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

If homosexuality is in nature...

Turbo Monk,

Actually, I somewhat see a point in the experiment you were talking about. However, I dont see how that point is relevant to anything.

Would you agree that just because something doesn't survive very well, that does not mean that it is not natural? For example, if I put a bunch of lions with no tools into a ring with a bunch of humans with no tools, who do you think would come out on top? You see, it doesn't really prove anything that the lions would completely tear the humans to bits, it doesn't make being human not natural nor does it mean that we are not as good at surviving.

Survival depends on whether or not a species naturally knows and does what it has to do to survive. I'm pretty confident in saying that every homosexual knows that if there were only homosexual males and females they would have to have sex with each other, and they would do that willingly. They would only be doing it to procreate, and they would still practice homosexual relations. That doesn't mean that they're practicing heterosexual relations. The fact that they have sex for the sole purpose of survival does not make them any less gay then they are.

Would you disagree that heterosexual couples could yield homosexual children?

Take your experiment for example....

Put 500 heteros on an island and 500 gays on another island ... Judging by past events I think it is fair to say that it is likely that a percentage of that population, no matter how small it might be, is likely to be born homosexual.
 
Another point... I personally see a trend between gay people and going out, having fun, not really giving a shit about being violent. When was the last time you heard of gay people starting a war or killing innocent people, or being serial killers, or anything of the sort? Having said that, I feel that saying that this group of people literally "promotes" death, is not appropriate.
 
Tr6ai0ls4,

I actually agree that homosexuality is natural, it's the context and definition of how natural applies to homosexuality is where we disagree.

Obviously, homosexuality is found in nature, making it natural, but I don't buy into it being biologically inherent.

The belief that homosexuality is "biological" or "genetic" causes people to develop more positive attitudes toward it, adding to its ever-growing layers for social conditioning.

The fact that they have sex for the sole purpose of survival does not make them any less gay then they are.
Click to expand...

That's the equivalent of saying, "my brains hard wired for heterosex, but I can go homosex if I want to deaden my branch on the family tree."

If homosexuality is hard-wired into the brain, how would a gay person even be able to have heterosexual sex or be able to reproduce?

When you say they have hetero sex because they want (desire) to reproduce, it becomes their choice to do so.
 
Tr6ai0ls4 said:
Turbo Monk,

Actually, I somewhat see a point in the experiment you were talking about. However, I dont see how that point is relevant to anything.

Would you agree that just because something doesn't survive very well, that does not mean that it is not natural? For example, if I put a bunch of lions with no tools into a ring with a bunch of humans with no tools, who do you think would come out on top? You see, it doesn't really prove anything that the lions would completely tear the humans to bits, it doesn't make being human not natural nor does it mean that we are not as good at surviving.

Survival depends on whether or not a species naturally knows and does what it has to do to survive. I'm pretty confident in saying that every homosexual knows that if there were only homosexual males and females they would have to have sex with each other, and they would do that willingly. They would only be doing it to procreate, and they would still practice homosexual relations. That doesn't mean that they're practicing heterosexual relations. The fact that they have sex for the sole purpose of survival does not make them any less gay then they are.

Would you disagree that heterosexual couples could yield homosexual children?

Take your experiment for example....

Put 500 heteros on an island and 500 gays on another island ... Judging by past events I think it is fair to say that it is likely that a percentage of that population, no matter how small it might be, is likely to be born homosexual.
Click to expand...

I am glad someone else finally took the time to make that detailed first argument I do not believe in being born of any sexual origon however, other wise the whole birthing prosess might be a little arousing.
 
Turbo Monk said:
Obviously, homosexuality is found in nature, making it natural, but I don't buy into it being biologically inherent.
Click to expand...

If homosexuality isn't biologically inheritant, then how did it originate, in your opinion?
 
>>The belief that homosexuality is "biological" or "genetic" causes people to develop more positive attitudes toward it, adding to its ever-growing layers for social conditioning.>>

but biological or social, choice doesn't factor in except when desire is crystalized into identity...
...regardless, im going to go off on a limb (a very short limb, mind you) and posit that homosexuality would be just fine even if it were largely a matter of choice.

ebola
 
It's stupid to say that homosexuality is not natural. Especially on bluelight, it's hypocritical to say that people should not have the choice to do what they want to do as long as it is not harming others. You christian nazis need to do some serious examination of the actual man you supposedly follow.
 
Turbo Monk said:

An experiment as the one I described would have pretty clear results: the hetero group would survive and the homo group would die off. From this, one could conclude that hetero societies promote life and continuation of species, while homo societies promote death and extermination of species.

It's a sociological hypothesis WhyzFool, not a judgement. :)
Click to expand...

So heterosexual people who choose not to reproduce are murderers? Your argument doesn't make any sense. People should be allowed to not reproduce. If anything, we ALREADY have an overpopulation problem.

The last thing you should be worried about is the extinction of the human race anytime soon.
 
Some solid arguements there. But I imagine you're all being 'ignorant' or somesuch.
 

That's the equivalent of saying, "my brains hard wired for heterosex, but I can go homosex if I want to deaden my branch on the family tree."

I understand what you're saying. At this point, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because after this, I think we might start going in circles.

I do not see how having sex to reproduce while remaining gay is saying "my brain is hard wired for heterosex.. etc. etc.. ". If you, a heterosexual, somebody who is attracted to only females in a sexual manner, had to have gay sex to reproduce and pass your genes, would you say that your brain was hard wired for gay sex?

If homosexuality is hard-wired into the brain, how would a gay person even be able to have heterosexual sex or be able to reproduce?

You are a heterosexual. You are physically capable of having gay sex, as undesireable as it may be, no?

When you say they have hetero sex because they want (desire) to reproduce, it becomes their choice to do so.

Yes, it is your choice to reproduce. Niether hetero nor homosexual people absolutely HAVE to reproduce. You can choose not to. When you have a baby, majority of the time it is something that happened by choice. Even in cases where a child was concieved by accident, there is still the option of abortion for heterosexuals. How is this not choice?
 
Apes Ma said:
If homosexuality isn't biologically inheritant, then how did it originate, in your opinion?
Click to expand...

You will definitely not agree with my opinion as we differ in how man originated.

In hopes to avoid that debate, I think we'd at least agree that your and my existence started from sperm meeting egg, developing into embryonic life, growing to who we are right now.

Where we start to differ is in my belief that the designer of this process has an intended, optimal condition in which it desires us to live. We're free to choose to strive to live in that condition or live outside of it. (this applies to everything we do, not just our sexuality)

Homosexuality originated from man's initial desire to live outside of the designer's intended condition. The influence for this is from the one who opposes the designer. The one who opposes the designer is cleverly deceptive whose goal is to destroy the quality of and quantity of human life, using whatever methods possible, some blatantly horrendous, others more subtle and socially accepted.

but biological or social, choice doesn't factor in except when desire is crystalized into identity...
Click to expand...

When people say, "I've always been attracted to members of the same sex," I believe them. Homosexuality has had 1000s of years to culturally assimilate.


The last thing you should be worried about is the extinction of the human race anytime soon.
Click to expand...

No worries here pal.

You are a heterosexual. You are physically capable of having gay sex, as undesireable as it may be, no?
Click to expand...


Exactly! as undesireable as it may be... it all starts with one's desire.

Desire is a matter of the heart, not genetics.
 
Something to think about. I believe that it is within our nature to get into a relationship, start a family, and have children. This is natural, because its what we see in animals and ourselves. But there are people out there that don't want children or a family. Yes, they exist. This can be called "unnatural" in a sense, as it goes against the desire of most people and animals. Most people would agree that this is not wrong. Nobody would complain (okay, maybe the parents who want grandchildren :\.)

Why can't we see homosexuality in the same way?
Why do we have to say it's wrong and complain?
 
before one throughs around a word like unnatural they should reflect on what that means exactly. essentianly not only is nothing unnatural but there is nothing more natural then sexual deviation because the peramiters of deviance is a verbal structure inclusive to humanity and as fresh as a blink in life as best we can proove.

I think the appropriate word to be searching for might be abnormal.
 
heart/genetics!!!!! can't you see it's all the same!!!!

don't argue with me now..

nope..

i could have gay sex. but it definately wouldn't become an all time thing. women give me comfort. make me feel right. a guy would just be to get off... i guess i'm 10% gay...
 
Viewing homosexuality in terms of "right or wrong", is very ignorant (IMO anyway)

Perhaps it was evolved to keep the population level down?
If all our ancestors were stunningly beautiful, and all hetrosexual, they might have found it difficult to feed and look after all the kids. Maybe...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top