English let along between NT Greek, Hebrew and any modern Language.

But then one also has to be aware of is that these texts were written over 2000 years ago and do they actually really tell us anything of value. For more information on this I could not recommend more highly "The Curse of Ignorance" - Volume 1 - by Arthur Findlay, particularly chapters 4 ragarding the Babylonians, Sumarians & Assyrians & Chapter 5 which deals with the Hebrew Civilisation between 1800BC - 614 AD. Although it was written in the 1940's it is still a very useful source of knowledge that is oft forgotton because it is inconvenient for a variety of reasons.

 

[dolfette]

seriously fucking yawn!

i ask about evolution and i get pages of 'god said!!!' and 'the bible didn't say!!!'.

 

[Tremaine]

what does NATURAL mean?

As I stated above - if we are to believe the miopia of some here, then all here who shave are un-natural, all who grow plants indoors are un-natural, all who wear glasses are un-natural.

All Natural means is that which occurs in Nature.

Given that same sex coupling and relationships occur in nature and that it is NOT only where there are no available females for the randy males with raging hormones, then the notion of Homosexuality which incidentally was not named until the 1800's is NOT un-Natural.

Of course if there are some out there who are believers in Creationism and not in Natural Selection as per Darwin then there is little hope for the advancement of science.

It is rather ironic that one person who is commenting on this theme from the Arab world is apparently such a fundamentalist given that, where were it not for the Arabs in the 11th century, we would not in the West have gained the vast amount of Scientific knowledge from the Greeks and many who existed before them.

 

[pedercic99]

If the definition of natural is:

in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature;

Then homosexuality goes against the natural order of things; which is to live, procreate and then die.

As for gay sex in the animal kingdom, from what I have seen, males use it to relieve themselves of sexual frustration when there are no females around.

So from what I have seen, it is a temporary 'bout' of homosexuality and those same males would breed with females given the chance. Homosexual acts therefore do occur in the animal kindom. But as for 100% homosexual orientation (in the animal kingdom)...I'm not so sure.

Carrying on from what Rugbypup said, it could be that homosexuality in humans is a remnant from the early years when submissive males only had male outlets (inlets? :wink for their sexual needs.

And that system probably existed for a long time and became ingrained to some degree in some human psyches, which would explain 100% homosexuality. I suppose the same way that you can breed a fighting instinct into a dog.

That could be why it "feels natural" to some or most gay people.

However, according to the dictionary, homosexuality is not natural.

[FONT=&quot]As some of us are a bit dense, we are lucky to have an intellectual on here who can explain these things to us with the help of a dictionary.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The word ‘natural’ when used in this context has both a normative and a descriptive sense. Neither is particularly useful when discussing homosexuality in humans. If it is used in the sense of ‘occurring in nature’, many things – shaving, undergoing surgery, using condoms, reading books - are not ‘natural’. If it is used in the sense of ‘morally good because occurring in nature’, this either assumes that everything that happens in nature is morally good, or that something must occur in nature to be morally good. Both of these assumptions are pretty questionable.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You tell us that the ‘natural order of things’ is to live, procreate and then die. As you provide no citation for this I assume you thought it up yourself.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is true for any species when taken as a whole, but not for the individual members of that species. If no members of a given species procreate it will obviously die out. So procreation could be said to be ‘natural’ for a species, although ‘essential’ would be a better word to use. However there is no need for every member of a species to procreate in order for it to continue to exist, so to that extent it makes no sense to describe procreation as ‘natural’ when referring to individuals members of that species. It makes even less sense when referring to individual humans, even heterosexual ones, most of whom do not have sex with each other solely in order to procreate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your attempted explanation of ‘100% homosexuality’ is not very impressive. You use phrases like ‘it could be that’, ‘probably existed’ and ‘to some degree’. In other words you don’t know and are just speculating wildly. Even if you are right, your theory would only explain the existence of anally receptive homosexuals. Many homosexuals do not like being penetrated anally, so it does not apply to them. I look forward to hearing what ‘probably could be’ the reason for their sexual orientation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[dolfette]

neato! bickering on topic. ha!

 

[dongalong]

but i've been pondering this...

lots of social animals live in groups where some members give up the chance to breed and instead help raise the offspring of their parents/siblings/cousins.
wolves, bees, etc.
the offspring have more 'parents' so theyhave a better chance of survival. the non-breeders increase the chance of related genes being passed on.

homosexuality is seen in other animals.

so perhaps homosexuality was nature's way of providing a group with non-breeding adults...which would mean homosexuality is completely natural.

does that make any sense or am i talking utter shite?

I agree, it makes sense.
On Earth there is a risk of overpopulation so homosexuality is advantageous to everyone under such conditions.

The difference between humans and animals is that animals live by the rules of the dominant, stronger animals, they don't have labels for their behaviour and only do something wrong when they interfere directly with their superior's way of living.

Humans are no longer dominated by the strongest, instead the smartest are in control, they create morals, laws and encourage groups to form which naturally encourages rivalries. Control is achieved through manipulation (divide and conquer), religions are experts in the matter - at some time in history, they decided that homosexual acts were unacceptable (and unnatural) which instantly created divisions in society.

Even though homosexuals do nothing that effects each individual directly, morals and laws have made their behaviour a problem to those who strongly believe that everyone should conform to what they have been educated to believe is the right way to behave.

In reality, natural behaviour includes interactions between natural things and performing acts that are physically possible (without any tools, equipment, synthetic materials, superpowers etc.)
Since men are natural beings and it is physically possible to arse fuck, it's hard to deny that such behaviour is natural.

When these acts are considered unnatural, it is entirely subjective and results from education.

 

[SEXXXX]

a hole is a hole is a hole

HOLY MOLLY!!!!!!!!!

 

[Wish-4-8]

True, good point.

Having said that - the Old Testament is pretty clear about condeming homosexuality (the Sodom and Gomorrah tale, for instance).

Actually, the people were not condemed for homosexuality. There were condemed for being assholes to God's guests. You mess with God's people, he will mess with you.

Think about this. Why didnt God destroy the cities before? Werent the people already doing homosexual acts BEFORE the guests showed up?

Oh, my favorite part was when the father offered his two underaged virgen daughters to be raped by the mob of men. It seems those men would rather have sex with adult men then underage girls. Gotta love the Bible.

 

[gymfresh]

I long ago gave up any notion of belonging to a "natural order" or any sort of 6,000-year progression or billion-year progression or anything else. Somewhere around the age of 8 I concluded that I exist to do that which I do well and enjoy, be it memorizing car mags or traveling or (discoverd much later) giving the best damn handjobs on the planet, and others -- humans, cats, fallen leaves -- exist only to the extent that they exist in my universe.

And within this arbitrary universe the human genders seem to be more or less binary, so constructing a simple cross-chart there are 4 main attraction options that, all other things being equal, seem to each qualify for a 25% likelihood from birth: boy likes girl, boy likes boy, girl likes girl, girl likes boy. Done. That puts what we call "homosexuality" at about 50% in nature, unless something else skews it. The fact that "heterosexuality" seems somewhat more prevalent suggests to me that numerous factors went to work, such as an occasional desire for more offspring and a tendency for those who are physically stronger (usually males) and enjoy the opposite sex more to take lots of partners and breed repeatedly. Ultimately -- and powerfully-- the breeders imposed their views on the minority. Whatever. It will never, ever change the fact that same-sex-attracted humans are born by the millions every year and will continue to be for eternity. Or someone's eternity... I'm really just concerned with the time I'm here for. (Before the goodness freaks jump down my throat, that doesn't mean using up every resource in sight during my existence... I recycle and leave a small footprint, but only because I believe in using only what you need).

As a kid I used to muse about how much more useful and utopian it would be if we just discarded any idea of sexual orientation and let people breed as they see fit. If that means a given "heterosexual" never breeds and a given "homosexual" breeds as the mood strikes, so be it. I have no interest in being a parent, but I do believe I am fully capable of completing - and possibly enjoying - coitus with a particular woman, even if I am gay.

My other childhood innovation that I haven't entirely let go of is that every adult human should be legally allowed one husband and one wife (with no requirement to have both, or either). Carried out to its logical conclusion, we end up with a coolly intertwined web of families and communal child-rearing, not to mention very interesting and potentially long-chained partner introductions at cocktail parties.

Then homosexuality goes against the natural order of things; which is to live, procreate and then die.

Be gone from my existence; I exist for one reason, and one reason only: to be me.

 

[mitchymo]

Meh the 86(?) Mill I'm offering tops a sex-slave any day :tongue:

Though, I must admit to being curious about the sex one could have with someone who is not only his own mother, but the spawn of satan too :wink:

Hmmm...i would say 86+ mill would be an adequate sum to find out....if you would just write the cheque to cash that would be great...my address is:- 666 Hellfire Avenue, Godisverybad, Middle East :wink::biggrin1:

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

No amount of religious spouting, twisted opinions on nature or anything else, is going to convince me that seeking out personal happiness and fulfillment is anything but 100% natural.

The only thing unnatural about homosexuality is that it scares and disgusted people to the point where they can't accept another human being finding comfort and companionship with someone they love, while doing no harm to anyone.

This issue seems, possibly more than any other, to often bring religion into play. I suppose when people can't reason scientifically, then resort to the Bible--or whatever book they rely on.

Religion aside, homosexuality has been reported for ALL great apes (including humans), as well as a number of other primate species.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia that I enjoyed reading. It was actually kinda sweet:

African and Asiatic males will engage in same-sex bonding and mounting. Such encounters are often associated with affectionate interactions, such as kissing, trunk intertwining, and placing trunks in each other's mouths. Male elephants, who often live apart from the general flock, often form "companionships", consisting of an older individual and one or sometimes two younger, attendant males with sexual behaviour being an important part of the social dynamic. Unlike heterosexual relations, which are always of a fleeting nature, the relationships between males may last for years. The encounters are analogous to heterosexual bouts, one male often extending his trunk along the other's back and pushing forward with his tusks to signify his intention to mount. Same-sex relations are common and frequent in both sexes, with Asiatic elephants in captivity devoting roughly 45% of sexual encounters to same-sex activity. (source)

 

[B_Nick8]

OMG you ARE saying i'm a child of Satan....Nick8 i need you!!!

Right here, Babe.

You'll need to be naked for the exorcism.

 

[SEXXXX]

...

Be gone from my existence; I exist for one reason, and one reason only: to be me.

I'm not as ambitious, just need more good sex that's all

 

[mitchymo]

Right here, Babe.

You'll need to be naked for the exorcism.

:biggrin1: Actively trying to bring out the devil in me, love it!

 

[Gillette]

homosexuality is seen in other animals.

so perhaps homosexuality was nature's way of providing a group with non-breeding adults...which would mean homosexuality is completely natural.

There have been a few studies which suggest birth order may affect sexual orientation. If this bears out it's one more thing supporting the idea that nature caps reproductivity in it's own way. We already know that females have a limited reproductive window between first ovulating and menopause. Why would it not also make sense to have developed a way of producing offspring that add to the strength of the group without adding reproductive competition?

 

[MarkLondon]

<snip>
I would like to see some reputable source of evidence for wolves that do not breed in order to 'look after' another wolf's offspring.<snip>

But wolves are a prime example of non-breeding animals helping raise related offspring, and also indulging in homosexual activity. There's only one breeding female in a pack. Most of the pack are related, being offspring of the alpha female, but there are often some non-related adults too.

From Biological Exuberance - animal homosexuality and natural diversity by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD, St Martin's Press, USA, 1999. ISBN 1 86917 182 6:

"Male wolves often mount each other when the highest-ranking female in their pack comes into heat. A male wolf sometimes also mounts another male when the latter is mounting a female." and "Male wolves that mount each other are bisexual, also showing sexual interest in females. However their heterosexual activity is limited to the highest-ranking breeding female: males routinely ignore lower-ranking females in favour of homosexual activity."

For some reason the author doesn't discuss the sexual behaviour of female wolves, though he does cover female homosexual activity, pairing and co-operative offspring-rearing in many other species, including foxes.

Homosexual activity is incredibly common in nature, occuring in almost all mamalian and avian species. In birds in particular this often results in pairing and nest-building. Paradoxically, male pairs are more likely to successfully rear chicks than female pairs. They do so by stealing or adopting abandoned eggs (this is most common in birds that breed in colonies), whereas female pairs tend to lay unfertisised eggs. Female swans have been observed intruding into male couples, mating and laying eggs, then going back to their own partner. Threesomes (two males and a female) have also been observed in breeding birds, where the males have a sexual relationship with eachother as well as the female. Having three parents, they are often more successful at raising offspring than a heterosexual pair.

 

[Enid]

1youngboy said:

You can't compare animals to humans.

Actually you can. Humans are animals. It is true that humans differ from other animals in terms of intelligence. However, from a biological perspective, humans are classified as animals.

 

[Rugbypup]

In absence of fact, fiction prevails.

Sadly science has no definitive conclusions as to why homosexuality exists. They sorta understand how it comes about and that it's prevalent across the animal kingdom, yes, that includes humans too, but as to what function it provides, that's where they get a little patchy.

Until they sus that out, the tired old God rhetoric will bang on for a long time to come, especially from the small minded!

 

[D_Harry_Crax]

You can't compare animals to humans.

You have a very lovely cock....for an ass.

 

[B_1youngboy]

There have been a few studies which suggest birth order may affect sexual orientation. If this bears out it's one more thing supporting the idea that nature caps reproductivity in it's own way. We already know that females have a limited reproductive window between first ovulating and menopause. Why would it not also make sense to have developed a way of producing offspring that add to the strength of the group without adding reproductive competition?

You can't be serious.

Can a gay man not produce sperms to propel the reproductive nature of this earth ? The only way your idea would make sense is if gay men couldn't impregnate women. Then yes, I would agree it's natural.

Reproduction is natural, but it's a choice. Homosexuality can be argued to be a threat to the growth of humanity.