• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?

I wonder if God looks up or down on homosexuality..?

I mean I guess I like lesbians.
 
I say nature for the straightforward reason that homosexuality has been observed in several animal species, and animals just do what comes naturally.

Just to be precise, by homosexuality here I don't mean so-called 'opportunistic' homosexuality, ie randy hereto male will mate another male if no females are available, which is a behaviour that both humans and animals occasionally engage in. I'm talking 'primary' homosexuality, ie a male animal showing mating behavior exclusively and preferentially towards other males even in the presence of in-season willing females of the same species. And this has been documented in animals as diverse as domestic sheep, horses, wolves and penguins.

Add to this the fact that all attempts at forced 'conversion' of sexual orientation have failed wildly and only succeeded in traumatising people. It's pretty clear that it's inborn.

.. Obviously from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is not 'desirable' as these individuals will not reproduce ; however if a small percentage of homosexual individuals were very detrimental to any given species' success this trait would have evolved out of existence again. It seems nature is fine with that certain percentage. Interestingly in social animal species, homosexual animals have been observed taking on extra 'duties', such as watching out for danger and alerting the group, or helping to bring nest material or food to breeding members of the group, and so actually enhancing the chances of related animals to survive. Sometimes in the case of birds they will also 'adopt' eggs or hatchlings that have been rejected by the parent animal.
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
Original Christianity was the best ancient man could come up with.

Christianity worked fantastically well until supernatural belief screwed up the Christian theology/ideology.

That best thinking remains to some extent, but Christians no longer see it.

Only Gnostics Christians seem to see it.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
There is not such a thing as "gnostics christians" nowadays.
You need a proper gnostic master to become a gnostic, and they are all dead like 1800 years ago.

Maybe you have been reading Osiris Gómez or his father or any other natural born bullshiter.

To be part of an ancient and wise cult is one thing, wanking to some weird internet site is another.

Being homophobic is gross. Pretending you are homophobic by some mystical shit is just ridiculous.
 
The UltimateFixx said:
I say nature for the straightforward reason that homosexuality has been observed in several animal species, and animals just do what comes naturally.

Just to be precise, by homosexuality here I don't mean so-called 'opportunistic' homosexuality, ie randy hereto male will mate another male if no females are available, which is a behaviour that both humans and animals occasionally engage in. I'm talking 'primary' homosexuality, ie a male animal showing mating behavior exclusively and preferentially towards other males even in the presence of in-season willing females of the same species. And this has been documented in animals as diverse as domestic sheep, horses, wolves and penguins.

Add to this the fact that all attempts at forced 'conversion' of sexual orientation have failed wildly and only succeeded in traumatising people. It's pretty clear that it's inborn.

.. Obviously from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is not 'desirable' as these individuals will not reproduce ; however if a small percentage of homosexual individuals were very detrimental to any given species' success this trait would have evolved out of existence again. It seems nature is fine with that certain percentage. Interestingly in social animal species, homosexual animals have been observed taking on extra 'duties', such as watching out for danger and alerting the group, or helping to bring nest material or food to breeding members of the group, and so actually enhancing the chances of related animals to survive. Sometimes in the case of birds they will also 'adopt' eggs or hatchlings that have been rejected by the parent animal.
Click to expand...
And homosexuality have his ancient roots in early societies.They had special status.Semi-sacred.A person,who gives special names,which only the person must know(like in native americans),to made predicaments or in role of"psycho pump"some sort.Vut now is more type of culture influence through medias
 
The UltimateFixx said:
I say nature for the straightforward reason that homosexuality has been observed in several animal species, and animals just do what comes naturally.

Just to be precise, by homosexuality here I don't mean so-called 'opportunistic' homosexuality, ie randy hereto male will mate another male if no females are available, which is a behaviour that both humans and animals occasionally engage in. I'm talking 'primary' homosexuality, ie a male animal showing mating behavior exclusively and preferentially towards other males even in the presence of in-season willing females of the same species. And this has been documented in animals as diverse as domestic sheep, horses, wolves and penguins.

Add to this the fact that all attempts at forced 'conversion' of sexual orientation have failed wildly and only succeeded in traumatising people. It's pretty clear that it's inborn.

.. Obviously from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is not 'desirable' as these individuals will not reproduce ; however if a small percentage of homosexual individuals were very detrimental to any given species' success this trait would have evolved out of existence again. It seems nature is fine with that certain percentage. Interestingly in social animal species, homosexual animals have been observed taking on extra 'duties', such as watching out for danger and alerting the group, or helping to bring nest material or food to breeding members of the group, and so actually enhancing the chances of related animals to survive. Sometimes in the case of birds they will also 'adopt' eggs or hatchlings that have been rejected by the parent animal.
Click to expand...

I think having some homosexuals has evolutionary benefit in social animals. It can work via kin selection. You describe the benefits in your post.

However, this does not exclude the possibility of cultural conditioning. Presumably it would operate from a young age. The failure to "reprogram" homosexuals does not disprove the possibility to "program" homosexuals.

It's a very complex field and culture obviously is implicated somehow in human sexual expression.

As i said last time i was in this thread: I'm just trying to be unbiased and open to possibilities. I have zero interest in judging here.
 
There are studies or a study whatever I think that female relatives of homosexual males have more offspring than females without homosexual male relatives so the implication is that (at least that kind of homosexulity) the 'homosexual' gene(s) were retained for fertility reasons. Not that that explains, life, the universe, and everything, but its an interesting idea about human sexuality and breeding strategies, I have no idea whether its accurate or not.
 
Atomic_Decay said:
I’d take a semiotic view and say ‘Homosexuals’ are actually created by language. As humans use language to construct the world conceptually and socially they categorise, name, and place an implicit value on everything they perceive. Things that can influence language influence how things are eventually valued. Value is also constructed relatively by understanding first what things are not.

So in Western and Abrahamic cultures homosexuality is invariably constructed as the opposite/negation of positive heterosexuality. That is, it gets constructed and understood as a whole bunch of negatives against the commonly perceived ideal. It therefore registers cognitively to people as the negation of opposite of things like ‘natural, ‘normal’, ‘manly’, ‘pure’, ‘sacred’, good for society’, ‘about family’, ‘healthy’ etc etc.
Click to expand...
The most simple explanation in Abrahamic religion..let's say the ancient jews-they need to be as many as possible They need a men for warriors and workers and women for breeding and workin also.Cause they were constantly on the run,aliens in foreign land in way to "promise land",constantly surrounded with hostile tribes...and to be a homosexual may be was portraiting like a danger for the society.That exist in Old Testament...and Koran too.In Gospels Jesus have nothing told against him.He was eating and drink with drunkards,prostitutes and may be even homosexuals on a table.the lowest classes at that time.Later St.Paul got his words against them,but it never came from Christ itself
 
Last edited:
@
Mjäll said:
I think having some homosexuals has evolutionary benefit in social animals. It can work via kin selection. You describe the benefits in your post.

However, this does not exclude the possibility of cultural conditioning. Presumably it would operate from a young age. The failure to "reprogram" homosexuals does not disprove the possibility to "program" homosexuals.

It's a very complex field and culture obviously is implicated somehow in human sexual expression.

As i said last time i was in this thread: I'm just trying to be unbiased and open to possibilities. I have zero interest in judging here.
Click to expand...
Thanks
 
maybe it has to do with mass media, maybe...

perhaps its john waynes fault, with riding horses all day. dont know, maybe its the cowboys, maybe...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top