Why Celibacy?

[Akamu]

This is a topic I meant to start a while ago, but got distracted. Why would one for any reason (be it moral, religious, or simply preference) abstain from something as natural and as crucial to the perpetuation of our species? Do you think anyone is justified in shunning a regular sexual life? Or do you think they are just deceiving themselves? Perhaps they may think themselves elitist; above and beyond the ordinary person? Do you think there exists a sexual preference on the same level as bisexuals and homosexuals in which someone would be considered asexual? Or does it simply boil down to hormonal and/or psychological imbalances? Sorry for all the questions :) I'm sure the topic will gain focus and momentum if enough people take interest. I will be sure to throw in my $.02 if this goes anywhere.

[ABrutalKind]

I would think that most reasons would surround the idea that sex and procreation would be a distraction from some greater purpose. I mean if that by mentioning procreation as the sole reason for sex it would insinuate that there would be child rearing involved. I would think that reason alone would cause people not to spend at least eighteen years of their life devoted to a child or multiple children. As for plain abstinence simply from sex, I have no real idea other than it could be viewed as a distraction. Or have negative religious consequences.

[scameter]

I'll try to help it along. :) I think that the reason people throughout history in many different cultures has primarily been because sex is such a physical, nude, open, "animal" action, where one's passions are at the forefront, and where one's body is completely seen and judged by someone else. Because of this act of revealing, it makes the individual have less control over their image and confidence, as well as losing some of their positive reputation in society. But, of course, there are many different reasons for it, including doing it to focus more on something else such as one's career or religion, doing it for medical reasons, doing it to make one's will at resisting bodily emotions and urges stronger (similar to fasting, but more plausible), one's low self-confidence or social popularity causing one to involuntarily become celibate, avoiding social persecution (mostly in the case of homosexuals), increasing one's sense of independance and self-awareness, and many other reasons. Were you asking in a particular area of life, such as religion or social interaction?

[the_aphid]

Well I'm willing to throw in my 2 cents as well.This is a topic I meant to start a while ago, but got distracted. Why would one for any reason (be it moral, religious, or simply preference) abstain from something as natural and as crucial to the perpetuation of our species?I think there are a number of reasons as to why one would abstain (or at least attempt to abstain) from sex. You touched on a number of them already I believe, but I will suggest some more. Reasons for celibacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibacy) according to wikipedia:
Religious beliefs (religious celibacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibacy#Religious_celibacy))
In order to strengthen the body
To avoid the risk and/or prevent the spread of venereal disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venereal_disease)
To focus energies on other matters, like one's career or social issues (sublimation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29))
To avoid contributing to overpopulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation)
To cultivate a relationship according to an ideal of chastity
An inability to obtain a willing sexual partner (involuntary celibacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_celibacy))
An inability to find a sexual partner that one finds acceptable or tolerable
A distaste or lack of appetite for sex (asexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality), antisexualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisexualism))
A distaste or lack of desire for couple hood
To avoid persecution (e.g. prosecution for gay relations under sodomy laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law))
Perceived benefit of alteration of physiological factors (hormonal changes)
As an attempt to regain a sense of self and independence from others
Medical limitations (medical celibacy)
To enhance the production of the DMT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMT)-molecule in the Pineal Gland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_Gland), and limit the production of Melatonin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melatonin).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]I'll get to my views on celibacy and abstinence shortly, but first there is one important issue I feel should be addressed. Sex can be seen differently by different people. I spent some time thinking about this when I was younger, and I decided that ultimately sex can be seen in three distinct ways. First, there is sex as the means of reproduction. It is just the method of procreation, and doesn't even need to be all that enjoyable in order to accomplish the task. Second, there is sex as a profound spiritual or intimate connection between two people who are (very often) in 'love'. And thirdly, there is the form of recreational sex, which has become very popular in modern times.

Now, I don't see any of these ways of looking at sex to be 'wrong', however I personal avoid the latter. The reason is that I find it hard to form a distinction between sex as being 'intimate' and sex as simply being 'enjoyable' if you readily engage in both. I think inevitably you blur the boundaries, the definitions of what you feel sex is about, and eventually you end up at one or the other.

I think sex, particularly for any adolescent suffering from RHS (raging hormone syndrome :lol:) sexual desire is an overwhelming stimulant for desires (and attachment) in general. As a teenager you desire to be attractive, to be popular, to have money, to have a car, to be smart, to be successful, etc, all fundamentally for the desire to have sex. Sure, this might seem a little Freudian, but at that age life is very much about sex. Oh, and not just any sex, you desire to have sex with the most attractive individual of the opposite you can obtain! Most certainly this stems from our biological urges which drive every other sexual species on the planet. You want to be the alpha male, get all the best mates, you become very selective for 'symmetry' and all of these other things. I might be generalizing here, but there is a reason why young men have an urge to sleep with lots of different girls, while the girls try to refrain from letting one of those young men come and steal their innocence. And once again it is all biologically driven, millions of years of evolution at work!

This brings me to the first justification that one could resolve for abstinence, which is that by abstaining from sex you are provided with the required commitment to form an understanding about it. I think that in modern times (at least in western cultures) people are having sex far too soon, and as a result they end up turning sex into the latter of the above three examples. It becomes a means of entertainment, one which you share with many different partners, and each and every time you engage with yet another person and it doesn't fulfill to a greater degree, it becomes less and less enjoyable. I'm not saying at 16 you downright shouldn't have sex, but rather that you shouldn't have sex until you're intellectually mature. It just so happens that more often then not at 16 you are not intellectually mature, and are really just responding to those hormones, along with societal pressures which also play a significant role of influence.

I also realize that I am talking now about sexual abstinence, and not so much celibacy. Celibacy can be seen as distinct from abstinence, as often celibacy is a life-long commitment. I think that the benefit of celibacy can be seen in the people who make such a commitment. Religious and spiritual enlightenment might seem impossible to obtain if you are clouded by powerful biological urges. However, celibacy should not be employed as a rule or law in my personal opinion, because I feel that this leads individuals to forms of sexual misconduct. Instead celibacy needs to be adopted by the willing, the individuals who deem it a required lifestyle in order to obtain the understanding they seek.Do you think anyone is justified in shunning a regular sexual life? Or do you think they are just deceiving themselves? Perhaps they may think themselves elitist; above and beyond the ordinary person?I would say if a persons logic or rationality leads them to refrain from sex, then that is justification enough. Some might abstain from sex after experiencing it a number of times, as well as experiencing a slew of other emotions that are very often tied to sex. Previous heartbreak could most certainly cause one to refrain from all sorts of intimacy. Do you think there exists a sexual preference on the same level as bisexuals and homosexuals in which someone would be considered asexual? Or does it simply boil down to hormonal and/or psychological imbalances?Whether or not it all 'boils down to hormonal and/or psychological imbalances', I certainly couldn't say. I do believe that people can become, or can be predisposed to, a sort of apathetic sexual appetite. Perhaps there is a genetic factor that would cause you to simply not feel the slightest sensation of arousal or attraction, be it to a man or woman. I'm sure that having any sort of traumatic experience, such as some form of sexual abuse, could certainly cause someone to refrain from any sexual activity. I also believe that because of the stigma of homosexuality, that there are likely a lot of homosexuals out there that feel it necessary to abstain from sex since they don't desire the 'correct' partner. It's sad to think about...I can't imagine growing up being told that I should feel one way and knowing I feel differently, then feel ashamed to have such feelings. :shakehead:

Well, this is getting pretty long! It would seem I had a lot of things to say about sex. Consider this more like my 50 cents worth!

[Vlatko]

Here is my input folks:

I think that we can't just refer to Wikipedia and list all the reasons for celibacy that are there. Wikipedia is not so reliable source after all.

In my opinion, celibacy is used and can be used only in religious connotation. Everything else is just another kind of abstinence of sex. Either we can say that celibacy is just one kind of abstinence of sex.

Celibacy is a vow not to have sex and by that man is consciously interfering in the very course of the nature in a very rude way. A disease or a psychological issues can't be taken as reasons for celibacy. They can be only taken as reasons for abstinence of sex in general.

Now that we have some "clearer" interpretation of the word celibacy, we can go deeper in the reasons and justification of the celibacy.

Man is in the middle. Above the animals and bellow the "divine". Man is in between unconsciousness and "superconsciousness". He has animal instincts and in the same time he is framed in the society. Every step that he takes in the society is in deep conflict with his animal and if he does something animalistic that will be in conflict with the society. The man is in constant turmoil, bitter struggle.

So what is to be done? If you observe animals you will see that they are in blissful happiness. They don't have thoughts, no plans, no desires, no frustration. When they eat they totally eat, when they run they totally run. Ignorance is bliss. So man can fall back to unconsciousness with some methods, let say with using alcohol, drugs, or even by repeating some mantra. Or he can climb up to superconsciousness also by using some methods like yoga and meditation so he can fully realize the very nature of his mind and transcend the mind.

Sex is animalistic or at least it is seen as animalistic by man. Since man doesn't want to be animal anymore he is suppressing sex in various ways. But one weapon is the most effective and that is religion. Convince people that sex is wrong using fear. That is celibacy. Abstinence of sex thinking that in some way it is wrong. What a mess.

Cheers, Vlatko

[Michael]

I suspect that there are those who abstain in order to gather the power that resides in sexual energy. Where that gets them I don't know - never tried it.
But I find I do instinctively abstain more when I am working in spirit.

Reading your intro Vladko, you seem to be the polaric opposite to the religious police that are to be found at the more extreme ends of the theistic 'isms'.

[Flux]

Celibacy is a vow not to have sex and by that man is consciously interfering in the very course of the nature in a very rude way.

Although I think it's ridiculous for one to claim that everyone should be celibate, I don't think there's anything inherently "unnatural" about choosing to be celibate. Although one might adopt celibacy as a form of denial or self supression, I do think that there are those out there who really feel that they don't need or want sex in their lives period. I don't understand the decision, but I don't have to. Their choice.

Every step that he takes in the society is in deep conflict with his animal...The man is in constant turmoil, bitter struggle.

Lifes not all flowers and fluff, but constant turmoil? News to me. Also, I think that the lines that seperate society from nature are very blurry indeed. Who is to say to what extent our human tendency to group and compete is a product of instinct, and howmuch isn't? Fish aren't "unnatural", yet some of them swim in schools.

I do think that many, perhapse the majority, or societies over-stigmatize sex. This being said, I agree with Aphid's attitude about the "three types." Sex is closely tied together with emotion, and it's a difficult thing for many to see a distinction between the emotion of love and the act. While see little reason to choose celibacy, I think that many desire sex so much that they don't think enough about the feelings of the people they're having it with. While I don't think it's a rigid moral imperitive that one have sex only until marriage, I think it's very important not to use sex in a trivial or thoughtless manner, less one hurt others.

A bit more about the view of abstinense as being a repression of sorts. This view can be damaging to both sex's, but especially to women. The conversation I hear around the college never fails to disturb me--both guys and girls refering to other girls as being "frigid" or "prudes." I mean, for goodness sake, are you saying that they should just ignore their own preferences, and have sex against their will? Perhapse even more dangerous than an attitude of repressing sexual desires in the pressuring of those to be sexual who rather wouldn't.

None of this is aimed toward any of you specifically though; I know that none of you are suggesting that sex should be manditory.

[j000han]

Why would one for any reason (be it moral, religious, or simply preference) abstain from something as natural and as crucial to the perpetuation of our species?
>
As to [for being ’crucial’ to the perpetuation of the species]
Personally I think that.in general this so called natural thing has overtime become so
perverted that nature hardly has a saying in it.
The one culture is even sicker then the other culture when it comes down to the various ways
in which this human aspect has become one of the main causes of human suffering.
What at this point is crucial for the perpetuation of the species, is an understanding
that there are far too many of that species allready.
We are not (yet) close to that are we?

[Zofia]

Alrighty then...

Having been celibate for the past seven years I will relate my reasons and my experience.

Celibacy is not a dry spell. It is gone into intentionally and deliberately.

Quite simply put, I did not relate very well to the act of sex. My views and behaviors where hurtful to myself and others. I decided to "remove" sex in order to gain better perspective.

The results where amazing. Yes, more energy for other things. Priorities shifted. My head cleared up a great deal and I felt peaceful.

I am at present, emerging from celibacy. It's kind of funny, almost like an awkward teenager. But that is a good thing, because I never experienced "normal" sexual growth due to sexual trauma, which ignited my compulsive sexual behavior.

So, I am just learning how to flirt safely, and allowing my body and mind to have sexual feelings and thoughts.

All of this was done concurrently with meditation and healing in many other areas as well.

[Zofia]

BTW, abstinence and celibacy differ in that abstinence is not having sex with another. Celibacy includes this but also means not indulging in sexual thoughts or any form of self gratification...i.e. no climax.

[Akamu]

I should have been more careful in distinguishing between celibacy and abstinence.

My story: I have always naturally been repulsed by sex. No part of it is appealing in my eyes. I see the friction of the genitals and the expulsion of sticky liquid. It is of my opinion, while not wrong in any way, that people's tendency to elevate sex beyond what it actually is seems undesirable. It leads to uncontrollable desire, it places a relatively trivial thing at the top of a list of priorities, it often trumps love itself.

Now before we start accusing me of repression or hormonal imbalance, let me mention a few things. My hormone levels are completely normal; I have seen a doctor about the issue while I was younger and more concerned about my "mentality." Being a teenager with an aversion to sex is no easy existence in the world of raging hormones. I also show no other "symptoms" of a hormonal imbalance (ie signs of low testosterone levels in the body.) As for repression, I grew up in a loving, stable, and very liberal family. I mention liberal in the sense that I would be encouraged to come out of the closet were I homosexual without having to fear rejection. My upbringing was utterly normal.

I guess you would call my situation "default abstinence." I never really made any mental choice or sacrifice to be how I am. For a while, I even tried to meld into the norm and attempted to maintain a long term relationship. I experienced what I felt to be "love" I guess, but I maintained an aversion to sex regardless of my effort. This led to one of my current insights. My girlfriend I considered my "best" friend. She knew me better than anyone having spent more time with me than anyone. She was always there for me, etc. However when the relationship finally came to the breaking point, teetering on my decisions regarding sex, it finally snapped. My question was, how could such a loving a beautiful relationship fall apart simply because I couldn't bring myself to put my penis her vagina? Humans seem to have this mentality that a friendship, no matter how intense, can only go so far...it either needs to be transcended via sex or it levels off or breaks. In the case of my friendships with my same sex friends, there really isn't any distinction between them and that of my girlfriend without sexual interaction. I felt that sex is simply an application of the psychological fundamental attribution error. Our minds project that chemical euphoria we experience during sex onto the partner who makes it possible, thus strengthening our desire for him or her and ensures the perpetuation of the species.

So I guess I would say that my abstinence now is based in my realization of the illusory nature of sex itself. I don't want to be the victim of that deceit. Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge the rare couple who has a completely mature and truly loving relationship that is simply supplemented by sex. However take sex completely out of the equation of most relationships, and it will deteriorate fast. Why should "true" love hinge on this condition?

I may add more later, but this took more time than I thought and I need to run :)

[Zofia]

Shunryu Suzuki said, when asked about sex, "It's like brushing your teeth. It feels good while your doing it but you wouldn't want to do it all the time."

Akamu, I think you and I both have experience with the extremes, your aversion versus my past obsession.

I am sorry about that relationship. It seems no sex or too much sex can ruin most relationships. It is hard to balance each other's needs.

You don't have to answer this, I am only posing this question. Is there anything you find sensual? There are wonderful ways to simply be in a heightened mental state without even touching each other, or even touching each other everywhere but the erotic zones. Can be fun if at the onset this is planned and agreed upon. Just a suggestion.

[Akamu]

Zofia: You don't have to answer this, I am only posing this question. Is there anything you find sensual? There are wonderful ways to simply be in a heightened mental state without even touching each other, or even touching each other everywhere but the erotic zones. Can be fun if at the onset this is planned and agreed upon. Just a suggestion.

I don't deny I never had fun doing things other than sex. However, I seemed to grow tired of it very fast, always realizing that all the "heightened" mental states associated with touching, kissing, etc were just precursors to sex. If you mean did I ever feel in a higher state of mind to just be around the person whom I loved, then yes....but it is no different from any other true friend that I have had. For me, it seems, sex isn't a requisite of a loving relationship....however, to find someone who agrees with this is rather difficult.

[Zofia]

For me, it seems, sex isn't a requisite of a loving relationship....however, to find someone who agrees with this is rather difficult.

This is a true statement and there are many who would agree with you and would find a relationship based on that fact very welcome. But total avoidance of sex is entirely different.

If celibacy is an appealing way of life for you, then embrace it. Make it clear and be direct about it. This way you may find what you are looking for instead of having to reveal this view after getting involved.

[...]

This is a topic I meant to start a while ago, but got distracted. Why would one for any reason (be it moral, religious, or simply preference) abstain from something as natural and as crucial to the perpetuation of our species? Do you think anyone is justified in shunning a regular sexual life? Or do you think they are just deceiving themselves? Perhaps they may think themselves elitist; above and beyond the ordinary person? Do you think there exists a sexual preference on the same level as bisexuals and homosexuals in which someone would be considered asexual? Or does it simply boil down to hormonal and/or psychological imbalances? Sorry for all the questions :) I'm sure the topic will gain focus and momentum if enough people take interest. I will be sure to throw in my $.02 if this goes anywhere.

..i haven't read the whole thread, but as someone who's been celibate for almost 6 years now i think i can offer a balanced opinion :)

..your assumptions are incorrect: there's no deceipt, or elitist thought behind it. Not even psychological issues, but hormones may play a part in it. For me the difference between sex and making love to someone you care for is so vast that simply putting in the effort to get sex [a one night stand] is wasted energy and leaves me drained instead of invigourated. I won't have children and do not have the desire to be in a relationship. I'm not asexual, but have not put sex on a pedestal. Sex is for most an ego boost, and a matter of peer pressure [especially when you're younger], but when that isn't an issue; sex isn't an issue...

[Vlatko]

Akamu: I have always naturally been repulsed by sex.

Again, this premise, which is leading you to invalid conclusions, is not valid. Simply you can't be naturally repulsed by sex. You can be only unnaturally repulsed by sex because aversion toward sex is unnatural. Suppose if it was natural one to be repulsed by sex than there would be no humans today. Evolution requires deep attraction towards sex act.

For individual to survive sex is not needed, only food is important. But for the mankind to survive procreation is deeply needed. So, sex has the same meaning for the mankind as the food has the meaning for the individual.

It is very hard for me to say, but Akamu I think you're in unnatural state right now from the "mother's nature" point of view. However human beings evolved to a such degree that they don't simply leave to nature to handle unnatural exceptions. They are accepted in the society as natural as the others. So the very debate is loosing meaning because man already transcended nature in some areas. Therefore I think terms natural and unnatural should be merged in one: tural.

Cheers, Vlatko

[Flux]

Vlatko, the word validity is just a term that means that an argument is structured in such a way that the truth of a premis will guarentee the truth of the answer. Akamu's premis can't be valid or invalid any more than a kitchen sink can be true or false.

Your argument was: you can't be naturally repulsed by sex because if it was natural one to be repulsed by sex than there would be no humans today

Since your argument fails to consider criteria other than whether or not a given act helps to perpetuate the species, I feel perfectally justified in using your argument to conclude that a society which abandons sex alltogether in favor of growing humans in nutrient filled vats is every bit as natural as a society which perpetuates by sex. And this scenario isn't nearly as impossible as it might once have been, given current technology.

Although I think that some human acts can be considered as good or evil, I personally don't see how any human acts can be un-natural. A monkey isn't being unnatural when it uses a leaf to drink water. So how can we be unnatural by using bows and arrows, or cars for that matter?

And about reproduction--it isn't necessary that every member of the species reproduce in order for the species to perpetuate. In fact if every member of the species did reproduce, they might eat food faster than it could grow back, possibly resulting in the extinction of the species due to lack of resourses. If this were the case, then by you criteria, it would be unnatural for every member of the species to reproduce. Large portions of the population not producting isn't hypothetical in the least either--ants have been around far longer than we have, and none of the worker ants, soldier ants, or forager ants in most species are capable of reproducing. It's quite natural for them, really.

[Akamu]

Akamu: I have always naturally been repulsed by sex.

Again, this premise, which is leading you to invalid conclusions, is not valid. Simply you can't be naturally repulsed by sex. You can be only unnaturally repulsed by sex because aversion toward sex is unnatural. Suppose if it was natural one to be repulsed by sex than there would be no humans today. Evolution requires deep attraction towards sex act.

For individual to survive sex is not needed, only food is important. But for the mankind to survive procreation is deeply needed. So, sex has the same meaning for the mankind as the food has the meaning for the individual.

It is very hard for me to say, but Akamu I think you're in unnatural state right now from the "mother's nature" point of view. However human beings evolved to a such degree that they don't simply leave to nature to handle unnatural exceptions. They are accepted in the society as natural as the others. So the very debate is loosing meaning because man already transcended nature in some areas. Therefore I think terms natural and unnatural should be merged in one: tural.

Cheers, Vlatko

I respect your viewpoint, but I think you are making a mistake in considering the aversion to sex unnatural. It could perhaps be true if you stick to your guns and then say it is unnatural to be a homosexual or asexual even though that trait can arise randomly in any human beings and species of animal. But then I would have to simply disagree because in the case of the animal engaging in homosexual tendencies or avoiding sex altogether, it is not possible for that to be unnatural.

[Akamu]

..i haven't read the whole thread, but as someone who's been celibate for almost 6 years now i think i can offer a balanced opinion :)

..your assumptions are incorrect: there's no deceipt, or elitist thought behind it. Not even psychological issues, but hormones may play a part in it. For me the difference between sex and making love to someone you care for is so vast that simply putting in the effort to get sex [a one night stand] is wasted energy and leaves me drained instead of invigourated. I won't have children and do not have the desire to be in a relationship. I'm not asexual, but have not put sex on a pedestal. Sex is for most an ego boost, and a matter of peer pressure [especially when you're younger], but when that isn't an issue; sex isn't an issue...

I wish you had read the whole thread then because I wasn't making assumptions in my first post :) I was simply throwing possible arguments out there that I have heard time and time again from various people. If you read my subsequent posts, you will find that I agree with you for the most part.

[Vlatko]

Flux: Vlatko, the word validity is just a term that means that an argument is structured in such a way that the truth of a premis will guarentee the truth of the answer.

Really Flux. OK, than let me rephrase my previous statement: Again, this premise, which is leading you to invalid conclusions, is not SOUND. What do you say about this Flux, ha Flux? Or it should be: Again, this premise, which is leading you to invalid conclusions, is not CORRECT. What about that Flux, ha Flux.

Just to remind you: not premis, but premise, not guarentee, but guarantee.

Flux: Since your argument fails to consider criteria other than whether or not a given act helps to perpetuate the species, I feel perfectally justified in using your argument to conclude that a society which abandons sex alltogether in favor of growing humans in nutrient filled vats is every bit as natural as a society which perpetuates by sex. And this scenario isn't nearly as impossible as it might once have been, given current technology.

My argument fails to consider criteria other than whether or not a given act helps to perpetuate the species because there is no other criteria except "sex". Your argument would have been valid only and just only if today there were conditions for growing humans in nutrient filled vats. Since there are no nutrient filled vats for growing humans at the moment, sex is the only means for survival of our species. Therefore, maybe you will be right in the near future, but for now I think I am.

Flux:And about reproduction--it isn't necessary that every member of the species reproduce in order for the species to perpetuate.... Large portions of the population not producting isn't hypothetical in the least either--ants have been around far longer than we have, and none of the worker ants, soldier ants, or forager ants in most species are capable of reproducing. It's quite natural for them, really.

OK, here you're basically saying that there is no need for every individual to reproduce in order species to survive, by giving analogy to the behavior of the ants. But, again this analogy is simply false, because every species have a different strategy which is given by the nature regarding the reproduction. At this moment the strategy of the mankind, which is embedded in the genetic code, is "everybody should reproduce" and everybody reproduces. In the future if we realize (like you already did) that it is better to live and reproduce like ants do, than we will live and reproduce like ants. Therefore, maybe you will be right in the near future, but for now I think I am.

Cheers, Vlatko

[Akamu]

Vlatko: Really Flux. OK, than let me rephrase my previous statement: Again, this premise, which is leading you to invalid conclusions, is not SOUND. What do you say about this Flux, ha Flux? Or it should be: Again, this premise, which is leading you to invalid conclusions, is not CORRECT. What about that Flux, ha Flux.

Just to remind you: not premis, but premise, not guarentee, but guarantee.

I don't think your disagreement with Flux warrants an ad hominem retort. For all we know, English may be his second language..or it was just simply spelling error. I think it is obvious that Flux's intelligence transcends a few misspelled words and deserves more than sarcasm.

[Taeguk]

This is a very interesting thread. It seems to me that there are as many different types of celibacy as there are types of sexual proclivities, and the reasoning behind choosing to remain celibate differs on a case by case basis. We can't simply say that everyone who is celibate is "repressed".

My own take on this is that there is more than one way to release the energy of eros. Although we associate eros with sex, this is actually only one way of release, and is not necessarily "better" than the other options. Often (although not always) people who choose to remain celibate have found other ways of releasing this energy.

[Flux]

Vlatko--You are quite right, of course, that the ant analogy has it's limits. Let's look at our species then. Although a good portion of our spiecies has chosen to reproduce, there have been many through out history who have chosen not to. Despite these few, our population has flourished--indeed, there are now so many humans on the planet that many often worry that we will run out of space of food. My two analogies, however seemingly disconnected from our specific species with our specific technology, were chosen to support a concrete point. I'm not suggesting that sexual reproduction has little to do with perpetuation of the species, but that in the human race, the existance of those who do not have offspring for whatever reason, be it asexuality, homosexuality, or simply dislike of children, are not posing any threat whatsoever to the existance of future generations. It must be remembered that there are even those who believe that increasing the population to even higher numbers at this time to be of more harm than help to future generations, although this is another debate entirely.

[the_aphid]

Again, this premise, which is leading you to invalid conclusions, is not valid. Simply you can't be naturally repulsed by sex. You can be only unnaturally repulsed by sex because aversion toward sex is unnatural. Suppose if it was natural one to be repulsed by sex than there would be no humans today. Evolution requires deep attraction towards sex act.I have to say Vlatko, that your argument here does not seem valid...or sound...or correct by any means. I mean, what about homosexuality? It occurs, in mankind and in other animals. It does not lead to procreation, plays no role in evolution, and by your logic it would seem that you would deem it as 'unnatural'. What else should or should not be deemed 'unnatural'. What about birth control, or sex for pleasure, not procreation?For individual to survive sex is not needed, only food is important. But for the mankind to survive procreation is deeply needed. So, sex has the same meaning for the mankind as the food has the meaning for the individual.Well in modern times, sex is not required anymore for procreation. There are means of artificial insemination. In fact, even homosexual women can procreate using these means, is this 'unnatural'? Let it be said that the term 'natural' is really quite ambiguous. If mankind is a product of nature, their intelligence is a product of nature, their behaviour is a product of nature, then really how can anything they do be considered 'unnatural'?It is very hard for me to say, but Akamu I think you're in unnatural state right now from the "mother's nature" point of view. However human beings evolved to a such degree that they don't simply leave to nature to handle unnatural exceptions. They are accepted in the society as natural as the others. So the very debate is loosing meaning because man already transcended nature in some areas.What areas has mankind transcended nature? And really, all this classification of natural and unnatural is pointless unless you can explain why 'unnatural states' are something to be avoided. Let it be said, that it is my opinion that mankind has not transcended nature in any degree. I believe that this is simply a misconception, and rather mankind is simply following the nature of intelligent life. I think of it more of a transition that occurs as life drifts from the primitive animal behaviour to intelligent or sentient behaviour, but it should all be considered to be natural.I don't think your disagreement with Flux warrants an ad hominem retort. For all we know, English may be his second language..or it was just simply spelling error. I think it is obvious that Flux's intelligence transcends a few misspelled words and deserves more than sarcasm.I agree whole heartedly.

[Akamu]

I agree with The Aphid on his addressing the flaw of appealing to nature when arguing against celibacy, homosexuality, etc. I posed this earlier but I think it was overlooked; or at least not addressed or regarded as pertinent. Appealing to nature is a very volatile means of strengthening an argument. All one has to do is find a single exception in nature to thwart the validity of the conclusion. In the case of celibacy and sexual preference, there are countless examples.

I also found Taeguk's insight dealing with the vast varieties of celibacy to be quite interesting. Indeed, when studying human beings and their nature, labels and boundaries become quite blurred the further you delve. One can go so deep as to start realizing that such constrictions are utterly pointless. A human being, no matter how simple we perceive them to be, will always find a way of transcending that box we attempt to cram them into.

I think to say that sex is natural, and thus, claiming a natural aversion to sex is unnatural is quite contradictory; somewhat like saying that it is natural to be born with brown hair, but unnatural to be born a blond. If you want to argue it in pure evolutionary perspective, then scientists have theorized that aversion to sex and even homosexuality are nature's way of implementing natural population control without having to tap into mass extinction. After all, there is only a certain carrying capacity this planet has before systems begin to collapse and cause catastrophes. Why not issue this preemptive measure? I am not saying I agree with all of this...just that its logic is sound and can satisfy those people seeking only tangible, scientific explanations.

[Vlatko]

the_aphid: I have to say Vlatko, that your argument here does not seem valid...or sound...or correct by any means. I mean, what about homosexuality? It occurs, in mankind and in other animals. It does not lead to procreation, plays no role in evolution, and by your logic it would seem that you would deem it as 'unnatural'. What else should or should not be deemed 'unnatural'.

You say that animals also practice homosexuality. Hmm... I have to disagree. Quite rarely, when the sexual tension among the males is so high, when they don't have females in their grasp they have to empty their testicals somehow on something. If you observe a dog that is very horny you will see that that dog is trying to have sex with everything around him, even with your leg. Calling that kind of behavior homosexuality is really absurd. Male animals DO NOT intentionally seek for other males and they are NOT trying to raise offspring together as gay couples. :lol: Obviously that kind of behavior is UNNATURAL for the animals. It is not even happening, simply it is IMPOSSIBLE.

On the other hand human homosexuality has psychological meaning. It is imposed over man from without. It is not natural product from within, it is creation of the man and right now it is on sale as false natural product.

the_aphid: What about birth control, or sex for pleasure, not procreation?Well in modern times, sex is not required anymore for procreation. There are means of artificial insemination. In fact, even homosexual women can procreate using these means, is this 'unnatural'? Let it be said that the term 'natural' is really quite ambiguous. If mankind is a product of nature, their intelligence is a product of nature, their behaviour is a product of nature, then really how can anything they do be considered 'unnatural'?

Well in this paragraph you are just repeating what I've already said only with different words. To prove this i will just quote myself: However human beings evolved to a such degree that they don't simply leave to nature to handle unnatural exceptions. They are accepted in the society as natural as the others. So the very debate is loosing meaning because man already transcended nature in some areas. Therefore I think terms natural and unnatural should be merged in one: tural. Here I really ended my previous post with conclusion that now man decides what is natural or unnatural, not nature, or even more man is not seeing things as natural or unnatural anymore.

the_aphid: What areas has mankind transcended nature? And really, all this classification of natural and unnatural is pointless unless you can explain why 'unnatural states' are something to be avoided. Let it be said, that it is my opinion that mankind has not transcended nature in any degree. I believe that this is simply a misconception, and rather mankind is simply following the nature of intelligent life.

Again same thing as the previous paragraph plus one paradox. You really don't think that birth control, sex for pleasure or artificial insemination is transcending the nature and because of that you are asking how has mankind transcended nature? Well... nature is not forcing artificial insemination, man does. Artificial is contrary to natural.

However I know what you're trying to say. Nature through man's intellect is imposing artificial insemination to the man and by that it turns out that artificial is simply natural, but it looks like artificial because it is done by man and the man is just another natural product.

I'm skeptical over this, because man right now is raping the nature with his activities, polluting, destroying, he is acting like a virus. Following your analogy it turns out that nature is trying to dissolve itself through man which is really contradictory. Man is already out of the reach of the nature.

Akamu: I don't think your disagreement with Flux warrants an ad hominem retort. For all we know, English may be his second language..or it was just simply spelling error. I think it is obvious that Flux's intelligence transcends a few misspelled words and deserves more than sarcasm.

the_aphid:I agree whole heartedly.

Here you agree with the Akamu's statement. How come? Let me remind you what Flux firstly said: Vlatko, the word validity is just a term that means that an argument is structured in such a way that the truth of a premis will guarentee the truth of the answer. Akamu's premis can't be valid or invalid any more than a kitchen sink can be true or false.

"KITCHEN SINK" - :):lol::D:goodlaugh::hahaha::rofl:that is pure sarcasm in action, but of course you didn't notice it, because there are double standards instead objectivity in this case.

And BTW English is MY second language. I don't know about Flux.

Cheers, Vlatko

[bhujjy]

Hi Akamu,

Non-passion is okay.
Many things to learn on this path, just like the other paths.
Being true to oneself is good and wholesome.
It is growth, Akamu.

[the_aphid]

You say that animals also practice homosexuality. Hmm... I have to disagree. Quite rarely, when the sexual tension among the males is so high, when they don't have females in their grasp they have to empty their testicals somehow on something. If you observe a dog that is very horny you will see that that dog is trying to have sex with everything around him, even with your leg. Calling that kind of behavior homosexuality is really absurd. Male animals DO NOT intentionally seek for other males and they are NOT trying to raise offspring together as gay couples. Obviously that kind of behavior is UNNATURAL for the animals. It is not even happening, simply it is IMPOSSIBLE.You need to do a little more research Vlatko. For starters you can read these "unreliable" wikipedia entries:

Homosexuality in animals
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior

I'll sum up how far off you are with this quote:

Homosexual sexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.[142] [5]. This discovery constitutes a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision. For example, male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In a well-publicized story from 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.[143]

So, "NOT forming gay couples trying to raise offspring together", eh? Maybe you should look into such claims before stating such acquired 'facts' with such conviction.

Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany attempted to break up the gay male couples by importing female penguins from Sweden and separating the male couples, but they were unsuccessful. The zoo director stated the relationships were too strong between the gay couples.

However, I'm sure you are going to discount this as an "unreliable" source, so allow me to refer to some other sources (Bonobo Sex and Society - from Scientific American):

Perhaps the bonobo's most typical sexual pattern, undocumented in any other primate, is genito-genital rubbing (or GG rubbing) between adult females. One female facing another clings with arms and legs to a partner that, standing on both hands and feet, lifts her off the ground. The two females then rub their genital swellings laterally together, emitting grins and squeals that probably reflect orgasmic experiences. (Laboratory experiments on stump- tailed macaques have demonstrated that women are not the only female primates capable of physiological orgasm.)

Male bonobos, too, may engage in pseudocopulation but generally perform a variation. Standing back to back, one male briefly rubs his scrotum against the buttocks of another. They also practice so-called penis-fencing, in which two males hang face to face from a branch while rubbing their erect penises together.

The diversity of erotic contacts in bonobos includes sporadic oral sex, massage of another individual's genitals and intense tongue-kissing. Lest this leave the impression of a pathologically oversexed species, I must add, based on hundreds of hours of watching bonobos, that their sexual activity is rather casual and relaxed. It appears to be a completely natural part of their group life. Like people, bonobos engage in sex only occasionally, not continuously. Furthermore, with the average copulation lasting 13 seconds, sexual contact in bonobos is rather quick by human standards.

This specifically contradicts your 'theory' that only males resort to this behavior when they are devoid of a 'preferable' female companions. In fact, it shows that in these bonobo groups even the females are more than willing to partake in homosexual activity, thus demonstrating that homosexuality is not only the result of hormone-driven and sex-deprived males.On the other hand human homosexuality has psychological meaning. It is imposed over man from without. It is not natural product from within, it is creation of the man and right now it is on sale as false natural product.Just out of curiosity do you actually know any homosexual people? From my experience once people are confronted by the issue of homosexuality by realizing a close friend or relative is gay, their opinion on the matter can very quickly change. Why? I feel it is because they come to realize that their friend is psychologically sound, has no societal or developmental issues that would result in an 'unnatural sexual appetite', and thus they are forced to conclude that it must be something more basic, likely genetic. The fact of the matter is that they simply feel attraction towards members of the same sex in the exact same way that heterosexual people feel attraction towards the opposite.Well in this paragraph you are just repeating what I've already said only with different words. To prove this i will just quote myself: However human beings evolved to a such degree that they don't simply leave to nature to handle unnatural exceptions. They are accepted in the society as natural as the others. So the very debate is loosing meaning because man already transcended nature in some areas. Therefore I think terms natural and unnatural should be merged in one: tural. Here I really ended my previous post with conclusion that now man decides what is natural or unnatural, not nature, or even more man is not seeing things as natural or unnatural anymore.Funny, because I couldn't tell from your paragraph that you were specifically talking about artificial insemination, likely because you didn't use that term once. I thought that essentially you are saying that mankind is unnaturally encouraging a lack of distinction between what is natural and what is unnatural, in an attempt to excuse their unnatural behavior. Let me also point out that you have not once classified what is natural, and not once logically explained how man has 'transcended nature'. I mean, what do you have to counter the argument that man is a product of nature, an animal just like any other living thing, and thus every activity that mankind embarks upon is thus just a natural progression of events. This would include everything from genetic research to ecological conservation to fundamental societal structures. What about E.O. Wilson's understanding of Sociobiology? Is it just all bunk?Again same thing as the previous paragraph plus one paradox. You really don't think that birth control, sex for pleasure or artificial insemination is transcending the nature and because of that you are asking how has mankind transcended nature? Well... nature is not forcing artificial insemination, man does. Artificial is contrary to natural.Oh, I see...Artificial is contrary to natural. So by this logic, using a stick to pull grubs from trees would be "unnatural" because it is the use of a tool, which essentially amounts to a type of artificial appendage? So, because chimps lack the long slender beak of a woodpecker they are going against nature by picking up a stick and using it in a way which was not 'intended by nature'. Curse those damned dirty apes! I'm skeptical over this, because man right now is raping the nature with his activities, polluting, destroying, he is acting like a virus.I entirely disagree, because ultimately the planet will survive despite our presence and effect. Sure we are eradicating species at up to 1000 times greater than the background extinction rate, but the result is two possible (and natural) routes of progression. Either we will eradicate resources to the point that we will be unable to survive, which essentially amounts to a detrimental adaptation by mankind which through the age-old process of natural selection will be deemed 'unfit' for survival. Or we will learn to adapt in a beneficial way, we will learn to minimize our impact on the world and adopt a behavior which is deemed 'fit' for survival. All-in-all it is, in my opinion, a natural progression. I simply find it absurd to start labeling things that spring from natural as being unnatural simply because they are unprecedented. For example, the majority of life that has existed on this planet has not used sexual reproduction as a means of procreation. Thus with your logic it could be argued that the first swapping of genetic material and recombination of DNA was 'unnatural' and a sin against nature. For billions of years life reproduced via asexual reproduction, and this could be seen as the 'natural' approach. Obviously this is absurd, sexual reproduction has show that it can be a beneficial adaptation, providing greater biological diversity, and thus is just as 'natural' as any other adaptation which has occurred in life on earth. Going back to things like artificial insemination celibacy and homosexuality then, if these behaviors help mankind adapt in a beneficial way -- a way that is deemed 'fit' for survival -- than why dispute them, particularly on the grounds of them being 'unnatural'. If for example the rise in homosexual behavior or the adoption of methods of celibacy become the 'norm', population growth can be curbed or even reduced to a sustainable level.Following your analogy it turns out that nature is trying to dissolve itself through man which is really contradictory. Man is already out of the reach of the nature.See, that is precisely the problem. You are assigning a consciousness to nature as a whole, like it has a mind and is trying to obtain something, trying to reach an endpoint. Nature is life, in whatever form, and the process is natural selection, either it is beneficial for survival or it is not. Also, it should be pointed out that humans are not the first species to drastically alter the earth by their sole efforts. Cyanobacteria accomplished this billions of years ago when they single-handedly altered the atmosphere of the planet, turning it into the oxygen-rich air much of life depends upon today. Should this be considered 'unnatural' as well?

[Akamu]

Holy double post, batman! just messin', The Aphid :D

I was going to respond in the same manner, but you saved me the time. So all I have to add is this:

Vlatko: Here you agree with the Akamu's statement. How come? Let me remind you what Flux firstly said: Vlatko, the word validity is just a term that means that an argument is structured in such a way that the truth of a premis will guarentee the truth of the answer. Akamu's premis can't be valid or invalid any more than a kitchen sink can be true or false.

"KITCHEN SINK" - that is pure sarcasm in action, but of course you didn't notice it, because there are double standards instead objectivity in this case.

And BTW English is MY second language. I don't know about Flux.

I'm not sure what to say. Seems to me that Flux made a genuine observation of your argument and used a pertinent and proper metaphor for support. Alluding to a kitchen sink isn't sarcasm, his use of the analogy supported his point quite successfully. Whether his point is correct or incorrect is immaterial. It seems obvious that a misunderstanding simply sparked some flames.

[Akamu]

Hi Akamu,

Non-passion is okay.
Many things to learn on this path, just like the other paths.
Being true to oneself is good and wholesome.
It is growth, Akamu.

I couldn't agree more. Many other things in this world pale in comparison to self-authenticity.

[the_aphid]

Holy double post, batman! just messin', The Aphid :D:) Yeah, my bad. I don't know if other people have been experiencing problems posting, but after I attempt to submit my post, my browser timed out on me, and then I posted it a second time, and even after that it still didn't update the link to the thread that shows the most recent post. Anyways, I have deleted one of the copies.

[Vlatko]

the_aphid: You need to do a little more research Vlatko. For starters you can read these "unreliable" wikipedia entries:

I really can't believe my eyes what I'm reading.

Firstly the_aphid I did my research and you were right when you said that Wikipedia is "unreliable" source, but anyway let me say word, two about the penguins.

When they lay their eggs they do that in couples. While the male is laying on the egg, the female is going to the sea to find food, and the other way around. Simply said they work in shifts. Occasionally it happens one of them to be eaten by some predator in the sea. The male on the beach has to find a partner somehow in order to survive and save the egg.

So when a female is left alone, a male who didn't manage to find a partner on time and it is not laying egg will be accepted as a replacement and the other way around. In the EXTREME CASES only when there is no representative of the opposite sex in the vicinity it may happen two males or two females to raise offspring. However they will NOT stay forever as the other couples, because if they stay there will be no eggs for them the next year.

It was only necessity for them to do that just to take part in the saving of species. I'm very sorry but that can't be classified as homosexuality. Simply it is not enough to do "incomplete Wikipedia research" and claim that some of the penguins are homosexuals for the purpose of justification of human homosexuality.

the_aphid:So, "NOT forming gay couples trying to raise offspring together", eh? Maybe you should look into such claims before stating such acquired 'facts' with such conviction.

You are really only reading and understanding what you choose to read and understand the_aphid. Again I have to repeat myself: Male animals DO NOT intentionally seek for other males and they are NOT trying to raise offspring together as gay couples. The key word here is INTENTIONALLY. All those examples of the "homosexuality" among the penguins that you mentioned, even those in the captivity are just out of the necessity. If they put you in prison the sexual tension will be so high that maybe you will become homosexual, but not of you own accord but out of necessity. Therefore homosexuality can only be imposed over man only from without by circumstances or by his psychological incompatibility with the group which according to the majority is "unnatural state".

the_aphid:Perhaps the bonobo's most typical sexual pattern,...

Again all that you wrote about bonobos is not proving anything, rather is proving what I've already said, that animals DO NOT intentionally forcing homosexuality for the sake of raising offspring or saving the species. Bonobos maybe are displaying all kinds of supposedly homosexual activities but they are not having sex with the representatives of the same sex, which makes them heterosexuals, not homosexuals.

the_aphid:For example, the majority of life that has existed on this planet has not used sexual reproduction as a means of procreation. Thus with your logic it could be argued that the first swapping of genetic material and recombination of DNA was 'unnatural' and a sin against nature.

Really I'm amassed of how you're comprehending things and using your logic. Comparing live forms who procreate without sexual reproduction with those who do is really outrageous. This is called "Fallacious Comparison". I really never claimed that recombination of DNA is "unnatural". After all we are discussing about humans.

the_aphid:Cyanobacteria accomplished this billions of years ago when they single-handedly altered the atmosphere of the planet, turning it into the oxygen-rich air much of life depends upon today. Should this be considered 'unnatural' as well?

Here is another fallacy which is called "Appeal to Belief". It is never proved that Cyanobacteria altered atmosphere of the planet and again I never said that it is "unnatural". That is not my logic, you are trying to present it as if it is mine.

Cheers, Vlatko

[Flux]

Vlatko--To do something out of necessity is to do something intentionally. For example; I need to eat, so I intend to eat. Thus, the penguins intend to be together regardless or whether or not they need to be. Homosexuality. And while Aphid quoted a questionable source, you quoted no source at all.


Bonobos maybe are displaying all kinds of supposedly homosexual activities but they are not having sex with the representatives of the same sex, which makes them heterosexuals, not homosexuals.

Really?

They also practice so-called penis-fencing, in which two males hang face to face from a branch while rubbing their erect penises together.

This sounds rather homosexual to me, unless it's definition as attraction between those of the same sex has changed recently.

Conclusion--It can be a gay world out there, but human-kind isn't dead yet. Homosexuality seems to be driving mankind to extinction at a glacially slow rate, judging by our species rapidly increasing numbers.

[Vlatko]

Flux: To do something out of necessity is to do something intentionally.
For example; I need to eat, so I intend to eat. Thus, the penguins intend to be together regardless or whether or not they need to be.

I really hate when we come to the point where we discuss about the meaning of the words. Anyhow to do something out of necessity is to do something that has inevitable result, something which is unavoidably or necessarily. On the other hand to do something intentionally is to do something with intention or on purpose, something which is intended, something that has an intentional result.

Having said that, if the penguins are not forced by the circumstances to be together they would never be. Or if the circumstances are right they would never intend to be together. And if they are together they would never have sex, and that makes them heterosexuals. Sorry for my language but I think there were never been a case where a male animal penis penetrated male animal anus.

Flux: And while Aphid quoted a questionable source, you quoted no source at all.

What about you Flux? Have you quoted some source? Anyhow, quoting or not quoting something doesn't mean that it will increase or decrease the quality and relevance of given text.

Flux: Homosexuality seems to be driving mankind to extinction at a glacially slow rate, judging by our species rapidly increasing numbers.

Nobody claimed that homosexuality will eradicate our species, or maybe you are trying to.

Cheers, Vlatko

[the_aphid]

Well, firstly I just realized that the links that I posted failed to post properly, so here they are again:
Homosexuality in animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals)
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)
Bonobo Sex and Society - from Scientific American (http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html)
Firstly the_aphid I did my research...I have to agree with Flux, if you got research to back up your opinion, please provide it....and you were right when you said that Wikipedia is "unreliable" source, but anyway let me say word, two about the penguins.Well what about Scientific American? Should also be considered an unreliable source? Also, anyone can discount wikipedia because of the nature of the wiki, but that doesn't mean that the information provided there is unreliable, it just means that it can be unreliable, and thus you must remain skeptical when referencing material there. If you want to put up a wall and refuse to believe anything that comes from wikipedia, all I can say is you are depriving yourself of a very valuable resource. There is a reason why citations are requested and they are listed at the bottom of the articles. For example, I think the 'Featured Articles' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles) are incredibly detailed, informative, and reliable sources, at least for the purposes of personal reference while not necessarily for professional or academic purposes.When they lay their eggs they do that in couples. While the male is laying on the egg, the female is going to the sea to find food, and the other way around. Simply said they work in shifts. Occasionally it happens one of them to be eaten by some predator in the sea. The male on the beach has to find a partner somehow in order to survive and save the egg.Yes, I've seen the documentaries as well. :) But you are neglecting the fact that despite the separation of the 'gay couples', and introduction of new females, these male couples refused to become sexually active with them. Once again, they are clearly not resorting to these methods out of necessity, but out of desire, it would appear.In the EXTREME CASES only when there is no representative of the opposite sex in the vicinity it may happen two males or two females to raise offspring. However they will NOT stay forever as the other couples, because if they stay there will be no eggs for them the next year.Once again, you are ignoring the evidence expressed in that story. Even after the birth of their adopted egg, and the segregation and introduction of females, these males simply refuse to become sexually active with females. It would appear that they only want to be with each other. Let it also be said that I believe you are referring to the habits of emperor penguins from the documentary March of the Penguins or the like. And just so we're on the same page, this reference is talking about chinstrap penguins. Maybe there is a difference in the species that causes emperors only to adopt same-sex coupling out of necessity, and chinstraps to adopt same-sex coupling out of personal preference.It was only necessity for them to do that just to take part in the saving of species. I'm very sorry but that can't be classified as homosexuality. Simply it is not enough to do "incomplete Wikipedia research" and claim that some of the penguins are homosexuals for the purpose of justification of human homosexuality.Call it what you will, the evidence is obvious. What about some 'complete research', something new, from Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State University (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15419685) Résumé / Abstract

Sheep are one of the few animal models in which natural variations in male sexual preferences have been studied experimentally. Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes. This cell group was labeled the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus (oSDN). In addition to a sex difference, we found that the volume of the oSDN was two times greater in female-oriented rams than in male-oriented rams. The dense cluster of neurons that comprise the oSDN express cytochrome P450 aromatase. Aromatase mRNA levels in the oSDN were significantly greater in female-oriented rams than in ewes, whereas male-oriented rams exhibited intermediate levels of expression. Because the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus is known to control the expression of male sexual behaviors, these results suggest that naturally occurring variations in sexual partner preferences may be related to differences in brain anatomy and capacity for estrogen synthesis.So can we agree that this a reliable source? The truth is that there are hundreds of them out there, I could literally spend days going through the 'reliable evidence', but I'm sure you'll find a way to discount or ignore them in order to retain your belief that homosexuality is unnatural. As is shown in this abstract, there is a prevalence of homosexual orientation in adult rams (8%) and these very same rams that are displaying the preferred same-sex orientation show significant physiological differences in a specific cell group in their hypothalamus.You are really only reading and understanding what you choose to read and understand the_aphid. Again I have to repeat myself: Male animals DO NOT intentionally seek for other males and they are NOT trying to raise offspring together as gay couples. The key word here is INTENTIONALLY. All those examples of the "homosexuality" among the penguins that you mentioned, even those in the captivity are just out of the necessity. If they put you in prison the sexual tension will be so high that maybe you will become homosexual, but not of you own accord but out of necessity. Therefore homosexuality can only be imposed over man only from without by circumstances or by his psychological incompatibility with the group which according to the majority is "unnatural state".Well, it is my opinion that you've got it all backwards. You are the one who is choosing to read and extrapolate evidence (or the lack of evidence) to the predetermined opinion you desire. You refuse to explain why these penguins refuse female partners, or why they would make the effort of caring for a surrogate egg (a ROCK!) when it is clearly not a necessity for the survival of the species. Answer those questions and you'll be addressing the issue.Again all that you wrote about bonobos is not proving anything, rather is proving what I've already said, that animals DO NOT intentionally forcing homosexuality for the sake of raising offspring or saving the species. Bonobos maybe are displaying all kinds of supposedly homosexual activities but they are not having sex with the representatives of the same sex, which makes them heterosexuals, not homosexuals.So because the bonobos have not yet been documented engaging in acts of sodomy it cannot be considered homosexual? :duh: The mutual sexual gratification with a member of the same sex, I would describe this is clearly homosexual. Actually, I'd just like to clarify, that these bonobos aren't necessarily displaying distinct homosexual/heterosexual tendencies, but rather displaying a more fundamentally casual approach to sex, being that they display an extremely high occurrence of bisexuality. There are readily available companions of both sexes, and yet many of them are engaging in sexual activities with both sexes, not out of 'necessity', but out of the desire to do so.Really I'm amassed of how you're comprehending things and using your logic. Comparing live forms who procreate without sexual reproduction with those who do is really outrageous. This is called "Fallacious Comparison". I really never claimed that recombination of DNA is "unnatural". After all we are discussing about humans.You are missing the whole point Vlatko. That your distinction of natural/unnatural, and then using that distinction to determine what the justified/unjustified behavior is, is entirely absurd. Obviously I don't believe that asexual reproduction is natural and sexual reproduction is unnatural, but I demand you draw a clear and distinct line between your classification of natural/unnatural. Namely, show me why labeling homosexuality as unnatural is correct while labeling sexual activity in general as unnatural is incorrect? Because homosexuality doesn't perpetuate the species? That is your only reason?

As I said before, it is my opinion that they are all natural, and thus calling them unnatural is ludicrous. Instead what we should be doing is looking at these behaviors as advantageous or disadvantageous, since that is the way that natural selection determines whether or not a species will survive. I agree with Akamu's comments that homosexuality and perhaps even celibacy could most certainly be a form of natural population control. It is clearly obvious that the human population is growing too fast and in such a way that we are consuming too many resources. If celibacy and/or homosexuality help reduce the strain on the natural resources by assisting (in the long-term) in the reduction of population, I feel it is clear that this would be advantageous for the human species, and therefore that homosexuality and celibacy would be a beneficial adaptation for humankind to adopt, to a degree.
Here is another fallacy which is called "Appeal to Belief". It is never proved that Cyanobacteria altered atmosphere of the planet and again I never said that it is "unnatural". That is not my logic, you are trying to present it as if it is mine.A fallacy, really? Once again, do your research. It is strongly supported that cyanobacteria-containing stromatolites are numerous in abundance prior to the Archean/Proterozoic eras, and decline sharply afterward. They are found as far back as 3.5 billion years in the fossil record, are believed to be the first oxygen-producing life forms on the planet, and their abundance declines precisely when it is believed that the atmosphere of earth began to hold oxygen in significant abundance. And once again, I know you are not claiming this is unnatural, but please differentiate why this is natural, but homosexuality and celibacy is not.What about you Flux? Have you quoted some source? Anyhow, quoting or not quoting something doesn't mean that it will increase or decrease the quality and relevance of given text.What it shows Vlatko, is that I don't simply hold onto opinions despite evidence. You're lack of finding any source at all which supports the claim that homosexuality as being 'unnatural' simply demonstrates that this is not a substantiated claim, but rather just a dogmatic opinion based solely in the fact that homosexuality does not encourage reproduction, therefore it must be unnatural.

Until you can rationally explain your distinctions between natural and unnatural, you're at a loss for making a valid argument in my opinion.Sorry for my language but I think there were never been a case where a male animal penis penetrated male animal anus.And if this is how you 'define' homosexuality, you clearly off-track. :goodlaugh:

[Flux]

What about you Flux? Have you quoted some source? Anyhow, quoting or not quoting something doesn't mean that it will increase or decrease the quality and relevance of given text.

Actually, that's a fair point. I supose that my only defense on that were that most of my observations were philosophical rather than strictally scientific (I'm no bio-wiz). Point taken though.

I agree that arguing over the definitions of words can and often is very annoying, but it's unfortunately necessary at times. I'm really not trying to be overly picky--all I meant was that the penguins are making a concious decision to be together, even at times when doing so may be necessary to raise an egg because a mate died, or something. Personally, I think that our disagreement on this point boils down to our disagreement of whether species have free will, or are merely driven to choices as a result of situations and instinct.

[the_aphid]

A fallacy, really? Once again, do your research. It is strongly supported that cyanobacteria-containing stromatolites are numerous in abundance prior to the Archean/Proterozoic eras, and decline sharply afterward. They are found as far back as 3.5 billion years in the fossil record, are believed to be the first oxygen-producing life forms on the planet, and their abundance declines precisely when it is believed that the atmosphere of earth began to hold oxygen in significant abundance. And once again, I know you are not claiming this is unnatural, but please differentiate why this is natural, but homosexuality and celibacy is not.Correction: I request you explain to me how the alteration of the atmosphere by cyanobacteria is 'natural' while the alteration by humans is 'unnatural'.

[Vlatko]

Good, this is going to be a very long debate, after all. Well, the_aphid I can see that you insist on quoting sources, so I will give you quotes. I will provide you tons of quotations and links (I'm good with links) from scientists from all over the world who think that there is no such thing as homosexuality among animals. If you think that there are no scientific opposing opinions to yours on this huge net, than you are really acting childish by making me to find them.

For starter here are some thoughts of Frans B. M. de Waal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal), who BTW spent hundreds of hours observing and filming your precious bonobos. He is explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior:

There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.

Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. [Find out more] (http://www.songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html)

Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."

Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.

Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with. [Find out more] (http://www.petfinder.com/journal/index.cgi?article=77)

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_LeVay) admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo (http://www.conservapedia.com/Antonio_Pardo_Caballos), Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[Find out more] (http://www.interrogantes.net/Antonio-Pardo-Aspectos-medicos-de-la-homosexualidad-Nuestro-Tiempo-VIII095/menu-id-27.html)

Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often "read" human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Socarides) of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:

The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.[Find out more] (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/exploding.html)

Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:

Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure....The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.

So, now I can safely repeat your statement the_aphid but this time in my favor: The truth is that there are hundreds of them out there, I could literally spend days going through the 'reliable evidence', but I'm sure you'll find a way to discount or ignore them in order to retain your belief that homosexuality is natural.

Anyhow lets go back to your opinions.

the_aphid: But you are neglecting the fact that despite the separation of the 'gay couples', and introduction of new females, these male couples refused to become sexually active with them.

Because they have egg to care about, or they think that they have egg to care about. Following your analogy we can say that penguins are thinking: "Hmm, this guy is better than that chick. I will stay with him. That chick is stupid. What about our offspring? Never mind, we will steal some egg from some chick, or we can roll some rock. Not a problem". :goodlaugh:
They are not consciously choosing that.

the_aphid: So because the bonobos have not yet been documented engaging in acts of sodomy it cannot be considered homosexual? :duh: The mutual sexual gratification with a member of the same sex, I would describe this is clearly homosexual.

Well as i said Frans B. M. de Waal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal) spent hundreds of hours observing and filming your precious bonobos and he didn't manage to film them in acts of sodomy. Why? Because there is no sodomy there. There is no homo sex there, therefore there is no homosexuality.

the_aphid: It is strongly supported that cyanobacteria-containing stromatolites are numerous in abundance prior to the Archean/Proterozoic eras, and decline sharply afterward. They are found as far back as 3.5 billion years in the fossil record, are believed to be the first oxygen-producing life forms on the planet, and their abundance declines precisely when it is believed that the atmosphere of earth began to hold oxygen in significant abundance.

Look at this, you are saying that it is believed cyanobacteria to be the first oxygen-producing life form on the planet and than you are saying that you are not producing fallacy "Appeal to Belief". Well, your claims are not really scientifically proved, so they can be true or untrue. Nobody actually really knows how our atmosphere was created. :applause:

At the end I will throw in quotes from Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:

1. Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
2. Homosexuality is irreversible;
3. Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.

Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises, the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.

Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?

The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

In opposition to this line of reasoning, it is obvious that:

1. There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
2. It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
3. Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.

Cheers, Vlatko

[Akamu]

Vlatko: Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?

The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

In opposition to this line of reasoning, it is obvious that:

1. There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
2. It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
3. Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.


This counter argument is ridiculous. One can't simply take the actions of a few species of animal and apply it to the whole kingdom. One can certainly make the argument that cannibalism is natural, but only within the confines of the species practicing it. It is quite obvious from simply observation that many other species do not partake in these acts...this includes humans. You might as well say "well the female praying mantis naturally attracts a mate, does its business, then decapitates and consumes him...therefore it is unnatural for humans to participate in a sexual relationship without chopping off their partner's heads and making a meal out of it."

If anything, your post just proves that there is no universal, natural order that encompasses all living things...and that each species participates and operates within its own behavioral parameters. It is actually rather simple; the fact that homosexuality is an observable and repeating factor in human behavior makes it natural within our species. I'm curious as to what you think causes homosexuality in humans if it is not in their nature? If you give me examples of little boys who had a poor relationship with their father and grew up seeking that male companionship, then I will give you just as many counterexamples of children who grew up in perfectly healthy, loving, and normal lives who still fall into homosexuality.

I am unsure why you are claiming victory in your argument when all you have managed to do is bring up some counterexamples for the aphid's finds. All this proves is that someone can't make up their minds about their studies.

Vlatko: Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:

Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure....The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.


Here is another very weak assumption. If this argument is simply claiming that we have sex with the most attractive people and that animals only do it to reproduce, then this view disregards all species of animals that use visual stimulation to attract mates. Peacocks flash their vibrant feathers, various other birds have ritual dances and beautiful songs, the examples are endless. Humans participate in the very same "animalistic" behavior; they simply just try and frost the cake with "love" and "devotion." From a strictly evolutionary sense, there is very little to be distinguished between human mating and animal mating.

Vlatko: The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.[Find out more]


Sounds like this person at least acknowledges that you cannot project the act of one species onto the behavioral patterns of another and then claim it as "nature." You use this as one of your premises and then turn around later on and claim that since homosexuality is not natural in animals, then it is not natural in humans. Again, this simply strengthens the theory that homosexuality is indeed naturally prevalent in humans. You have to include human "psychodynamics" in our nature...to deny this would make us not "human."

It is apparent that people need to start remembering that every species on the planet acts in their own unique ways...and all are in accordance with "nature." The very fact that they act this way is their "nature." It becomes more complicated with humans because we appear to be able to act against our nature if we see fit...to a certain extent. However, sexual preference is largely not chosen by the human in question. This points to a purely natural alteration of the human makeup for whatever reason. Just because you may consider yourself straight and can't fathom why a man would want to have intercourse with another man does not make the act "unnatural." For you maybe, but not in general. I think it is important to acknowledge that the variation between humans is just as diverse as the variation between cross-species observations. This is a concept highlighted very heavily in physical anthropology. I will contribute some studies in this field later as I am running out of time now. And please, let's keep this debate civil. Sarcasms and indirect attacks on your opponent cannot be excused by the frustrations of not having your points of view embraced.

[Vlatko]

Akamu: Sarcasms and indirect attacks on your opponent cannot be excused by the frustrations of not having your points of view embraced.

Look Akamu, the_aphid wanted me to provide him some reliable backup of my arguments. So I did. I can't really see where is the sarcasm in all of this. After all if you look objectively you will find sarcasm in the_aphid's post too. Anyway I'm sorry about that.

And Acamu, all I can see in your post is discarding the arguments of professors and doctors from all around the world as weak and ridiculous, as they are fools!!! How come?

I think that frustrations belong to you because your points of view are not embraced, not mine. For example ask the Buddhists and Christians on this forum, what they think about homosexuality?

Cheers, Vlatko

[Akamu]

Vlatko: Look Akamu, the_aphid wanted me to provide him some reliable backup of my arguments. So I did. I can't really see where is the sarcasm in all of this. After all if you look objectively you will find sarcasm in the_aphid's post too. Anyway I'm sorry about that.

The presence of sarcasm and indirect aggression in your posts need not be pointed out...anyone reading them will be able to sense it. It is one thing to post information for the sake of healthy discussion. It is quite a different thing to do so in such a manner which seeks to belittle your opponent and make yourself seem the superior.

Vlatko: And Acamu, all I can see in your post is discarding the arguments of professors and doctors from all around the world as weak and ridiculous, as they are fools!!! How come?
First of all, I am not simply discarding arguments for no good reason. If you read my post, I give reasons why some of the arguments in which you have
posted do not logically work. Professors and doctors or not, they are still human and thus susceptible to logical fallacies. They have just the same chance, if not more, to fall in love with their own opinions and defend them at the expense of truth owing to the fact that their opinions are based on years of work. I am not saying that they may not be correct in their findings, I simply pointed out in my posts that there are just as many people who oppose your argument as ones who support it. Thus appealing to authority and spewing their findings back and forth is becoming quite meaningless. If there really was a true answer to this topic, then we wouldn't be having a discussion. I would appreciate it if you not put words in my mouth...I would not dream of calling these people fools. But I have every right to bring to light fallacies in their arguments.

Vlatko: I think that frustrations belong to you because your points of view are not embraced, not mine. For example ask the Buddhists and Christians on this forum, what they think about homosexuality?


My opinions are of little or no importance to me within the confines of this thread...I knew from the start that my particular views would be rejected by some. And forgive me for chortling at your latter statement, but are you seriously going to bring to this discussion the views of fundamentalist religious figures? Yes, fundamentalist. You would find, in fact, that a majority of people belonging to the religions you mentioned have evolved quite a tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality and have come to terms with it.

I notice you disregarded my own questions about how one can logically prove human homosexuality to be unnatural? The way I see it, homosexuals are innocent until proven guilty.

[Vlatko]

Akamu: Thus appealing to authority and spewing their findings back and forth is becoming quite meaningless. If there really was a true answer to this topic, then we wouldn't be having a discussion.

I already said in the first place that appealing to authority will not contribute to the healthy evolution of this discussion. Quoting somebody or referring to "reliable" sources will not make the arguments stronger, but since the_aphid insisted I had to provide it. And it is meaningless because as much as there are people who are "for", there are also people who are "against".

Akamu: ...but are you seriously going to bring to this discussion the views of fundamentalist religious figures? Yes, fundamentalist.

Everybody should be invited to give his opinion, being fundamentalist or not. As you as homosexual (I'm not sure, I'm just guessing about this. If I'm wrong I'm sorry and please correct me) have right to say what you think, they have the same right to point out their beliefs.

Akamu: The way I see it, homosexuals are innocent until proven guilty.

Nobody said that homosexuals are guilty. They are not doing any harm to this world. The question was whether what they are doing is natural or not?

Cheers, Vlatko

[Taeguk]

I think that frustrations belong to you because your points of view are not embraced, not mine. For example ask the Buddhists and Christians on this forum, what they think about homosexuality?



First of all, we have a gay Buddhist who is known to post here. Second of all, my guess is most of the people posting here who identify as Buddhist (which is actually not very many, in spite of the general interest in Buddhism) have no problem supporting gay rights. It is not at all inconsistent to be a practicing Buddhist and to view homosexuality as a completely natural phenomenon. Yes, I am aware that some Buddhist teachers (such as the Dalai Lama) have made certain statements against homosexuality. So what? Buddhism does not have a dogma. It is primarily about practices, not beliefs. And the Dalai Lama does not speak for all Buddhists, not even all Vajrayana Buddhists.

If anything, I think part of the problem here is the concept of "nature" that's being discussed. The concept of "nature" Vlatko is employing is heavily influenced by Christianity, whether he knows it or not----it presumes that nature is something "Other", something that stands over and against "Human Beings". Presumably also "God" stands over against both human beings and nature, although even if we leave God of this conversation or Vlatko states he does not believe in God, the categories being used here are definitely Abrahamic. As such, there are "laws" of "nature" (which of course imply some kind of Divine Author) which can be "broken" by human beings because these laws are entirely external to them, just as "nature" is some "thing" that has also been set up as an external constraint that vies against human beings.

If we are able to put aside our reflexive Abrahamic metaphysical categories for a moment, we'll notice that a thing's "nature" is just a description of how in fact it actually behaves. If a species does something, guess what? It's part of its nature. If we observe a certain behavior we haven't before, does that mean that the being in question here is "violating" some external "law" of nature? Hardly. It simply means our understanding of its "nature" is incomplete. Furthermore evolution implies that the "nature" of things is not fixed (as is the working assumption in classical Christianity, influenced as it is by Platonism). It changes over time.

My point is that if we toss out the category of "nature" which has been common in the West since antiquity (and I think it's about time we did), we'll realize that this is a pseudo-problem. It arises because of a particular definition of "nature" we're insisting on using, with no good reason for it. Before we can argue about whether or not "homosexuality" is "natural", we have to define what "nature" is.

[Akamu]

Vlatko: Everybody should be invited to give his opinion, being fundamentalist or not. As you as homosexual (I'm not sure, I'm just guessing about this. If I'm wrong I'm sorry and please correct me) have right to say what you think, they have the same right to point out their beliefs.

No, I am not homosexual...earlier in this thread, I claimed myself to be a sort of asexual to which you responded by saying my premises were leading me to false conclusions about myself and that my claim was in fact unnatural.

Vlatko: Nobody said that homosexuals are guilty. They are not doing any harm to this world. The question was whether what they are doing is natural or not?


I did not mean this in the literal sense. But you calling homosexuals, and anyone who is not straight, exceptions to nature is quite insulting and alienating and therefore is a sort of persecution against their being. All I was saying is you need to come up with logical reasons why one who chooses a different sexual partner than you would be considered unnatural.

Taeguk put what I was trying to say previously quite well. The way people are is simply the way people are, this is nature. There is no universal law that all must adhere to in order to be considered natural except for existing in the way or manner in which they exist.

[...]

Taeguk put what I was trying to say previously quite well. The way people are is simply the way people are, this is nature. There is no universal law that all must adhere to in order to be considered natural except for existing in the way or manner in which they exist.

..quoted for truth...

[the_aphid]

For starter here are some thoughts of Frans B. M. de Waal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal), who BTW spent hundreds of hours observing and filming your precious bonobos. He is explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior.:rofl:Vlatko, are you aware that you are referencing the exact same article that I am using to support my argument? I have read through the entire article a number of times, and nowhere does it contain the words "seemingly homosexual behavior", particularly enclosed within quotations as if to imply that this interpretation is inaccurate. Also, it should be said that he is most certainly not making an argument for or against homosexuality in any way, shape or form. In this article, he is explaining the role that sexual behavior (whatever kind that may be) plays within the social systems of bonobo species and comparing it to the patriarchal societies of chimpanzees and humans. The subtitle of the article is 'The behavior of a close relative challenges assumptions about male supremacy in human evolution'. He is explaining how sexual behavior influences social structure, how it is used as a means of showing dominance, in disputes of food, etc, and arguing that bonobos are in essence a matriarchal social species. However, at no point is he arguing against the interpretation that the abundant male-male or female-female sexual interactions of these animals should not be "misunderstood" as being an indicator of homosexuality in nature, that much he is leaving up to you.

True, he is not saying anywhere in the article that it is clear and undeniable evidence for "homosexuality in nature", but I do feel the evidence in this article is clear; that by adopting a casual and bisexual social behavior the bonobo species is fundamentally a more egalitarian and peaceful society than the closely related human societies and chimpanzee societies. The species is best characterized as female-centered and egalitarian and as one that substitutes sex for aggression. Whereas in most other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct category, in the bonobo it is part and parcel of social relations--and not just between males and females. Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination (although such contact among close family members may be suppressed). And sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates. Despite the frequency of sex, the bonobo's rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of the chimpanzee. A female gives birth to a single infant at intervals of between five and six years. So bonobos share at least one very important characteristic with our own species, namely, a partial separation between sex and reproduction.Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance.I'm assuming this last paragraph is yours, because it is definitely not in that article. This however is in that article:
The bonding among female bonobos violates a fairly general rule, outlined by Harvard University anthropologist Richard W. Wrangham, that the sex that stays in the natal group develops the strongest mutual bonds. Bonding among male chimpanzees follows naturally because they remain in the community of their birth. The same is true for female kinship bonding in Old World monkeys, such as macaques and baboons, where males are the migratory sex.

Bonobos are unique in that the migratory sex, females, strongly bond with same-sex strangers later in life. In setting up an artificial sisterhood, bonobos can be said to be secondarily bonded. (Kinship bonds are said to be primary.) Although we now know HOW this happens--through the use of sexual contact and grooming--we do not yet know WHY bonobos and chimpanzees differ in this respect. The answer may lie in the different ecological environments of bonobos and chimpanzees--such as the abundance and quality of food in the forest. But it is uncertain if such explanations will suffice.
So above are two points which clearly do not support your argument Vlatko. Firstly, that sexual relationships are strictly about reproduction, and thus if any species, be it bonobo or human, engages in sex that does not have the possibility of yielding offspring, it should be considered unnatural. And second, that in the animal kingdom 'homosexual activity' is really a display of dominance. It is, in my opinion, more than clear from the article which you are attempting to use to support your claim, that while amongst the males the homosexual activity is arguably about displays of aggression and dominance (even though I don't think that to be entirely true), amongst the females it clearly is not, it is about pleasurable societal relations.Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."I am not suggesting that when a dog mounts another dog it is strictly a sign of homosexuality, and I am not disputing that it could be a demonstration of power. As you mentioned this sort of non-homosexual behavior is known to occur amongst humans in prison for example. But honestly, you really think that 10% of the population is simply psychologically confused as to which sex to be attracted to, or that they are merely trying to show their dominance??? Behind closed doors or 'in the closet'? :rolleyes:In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_LeVay) admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.Well this quote would support your argument if you were debating that monogamous homosexual activities were 'rare' in nature, but you are saying they do not exist, so I am bewildered.Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo (http://www.conservapedia.com/Antonio_Pardo_Caballos), Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[Find out more] (http://www.interrogantes.net/Antonio-Pardo-Aspectos-medicos-de-la-homosexualidad-Nuestro-Tiempo-VIII095/menu-id-27.html)This one is my favorite Vlatko. From Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page), the trustworthy encyclopedia! Outstanding. :thumbsup: While you're there can you find me some references which discount the theory of evolution and support creationism?Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often "read" human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Socarides) of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:

The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.[Find out more] (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/exploding.html)Alright, read into it as you will, but this argument works both ways. You cannot then say that a dog mounting another dog is strictly about dominance, because once again it is a foolhardy scientific approach, and you are applying human psychodynamics.

Also, I am not saying that homosexuality (as observed amongst humans) is observed in other species, but the similarities in homosexual activity is there. It would be equally foolhardy to suggest that monogamous bird species are 'in love' with their mates, when the truth is that the most logical scientific explanation is that it is a very beneficial behavioral adaptation to choose a mate and stay with them for life, particularly for migratory birds. However what is not foolhardy is to conclude that monogamy is observed in migratory birds, it is documented, observed, irrefutable.Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:

Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure....The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.Well, this has already been refuted in my opinion. Perhaps you could provide the link to Cesar Ades since you have quoted him a couple of times?So, now I can safely repeat your statement the_aphid but this time in my favor: The truth is that there are hundreds of them out there, I could literally spend days going through the 'reliable evidence', but I'm sure you'll find a way to discount or ignore them in order to retain your belief that homosexuality is natural.So then this is where we are left. At the point where we have to agree to disagree. You interpreted the evidence one way, and provided your 'supported' rebuttal, and I provided mine. I suppose that is where the debate ends. Or does it...? :unsure:Because they have egg to care about, or they think that they have egg to care about. Following your analogy we can say that penguins are thinking: "Hmm, this guy is better than that chick. I will stay with him. That chick is stupid. What about our offspring? Never mind, we will steal some egg from some chick, or we can roll some rock. Not a problem". :goodlaugh:
They are not consciously choosing that.Whatever, you consistently fail to address the actual argument. After the chick had been raised by the homosexual pair, they split them up and offered them each multiple female companions. The chick they raised was now with other juveniles. Neither male penguin took to them, they did not attempt to engage in any sexual activities, until the male couple was reunited. I'm not assigning conscious thought here, I'm simply looking at the observed behavior and asking myself; Why would two penguins choose to engage in sexual activity with an individual of the same sex when females are present? And then I am concluding with what I feel is the most likely explanation, that perhaps those penguins are simply not attracted to the females.Well as i said Frans B. M. de Waal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal) spent hundreds of hours observing and filming your precious bonobos and he didn't manage to film them in acts of sodomy. Why? Because there is no sodomy there. There is no homo sex there, therefore there is no homosexuality.That's some pretty specious reasoning there Vlatko. Also, it illustrates your underlying misunderstanding of what homosexuality is. Not all homosexual men engage in sodomy, in fact I have known a couple homosexual men who say that they are quite frankly repulsed by the idea, and they strictly engage in other forms of sexual activity. I mean do you really think that is what 'sex' is about, penetration? I think you would benefit from broadening your understanding. Sex is not strictly about penetration, and it is not strictly about reproduction.Look at this, you are saying that it is believed cyanobacteria to be the first oxygen-producing life form on the planet and than you are saying that you are not producing fallacy "Appeal to Belief". Well, your claims are not really scientifically proved, so they can be true or untrue. Nobody actually really knows how our atmosphere was created. :applause::duh: This same 'appeal to belief' is also what creationist use to 'dismantle' the abundant scientific evidence supporting the belief in evolutionary theory. So if that's going to be your argumentative method, then all beliefs simply fall on their butt simply because 'they are beliefs'.This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?Yes, exactly, we are. Firstly I think once again this is only going to support my argument, that all human behavior is "natural". There is abundant evidence detailing that humans have engaged in both cannibalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism) and infanticide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide). Why we don't engage in these acts any more has nothing to do with them being 'unnatural', but simply unethical! Where is the ethical dilemma in providing adults with the freedom of readily choosing a companion of either sex? What harm comes from such an act? Absolutely none, in fact, I would argue that by adopting more "natural" and "casual" attitudes towards sex, such as those displayed by bonobos, mankind would be far better off.
Akamu: Sarcasms and indirect attacks on your opponent cannot be excused by the frustrations of not having your points of view embraced.

Look Akamu, the_aphid wanted me to provide him some reliable backup of my arguments. So I did. I can't really see where is the sarcasm in all of this. After all if you look objectively you will find sarcasm in the_aphid's post too. Anyway I'm sorry about that.Well, just so it is said, I take no offense in sarcasms and indirect attacks. However, if people resort to them, and say...I don't know...begin belittling other peoples arguments based on semantics...consider the 'gloves off'.For example ask the Buddhists and Christians on this forum, what they think about homosexuality?Maybe you should take a poll there Vlatko, I think you'd be surprised.

[Vlatko]

the_aphid: Vlatko, are you aware that you are referencing the exact same article that I am using to support my argument?

I was not aware because you never mentioned from where it comes and who wrote it. Anyhow it doesn't matter, because like you said the purpose of that article is not to give clear and undeniable evidence for "homosexuality in nature", but to suggest that sex among bonobos has other means except reproduction. We can't even call it sex, it is only mounting. Mounting among bonobos can show predominance, social status, etc., and you are using it to show that there are animals homosexuals in nature, which is absurd and not true. That was my point, when I was referring to the same article.

Plus, those bonobos can't be called "homosexuals" because males mate with females also and the other way around, therefore you can call them bisexuals. Even bisexuals is wrong because they don't have sex with the representatives of the same sex, only with the opposite.

the_aphid: I have read through the entire article a number of times, and nowhere does it contain the words "seemingly homosexual behavior", particularly enclosed within quotations as if to imply that this interpretation is inaccurate.

Well I really don't know why are you mentioning this, because that line is not in the actual quotation, it is out of the quotation, therefore it is obvious that it is not in the article, thus it's mine :huh:

Look at this! Firstly you are saying: I am not suggesting that when a dog mounts another dog it is strictly a sign of homosexuality, and I am not disputing that it could be a demonstration of power. And than you are contradicting yourself by saying: You cannot then say that a dog mounting another dog is strictly about dominance, because once again it is a foolhardy scientific approach, and you are applying human psychodynamics. However, I'm sure you will find some excuse to evade this obvious contradiction.

the_aphid: Also, it illustrates your underlying misunderstanding of what homosexuality is... Sex is not strictly about penetration...

Here you come to the point where you're trying to generalize the term homosexuality or homosexuals. I can only say this: There is no agreement among the scientific community, religious groups or homosexual people themselves as to the definition of homosexuality, which is extracted from here (http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/homosexuality/a0000054.cfm)

Since you are understanding homosexuality and I'm misunderstanding it maybe you will explain it to me step by step. So, where is the starting point for one to become or to be considered as homosexual? Is it enough just to think that you are homosexual? Is it enough to fall in love with a gay? Is it enough to have romance? Is it enough to have erotic experience with representative of the same sex? Or is it enough to have sex with a person of the same gender?

If I accept your premise that homosexuality is not defined just with penetration, but with something that precedes it, than I will have to ask you where homosexuality actually starts? The boundary is blurry. For some kissing will not be homosexual but for you it might be, for some hugging while you are naked will not be homosexual but for you again it might be. Look at the women. They are so close, closer than man. They can kiss, hug each other, they can sleep together and still they will not consider themselves as lesbians. So, where is the boundary between heterosexuality and homosexuality according to you? Where the homosexuality starts? Sorry for my bad language again, but you can be only 100% sure that you are homosexual when a penis penetrated your anus, or your penis penetrated someone else's anus. Everything else is speculation. Further more if that happened once or you're not practicing that activity all the time, even than maybe it's wrong one to be labeled as homosexual.

Here is a result of a small working group (taken from here (http://www.wiu.edu/ucoso/what_is.htm)) trying to define such a complex term as homosexuality:

1a. Definition: Homosexuality is when someone loves someone of the same sex.

1b. Critique: But people love their brothers and sisters. Also, you can love friends, but not in a sexual way.

2a. Definition: Homosexuality is when two people of the same gender have sex.

2b. Critique: Many adolescents and college-age adults experiment with same sex relations, but donât identify themselves as homosexuals. Plus, in prisons, the military, and other environments where there are no persons of the opposite gender available, many people have same-sex relations, yet go on to live exclusively heterosexual lives.

3a. Definition: Homosexuality means two people of the same sex "in love."

3b. Critique: Many people experience very erotic/"in love" feelings for someone of the same sex, but never act on them. Are they gay?

4a. Definition: It's when people dream and fantasize about having sex with people of the same sex.

4b. Critique: The vast majority of people in this room probably have had dreams or fantasize about having sex with someone of the same gender. Are they homosexual?

5a. Definition: Homosexuality means being sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

5b. Critique: We would all be surprised at the number of people who fit in this category, but are they all homosexual?

Finally one of the suggested definitions was: A homosexual is someone "who is motivated in adult life by a preferential erotic attraction to the same sex, and who usually (but not necessarily) engage in overt relations with them." (Psychiatrist Judd Marmor)., but be careful, that is only SUGGESTED definition, since there is no strict definition, thus you can't really define what homosexuality is. In my opinion you can surely call someone homosexual if he regularly has sex with the representative of the same sex. Simple as that.

Now, maybe it will be proper if you try to answer these questions, if you will the_aphid:

1. If you kiss a man, would you consider yourself to be a homosexual?
2. If you hug a naked man would you consider yourself to be a homosexual?
3. If you touch a naked man would you consider yourself to be a homosexual?
4. If you sleep in the same bed, without having sex, with a man, would you consider yourself to be a homosexual?

There is something more. All the arguments from the previous post that I quoted, Akamu discarded them as weak and ridiculous, and you the_aphid said that they are working both ways or that they are in your favor. Since it is fact that you and Acamu are on the same side about this question, I'm questioning myself how it is possible these arguments to be weak and ridiculous and at the same time to support your claims. That again shows that these arguments are interpreted as you like. Actually you are seeing them in a way just to fit your picture.

And by the way, all that you previously wrote contains small dose of sarcasm, for what I don't take any offense too.

Cheers, Vlatko

[the_aphid]

I was not aware because you never mentioned from where it comes and who wrote it.Well, not to nitpick, but the link was provided here:
Well, firstly I just realized that the links that I posted failed to post properly, so here they are again:
Homosexuality in animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals)
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)
Bonobo Sex and Society - from Scientific American (http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html)We can't even call it sex, it is only mounting. Mounting among bonobos can show predominance, social status, etc., and you are using it to show that there are animals homosexuals in nature, which is absurd and not true. That was my point, when I was referring to the same article.Once again, you are clearly not reading the articles, and evaluating the evidence contained within. Our shared source most certainly says that it is sexual activity, it is sexual stimulation of genitalia. Discount it by labeling it as mere 'mounting' if you like, but you are skewing the evidence to support your view.

I think the problem is that you have defined 'homosexual activity' as the act of sodomy exclusively between two males. Firstly, this does no justification for the fact that homosexual activity is observed in both sexes. Second, you are just conveniently ignoring the plethora of other sexual activities which result in pleasurable stimulation, that result in orgasm.Plus, those bonobos can't be called "homosexuals" because males mate with females also and the other way around, therefore you can call them bisexuals. Even bisexuals is wrong because they don't have sex with the representatives of the same sex, only with the opposite.Well, this is just going in circles now. Your idea of what constitutes 'sexual activity' is extremely narrow minded. I suppose you were supportive of Clinton back when he claimed "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". :rolleyes:Well I really don't know why are you mentioning this, because that line is not in the actual quotation, it is out of the quotation, therefore it is obvious that it is not in the article, thus it's mine :huh:Really? You weren't trying to slip it in there as if it was expressed in the document...well my mistake then. My apologies.There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.

Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. [Find out more] (http://www.songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html)Well I underlined the part I was referring to, I guess the lack of "quotations" or indentations, and the fact that the paragraph was expressed in the same grey text was the reason I was confused. Once again, my apologies.Look at this! Firstly you are saying: I am not suggesting that when a dog mounts another dog it is strictly a sign of homosexuality, and I am not disputing that it could be a demonstration of power. And than you are contradicting yourself by saying: You cannot then say that a dog mounting another dog is strictly about dominance, because once again it is a foolhardy scientific approach, and you are applying human psychodynamics. However, I'm sure you will find some excuse to evade this obvious contradiction.:duh: Weak argument Vlatko, I am not contradicting myself. Look at it again. Perhaps I should have emphasized the words strictly or could be. The argument I am making here is in response to your quote that it is 'foolhardy' to assign motivations to the observed behavior. I am not actually agreeing with your reference, that it is 'foolhardy' to interpret female-female GG rubbing as 'homosexual' in nature, but rather just pointing out that it is you who is making a contradiction in your argument. Stating that interpretation of this behavior is appropriately understood as 'acts of dominance', and then later saying that it is 'foolhardy' to assign any motivation to the acts.Here you come to the point where you're trying to generalize the term homosexuality or homosexuals. I can only say this: There is no agreement among the scientific community, religious groups or homosexual people themselves as to the definition of homosexuality, which is extracted from here (http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/homosexuality/a0000054.cfm)This is ridiculous Vlatko, I am not trying to generalize the term homosexuality, I am just broadening the strict definition which you insist upon. Homosexual activity is very specifically activity of a sexual nature between members of the 'same' sex, homo, as opposed to the prefix hetero, which means 'other'. So to sum it up, homosexual - sexual with same, heterosexual - sexual with other.

Actually, this is where I'm done. If you are going to refer to sites that group homosexuality with intimacy disorders and addictions, and have opinions like this:In helping people overcome homosexuality, we’ve found that many are in confusion about what homosexuality actually is. There is no agreement among the scientific community, religious groups or homosexual people themselves as to the definition of homosexuality.
You are speaking about it as if it is a disease. I simply cannot take this seriously anymore because of the absurdity of the argument. Conversation over.
Now, maybe it will be proper if you try to answer these questions, if you will the_aphid:1. If you kiss a man, would you consider yourself to be a homosexual?
2. If you hug a naked man would you consider yourself to be a homosexual?
3. If you touch a naked man would you consider yourself to be a homosexual?
4. If you sleep in the same bed, without having sex, with a man, would you consider yourself to be a homosexual?
Tell you what Vlatko, I'll consider continuing the discussion if you first answer my question that was posed earlier, which you failed to address. Do you actually know any homosexual people personally? Maybe the reason you feel the way you do, is because you distance yourself from homosexuality, because you see it as a sickness. Who knows, maybe you're afraid that one of those gay men might try to kiss you or touch you, and 'infect' you with their 'disease'. Putting up walls and encouraging this stigma is purely ignorant and intolerant. And refusing to identify homosexuals as people, people just like anyone else, simply encourages ignorance and intolerance. People fear what they don't understand, and maybe that is where your homophobia stems from. You can't imagine how a man could be sexually attracted to another man, it simply seems bizarre to you, and therefore you label it as 'unnatural' and despise them. Frankly, it is just sad. :shakehead:

[Vlatko]

the_aphid: Weak argument Vlatko, I am not contradicting myself. Look at it again. Perhaps I should have emphasized the words strictly or could be.

Really, I think there is a glimpse of uncertainty there even if you emphasize those words. Mounting could be demonstration of power, but not strictly. :) Make up your mind. It is, or it is not, or sometimes. If it is sometimes than on which occasions it is and when it is not?

the_aphid: This is ridiculous Vlatko, I am not trying to generalize the term homosexuality, I am just broadening the strict definition which you insist upon.

Obviously I'm not insisting on a strict definition of homosexuality. What I've explained is that there is no strict definition (ah... you managed to forget to quote that in your response), only what I'm trying to say is that you can be sure that one is homosexual when there is penetration. Than you can't lie, it is obvious fact. Before that one could speculate.

the_aphid:Actually, this is where I'm done... You are speaking about it as if it is a disease. I simply cannot take this seriously anymore because of the absurdity of the argument. Conversation over.

Actually, this is were you begin to panic. You are skipping the rest of my post (the part about the working group who tries to define the "homosexuality") because you will contradict yourself again if you try to comment on it. Than you are changing your mind that you are not finished and you start to attack me with wrong accusations. Because you ignored some of my points (which is half of the text) I will repeat it again:

Since you are understanding homosexuality and I'm misunderstanding it maybe you will explain it to me step by step. So, where is the starting point for one to become or to be considered as homosexual? Is it enough just to think that you are homosexual? Is it enough to fall in love with a gay? Is it enough to have romance? Is it enough to have erotic experience with representative of the same sex? Or is it enough to have sex with a person of the same gender?

If I accept your premise that homosexuality is not defined just with penetration, but with something that precedes it, than I will have to ask you where homosexuality actually starts? The boundary is blurry. For some kissing will not be homosexual but for you it might be, for some hugging while you are naked will not be homosexual but for you again it might be. Look at the women. They are so close, closer than man. They can kiss, hug each other, they can sleep together and still they will not consider themselves as lesbians. So, where is the boundary between heterosexuality and homosexuality according to you? Where the homosexuality starts? Sorry for my bad language again, but you can be only 100% sure that you are homosexual when a penis penetrated your anus, or your penis penetrated someone else's anus. Everything else is speculation. Further more if that happened once or you're not practicing that activity all the time, even than maybe it's wrong one to be labeled as homosexual.

Here is a result of a small working group (taken from here (http://www.wiu.edu/ucoso/what_is.htm)) trying to define such a complex term as homosexuality:

1a. Definition: Homosexuality is when someone loves someone of the same sex.

1b. Critique: But people love their brothers and sisters. Also, you can love friends, but not in a sexual way.

2a. Definition: Homosexuality is when two people of the same gender have sex.

2b. Critique: Many adolescents and college-age adults experiment with same sex relations, but donât identify themselves as homosexuals. Plus, in prisons, the military, and other environments where there are no persons of the opposite gender available, many people have same-sex relations, yet go on to live exclusively heterosexual lives.

3a. Definition: Homosexuality means two people of the same sex "in love."

3b. Critique: Many people experience very erotic/"in love" feelings for someone of the same sex, but never act on them. Are they gay?

4a. Definition: It's when people dream and fantasize about having sex with people of the same sex.

4b. Critique: The vast majority of people in this room probably have had dreams or fantasize about having sex with someone of the same gender. Are they homosexual?

5a. Definition: Homosexuality means being sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

5b. Critique: We would all be surprised at the number of people who fit in this category, but are they all homosexual?

Finally one of the suggested definitions was: A homosexual is someone "who is motivated in adult life by a preferential erotic attraction to the same sex, and who usually (but not necessarily) engage in overt relations with them." (Psychiatrist Judd Marmor)., but be careful, that is only SUGGESTED definition, since there is no strict definition, thus you can't really define what homosexuality is. In my opinion you can surely call someone homosexual if he regularly has sex with the representative of the same sex. Simple as that.

the_aphid: Tell you what Vlatko, I'll consider continuing the discussion if you first answer my question that was posed earlier, which you failed to address. Do you actually know any homosexual people personally?

Well, this is kind of rhetorical question. Whatever answer I give you will not know if I'm honest or not, and it will produce vaguer debate. If I say yes, you will say that a man who knows homosexuals personally will not write such things, thus, deep down, you will not believe me. If I say no, you will say "I knew it. When you come to know homosexuals personally than come and talk". So, whatever I say will be nonsense. However I choose YES.

the_aphid: Maybe the reason you feel the way you do, is because you distance yourself from homosexuality, because you see it as a sickness. Who knows, maybe you're afraid that one of those gay men might try to kiss you or touch you, and 'infect' you with their 'disease'.

All that you've said goes to the category of "maybe", because I never said such things. Here I will demystify it for you: I don't see homosexuality as sickness, and I don't think that they will "infect" me with their "disease". Again you are trying to put your words into my mouth.

the_aphid: Putting up walls and encouraging this stigma is purely ignorant and intolerant. And refusing to identify homosexuals as people, people just like anyone else, simply encourages ignorance and intolerance.

I'm not putting any walls and I'm not encouraging any stigma. Again I have to quote myself from earlier: Nobody said that homosexuals are guilty. They are not doing any harm to this world. The question was whether what they are doing is natural or not? I never said that homosexuals are not people, like everybody else. Here the philosophical question was raised whether that is natural or unnatural, whether the terms like natural or unnatural even exists.

the_aphid: People fear what they don't understand, and maybe that is where your homophobia stems from. You can't imagine how a man could be sexually attracted to another man, it simply seems bizarre to you, and therefore you label it as 'unnatural' and despise them. Frankly, it is just sad.

I mean, here we go again. I didn't say anything of that. It not seems bizarre to me, and I'm not saying it is unnatural because I despise them. I've pointed out why I think it is unnatural several hundreds words ago without saying anything bad about homosexuals.

Cheers, Vlatko

[Akamu]

Vlatko: There is something more. All the arguments from the previous post that I quoted, Akamu discarded them as weak and ridiculous, and you the_aphid said that they are working both ways or that they are in your favor. Since it is fact that you and Acamu are on the same side about this question, I'm questioning myself how it is possible these arguments to be weak and ridiculous and at the same time to support your claims. That again shows that these arguments are interpreted as you like. Actually you are seeing them in a way just to fit your picture.

Eh, read more carefully. I specifically picked two subjective extrapolations put forth by a couple scientists and called them ridiculous. I did not discard every argument you posted. In fact, I even said that they are just as credible as their counter arguments which makes them hold little value in terms of this discussion since people are just exchanging opinions at this point. You are making it a habit to twist words around as to discredit your opposition.

[the_aphid]

Make up your mind. It is, or it is not, or sometimes. If it is sometimes than on which occasions it is and when it is not?Make up my mind and say "Definitely yes, every single time a male animal mounts another male animal of the same species it is because of homosexuality?!?" Or conversely, "No, despite all the occurrences of same-sex sexual activity, none of them are the result of homosexual motivation?!?" That is ludicrous, obviously not all the instances are driven by homosexual urges, and unless you can communicate with bonobos, or dolphins, or horses, or giraffes, or killer whales, or etc, you're not going to know for certain what the motivation is. The point is whatever is motivating them to engage in homosexual activity, it is still homosexual activity. Here is a new reference (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718), it turns out that animals have been documented engaging in acts of sodomy:"The theme has long been taboo. The problem is that researchers have not seen for themselves that the phenomenon exists or they have been confused when observing homosexual behaviour or that they are fearful of being ridiculed by their colleagues. Many therefore overlook the abundance of material that is found. Many researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles."

One example of overlooking behaviour noted by Petter Bockman is a description of mating among giraffes, when nine out of ten pairings occur between males."Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings."
As far as I am concerned Vlatko, Petter Bockman here has precisely identified the problem with referring to animals to identify homosexual activity. You observe a group of males engaging in anal intercourse, and then as soon as one of those males shows interest or gets involved in sexual acts with a female, the skeptics point and shout 'see it's not homosexual because he's doing it with a female', despite the fact the previous 9 out of 10 matings were with male companions! This is where that clear distinction between sex for pleasure, and sex for reproduction becomes apparent. I mean, is it not possible that these animals are being swayed by the urge to procreate and the urge to engage in enjoyable sexual activity with members of the same sex?only what I'm trying to say is that you can be sure that one is homosexual when there is penetration. Than you can't lie, it is obvious fact. Before that one could speculate.I see, your logic is irrefutable. :thumbsup: And does it work the same way for heterosexuals? If an 18 year old male is very strongly attracted to females, he is not truly heterosexual until he actually engages in intercourse, and rids himself of virginity? What if that 18 year old male masturbates to the images of naked women in playboy? Is he heterosexual yet? What if you replace that playboy with a playgirl :o Uh oh to the Mom and Dad who find that under the mattress! Dad might then say, "No, it's alright, he's not a homosexual until there is penetration, he can still overcome his homosexual urges, at this point he is simply 'curious'?"

Or what about bisexuals? Who readily engage in and enjoy sex with both? How does a man wash himself of that 'homosexual' label in order to engage in 'heterosexual' sex?Actually, this is were you begin to panic. You are skipping the rest of my post (the part about the working group who tries to define the "homosexuality") because you will contradict yourself again if you try to comment on it. Than you are changing your mind that you are not finished and you start to attack me with wrong accusations.:lol: Of course! Look at me quiver! :uhoh: Watch me contradict myself, here are your comments on the work group:
Finally one of the suggested definitions was: A homosexual is someone "who is motivated in adult life by a preferential erotic attraction to the same sex, and who usually (but not necessarily) engage in overt relations with them." (Psychiatrist Judd Marmor)., but be careful, that is only SUGGESTED definition, since there is no strict definition, thus you can't really define what homosexuality is. In my opinion you can surely call someone homosexual if he regularly has sex with the representative of the same sex. Simple as that.Firstly, I would say that I agree with Judd Marmor's definition, particularly the '(but not necessarily)' part, because it is my belief that there are many people out there who are homosexual by nature, but unnaturally attempt to resist those natural urges. And yes your statement I would agree with. "You can surely call someone homosexual if he regularly has sex with the representative of the same sex." So then, if I may ask, why aren't those giraffes mentioned above simply defined as homosexual by nature? <_<

Also, I'd also like to point out that the definition of 'heterosexual' could be just as easily refuted with the steps in that workbook. So, this leads me to conclude that if a person exclusively engages in regular sexual activity with only one sex - whether they are the same or the opposite - they would appropriately be defined as homosexual or heterosexual respectively. While if a person readily engages in sexual activity with both sexes, they would appropriately be defined as bisexual. Then, lastly I suppose if someone does not engage in any sexual activity, they could adequately be defined as non-sexual or celibate. Now before you refute this Vlatko, it should be said that I don't define 'sexual activity' as narrowly as 'penetration'. To refer to Akamu's views on sexuality, I would say that he is clearly still heterosexual, because he is attracted to and engages in some sorts of sexual activity with a member of the opposite sex.Well, this is kind of rhetorical question.No, it is not rhetorical at all.Whatever answer I give you will not know if I'm honest or not,Well, what reason would you have to lie? Why would I ever assume you wouldn't be honest? Unless you are no longer attempting to argue the point and instead are just now attempting to 'win an argument'. I assume that you wouldn't come to a discussion forum to lie in order to justify your opinions to yourself :think:If I say yes, you will say that a man who knows homosexuals personally will not write such things, thus, deep down, you will not believe me. If I say no, you will say "I knew it. When you come to know homosexuals personally than come and talk". And you're accusing me of putting words in your mouth? :lol: The point I was driving at by asking this question was to find out what behavior within your homosexual friends (if you had any) had you observed which led you to conclude that they were 'sexually confused'?

See I think the most important step to understanding is experiencing. By this I don't mean you have to engage in homosexual acts in order to understand homosexuality, but by talking with homosexual friends, it has become very clear that what they want from life is no different from what I want myself. It is very easy to stand at a distance and tell a stranger, 'You are sexually confused because you are attracted to men and it is unnatural', but its a totally different story when you have grown up with these people and come to know them as confident and happy individuals. Also, to see friends battle with their homosexual urges - to fight them resulting in nearly suicidal depression - all because they have grown up being told those urges are unnatural, and then to see them liberated when they finally accept those urges for what they are, the evidence is irrefutable in my opinion based on experience, homosexuality is entirely natural.I don't see homosexuality as sickness, and I don't think that they will "infect" me with their "disease". Again you are trying to put your words into my mouth.No, I was speculating, there is a big difference. Above, where you claimed 'you'll just say this..., so this is pointless', that is proper example of putting words in someone's mouth. Surely you are right, you never said it was a sickness, but you linked to a website that was helping people 'overcome homosexuality'. So what is this that needs to be overcome? Are they maladapted, are they psychologically distraught or confused, what 'problem' is there with homosexuality that someone should feel the need to 'overcome' it? Besides using the senseless argument that 'it is unnatural', since that argument simply gets us nowhere.I never said that homosexuals are not people, like everybody else. Here the philosophical question was raised whether that is natural or unnatural, whether the terms like natural or unnatural even exists.And your reasoning is that it does not occur in nature, it does not result in offspring, therefore it is unnatural? Am I summing it up correctly?It not seems bizarre to me, and I'm not saying it is unnatural because I despise them. I've pointed out why I think it is unnatural several hundreds words ago without saying anything bad about homosexuals.See that's the problem. If someone were to tell you your lifestyle was 'unnatural', honestly now, would you not take offense?

Hypothetical scenario: If two people were in 'love' but one physically was incapable of sexual intercourse - because they were paralyzed for example - would their union be 'unnatural'? Would the 'natural' thing to do be for the healthy and sexually capable individual to leave their companion and find one who is able to have sex and produce offspring?

And here is my last point on the subject, because I have already spent far too much time debating the 'nature of homosexuality'. What might your opinion be on the Two-Spirited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirited) nature of many Native Americans which has been "documented in over 130 North American tribes, in every region of the continent, among every type of native culture"[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirited#cite_note-1)?In fact, I even said that they are just as credible as their counter arguments which makes them hold little value in terms of this discussion since people are just exchanging opinions at this point. You are making it a habit to twist words around as to discredit your opposition.I concur. It is my opinion that this conversation has gone as far as it can. Everybody retains their opinions, and everyone has had their opinions heard. Fair enough?:p

[Vlatko]

Well, the_aphid, too bad that I don't have enough time to respond to your sarcastic arguments right now. But don't despair, I will for sure, the next weekend... until than keep up the good work.

Cheers, Vlatko

[Flux]

We have been assuming that Vlatko opposes human sexuality. From his comments in the last few posts, namely Nobody said that homosexuals are guilty. They are not doing any harm to this world. it appears that he does not, but merely questions whether homosexuality really occurs in the natural world, which under Vlatko's use excludes humans.

I'll ask again just for clarification; Vlatko, do you think that human sexuality is moral or undesireable, or do you simply dispute whether it occurs in non human animals? Because of the connotations of the word "unnatural", I had assumed you had a problem with human homosexuality, but your latest posts make me wonder if you do. In any case, it would be rather silly if we were all arguing about something we all agreed on, a phenomena that's happened to me several times in the past.

Now, as far as animal homosexuality goes; I think that the articles that Vlatko and the Aphid have cited make some interesting points. One point Vlatko made was correct, I think--that it's important in this discussion to know what we're refering to by "homosexual." Personally, I would define a homosexual act (in non-human species) as one in which animals gain sexual pleasure by giving or recieving stimulation of reproductive organs. Under this definition, clearly the articles that aphid sites document homosexual acts.

However, the portions of the articles that Vlatko cites also bring up an interesting point. Perhapse it's anthropomorphic for us to consider animals that engage in homosexual acts as homosexual animals. In other words, do only homosexual animals engage in homosexual acts, or are there cases, such as the dog-mounting Vlatko mentioned, where a heterosexual animalmight perform a homosexual act?

Here's where I stand on the matter; I think that animals definitely do homosexual acts. I also think that they enjoy these acts, rather than being forced to it due to the lack of a female partner. As to whether all animals who engage in homosexual acts are "gay" animals, I think that this might be taking it a bit to far. Not because animals can't be homosexual, or that none appear to be, but that homosexuality as humans think of it implies more than mere engagement in homosexual acts. We think of the mental aspect, and compare the romantic and sexual emotions of homosexual and heterosexual humans. In identifying animals as being a homosexual or heterosexual in the romantic, mental, emotional sense may be anthropomorphic to an extent. Personally, I don't think that the heterosexual/homosexual distinction is concrete in the animal world--their are only acts which may be heterosexual or homosexual. Did that make any sense at all?

Akamu also has a good point that animal species needn't have any effect on whether or not human homosexuality is moral or not; regardless of whether or not there are homosexual animals, that says nothing about the human act.

As far as homosexuality and Buddhism goes, it is certainly possible to be a gay Buddhist, just as it's possible to be a gay Christian. That being said, the Dalai Llamas particular form of Buddhism is unfortunately far from the only school of Buddhism that opposes homosexuality. I'm currently taking a religioun course taught by a Buddhist from Sri Lanka. In Theravadan Buddhism at least, any monk found "guilty" of homosexuality is automatically expelled from the monastary. Buddhism is a remarkble philosophy and quite tolerant in most respects, but it shouldn't be seen as immune from prejuduces.

[Taeguk]

I think Flux brings up a good point---what is "homosexual"? It's a category that refers to a sexual "orientation", and as a category it's only about one or two hundred years old in European and American societies; elsewhere in the world it's an even more recent phenomena. When the Iranian President Ahmadinejad stated that "We don't have homosexuality in my country," I think what he might have actually been saying was, "Traditionally, our culture has no concept of homosexuality." This is not to say that same-sex sexual behavior does not occur, and it's certainly not to justify the measures taken against homosexuals in Iran and elsewhere (although incidentally, Iran performs the largest number of transgender surgery in the world, even higher than Thailand, I believe).

However, it highlights an important point, namely that we need to understand the category of "homosexuality" is not a universally recognized category in all times and places. As such, people who look to religion to justify attitudes toward homosexuality are really looking in the wrong place, since the authors of the Bible had no notion of "homosexual". The Sodom and Gomorrah story has more to with a message about violating the laws of hospitality than it does about anal intercourse, yet it is used again and again to justify the prejudices of anti-gay religionists.

Ultimately speaking sexuality, like everything else, exists along a continuum. The categories we use to describe that continuum are just abstractions from actual experience, and while they are useful we should not understand them to correspond absolutely to reality. In looking at the behavior and attraction of any given individual, chances are that we will find they are not exclusively "heterosexual" or "homosexual". If somebody has a few isolated incidents of homosexual activity, for instance, but ends up getting married to a member of the opposite sex and having children, are they "gay" or "straight"? There is no hard and fast distinction.

And as far as "natural" and "unnatural" goes, it seems ridiculous to me to posit "nature" as an entity standing outside of and against "human beings". Nature is something internal to whatever it is we are discussing; the nature of any thing is simply a description of how it happens to behave. As such homosexual behavior is as much a part of human nature as anything else, and furthermore it should be nothing to inspire shame or require legislation against.

[scameter]

Are behaviors such as murder, theft and rape also merely apart of human nature?

[...]

Are behaviors such as murder, theft and rape also merely apart of human nature?

..ofcourse they are...

[Flux]

Are behaviors such as murder, theft and rape also merely apart of human nature?

Answering this is difficult due to the connotations of human nature. These behaviors obviously aren't "human nature" in the sense that their excusable and acceptable facets of general human inperfection, and something we can't help. I don't think that even murder would be "unnatural" in the metaphysical sense however, although it's certainly morally wrong. Really, I think that the best and worst of human behavior is equally natural, which means that we should take extra care be moral individuals; we won't lean toward the good automatically because it's more "natural".

[the_aphid]

Ultimately speaking sexuality, like everything else, exists along a continuum. The categories we use to describe that continuum are just abstractions from actual experience, and while they are useful we should not understand them to correspond absolutely to reality. In looking at the behavior and attraction of any given individual, chances are that we will find they are not exclusively "heterosexual" or "homosexual". If somebody has a few isolated incidents of homosexual activity, for instance, but ends up getting married to a member of the opposite sex and having children, are they "gay" or "straight"? There is no hard and fast distinction.I entirely agree that people cannot necessarily be accurately 'lumped' into one of three categories, but as you say, sexual orientation exists along a continuum, and the three 'areas' are easily divided into heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual. Now, I'm going to try to illustrate a concept that I discussed with a number of friends (including heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals), which everyone in the conversation generally agreed upon. Essentially the concept goes like this: There are two extremes to sexual orientation, being strict homosexual at one end, and strict heterosexual at the other. Everywhere between these two polar extremes people display differing degrees of bisexuality. Here is a graph that I quickly designed at this site (http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/CreateAGraph/):
http://photos-g.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v234/236/4/736089687/n736089687_798022_137.jpg
Now, I just want to emphasize that this is simply a hypothetical graph using made up figures in an attempt to illustrate a point. That being said, lets go to the graph! :lol: So, as can be seen, there is a small percentage of people at both polar extremes, being the strict homosexuals and strict heterosexuals, each of them showing no doubt in the sexual orientation they have come to accept. Then there are the next two groups that are essentially at the far ends of the spectrum, except they have engaged in some sexual activity (experimentation) in order to address any confusion they might have felt regarding their sexual orientation (this is where your example of the married man would fall in Taeguk) Then you have the two very populated groups which fall on either side of the minimally populated bisexual group at the midpoint of this 'sexual spectrum'. These two groups, I personally would classify as 'bisexual', but the problem with this label, is often people in these groups more strongly identify with one extreme rather than the other, and thus end up identifying themselves as either homosexual or heterosexual. This is what I feel accounts for the minimum population of 'strict bisexuals', which lies precisely on the center, and they identify as such.

Now, obviously the populations in each could be off, I put a higher population at the heterosexual extreme than the homosexual, also there could be higher populations in the categories with experimentations, etc. Also, it should be said that this type of distribution could never actually be documented, because it is a sensitive issue I think that you wouldn't get honest answers which would reflect reliable results. And lastly, there are people that wouldn't fit into this sort of 'distribution', such as people who do not feel they possess any sexual orientation, and as a result would likely adopt a celibate behavior. But nonetheless, it illustrates the concept I am trying to convey. So what do others think?
Answering this is difficult due to the connotations of human nature. These behaviors obviously aren't "human nature" in the sense that their excusable and acceptable facets of general human inperfection, and something we can't help.
...
Really, I think that the best and worst of human behavior is equally natural, which means that we should take extra care be moral individuals; we won't lean toward the good automatically because it's more "natural".I think you have done a good job differentiating the 'morality' from 'nature' Flux. Nature is not moral, not immoral, just natural. Morality I would say is part of 'human nature', because it is humans that assign behavior as 'ethical' or 'unethical'. However I agree with what Taeguk has said on the subject:And as far as "natural" and "unnatural" goes, it seems ridiculous to me to posit "nature" as an entity standing outside of and against "human beings". Nature is something internal to whatever it is we are discussing; the nature of any thing is simply a description of how it happens to behave. As such homosexual behavior is as much a part of human nature as anything else, and furthermore it should be nothing to inspire shame or require legislation against.So then what is different between 'nature' and 'human nature'? Perhaps like you mentioned Taeguk, nature is something internal to whatever we are discussing. So if we are talking about the nature of life, it encompasses all life, and what is natural is simply the ways in which life behaves. Then if we want to get more specific and talk about the nature of plants, the nature of predation, or the nature of humans, we are focusing the scope onto plants, predatory lifeforms, and humans respectively, and essentially ignoring what lies outside these bounds. So then taken one of these categories, like human nature, I feel you could then subdivide it culturally or historically. What is 'natural' in one culture, or in one time period, might not be natural in another, but yet still natural within the all encompassing group of human nature. Is this making sense?

So then what would then qualify something or some behavior as 'unnatural'? I think if we look at biology for example, we see the parallels with problems of grouping and classification. In every taxonomy we readily observe exceptions to the rule. For example, if we look at 'mammals' we say they give birth to live young, are warm blooded, breathe oxygen, etc. and this is the 'nature of mammals'. But then you have the platypus that lays eggs and sits alone amongst the rest of the mammals. So then is the platypus 'unnatural' with respect to the nature of mammals, or is it simply the nature of the platypus, encompassed by the nature of life, and the platypus is an example of an animal that 'straddles' the lines between reptilian life or avian life and mammalian life?

I guess my problem in this discussion is that I cannot even contemplate something existing in and of nature that could be deemed 'unnatural'. Perhaps the only thing that I could possible conceive of think of would be things that defy the physical nature of the universe, but yet we already classify these sorts of things as 'supernatural'. I mean, as soon as something is discovered which is entirely unique, it is considered natural and added to the 'nature of life'. For example, up until recently it was believed that all life depended upon the sun. That was the nature of life, everything depended on the sun, and life was grouped as producers and primary, secondary tertiary consumers, but all was dependent on the sun. Then scientists ventured down to the bottom of the ocean, and found life living around hydrothermal vents that was in no way dependent on the sun. Energy was derived from hydrogen sulphide or methane by bacteria and once again life was categorized similarly as producers, and varying degrees of consumers. Thus the 'nature of life' was expanded to include life that did not depend on the sun for energy.

Furthermore, we currently believe that all life is dependent on water. However, if in time we travel to Titan (yet another example) and discover a form of life that is dependent instead on liquid methane instead of water, the entire tapestry of 'the nature of life' would once again be expanded.
http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/CreateAGraph/

[Vlatko]

I've promised to give you reply the_aphid, so here it is.

It is really obvious that homosexuality has no evolutionary weight, whatsoever. It has no product, no goal, no purpose, nothing... it's like appendix. It's also obvious that humanity and other species need healthy heterosexuality, because its survival depends on it. Nature gives to species skills for survival, means for multiplying... and we know that homosexuals can't really produce offspring. So what is the purpose of homosexuality? Yes, we can say: "there is no purpose, everything exists because it exists", but really what is nature accomplishing by producing homosexuals? Don't tell me that this is the way for regulating the population of the species. That is absurd. Since there is no reason for homosexuality to exist as natural phenomenon, therefore maybe it is over imposed from without. But who can impose it? Humans? They are also created by the nature, so it looks like homosexuality is only a nature's secondhand product. If it is, than again the same question rises 'why homosexuality, asexuality, celibacy or any other anti heterosexual behavior exists, because it is obvious that these behaviors don't contribute to the survival of the species. In this harsh world only that counts. Survival. Hence the paradox.

1. If we accept the premise that homosexuality occurs among the animals identically as among the people (as you do the_aphid), the one of the several explanations is that homosexuality is perfectly natural and there is some hidden evolutionary purpose for the occurrence of it. However, that purpose is really unknown to us at this point and stays in the domen of speculation.

2. If we don't accept the premise that homosexuality occurs among the animals identically as among the people, but it is only a display of predominance in their social structures, the other explanation is that people are acting beyond the rules of the nature, and they are doing things which are not "approved" by the "nature". According to this, homosexuality is only artificial construct of the humans.

3. The third explanation could be that homosexuality among animals and humans is only a "nature's mistake". Nature makes many mistakes. Evolution makes really many mistakes. In recombination of the genes mistakes are very often, hence mutations occur. However every millionth mutation is beneficial for the updating of the species. Every other mutation is "failure of the nature" to produce something "better" if can be called like that. That process is like "trial-error". Nature is trying until something "good" comes out of it.

Let assume that homosexuality is natural component of the sexuality of the people, as bisexuality, heterosexuality, transsexuality, etc is. Even more we can assume, just to satisfy some forum members, that even asexuality is part of the sexuality of the humans, therefore it turns out that there is no sexuality and asexuality, because asexuality can't be part of sexuality, since it is anthonim of it. Anyhow, if we focus on homosexuality and suppose that it really has evolutionary weight than it turns out that evolution will enforce it. It will become more and more frequent, since it is accepted evolutionary tool. So, more and more homosexuals will be "produced" and by that real sex will be repressed more and more. When the critical point is achieved than reproduction will go in reverse. Than we will become the only species who try to eradicate itself, which is obviously non-sense. Or maybe nature will control all the sexualities except heterosexuality just to the critical point where reproduction of the species would be endangered, which is again non-sense.

Now, let go to some of your comments.

the_aphid: You observe a group of males engaging in anal intercourse, and then as soon as one of those males shows interest or gets involved in sexual acts with a female, the skeptics point and shout 'see it's not homosexual because he's doing it with a female', despite the fact the previous 9 out of 10 matings were with male companions!

Well, those males that you are mentioning are at least bisexuals, not homosexuals, since they have sexual activities with both males and females. Ratio is really irrelevant.

the_aphid: And does it work the same way for heterosexuals? If an 18 year old male is very strongly attracted to females, he is not truly heterosexual until he actually engages in intercourse, and rids himself of virginity? What if that 18 year old male masturbates to the images of naked women in playboy? Is he heterosexual yet? What if you replace that playboy with a playgirl :o Uh oh to the Mom and Dad who find that under the mattress! Dad might then say, "No, it's alright, he's not a homosexual until there is penetration, he can still overcome his homosexual urges, at this point he is simply 'curious'?"

Yes, it's true. Until penetration it's curiosity, and it's not fair one to be labeled as homosexual if he reads or masturbates on "playgirl". After penetration we can't refute it, it's homosexuality.

the_aphid: Also, I'd also like to point out that the definition of 'heterosexual' could be just as easily refuted with the steps in that workbook. So, this leads me to conclude that if a person exclusively engages in regular sexual activity with only one sex - whether they are the same or the opposite - they would appropriately be defined as homosexual or heterosexual respectively. While if a person readily engages in sexual activity with both sexes, they would appropriately be defined as bisexual. Then, lastly I suppose if someone does not engage in any sexual activity, they could adequately be defined as non-sexual or celibate.

I agree with this. Actually I never disagreed with it.

the_aphid: I assume that you wouldn't come to a discussion forum to lie in order to justify your opinions to yourself :think: And you're accusing me of putting words in your mouth? :lol: The point I was driving at by asking this question was to find out what behavior within your homosexual friends (if you had any) had you observed which led you to conclude that they were 'sexually confused'?

This is really ridiculous. I didn't say that I will lie, but I said that you would think that I am lying, which is quite different. I didn't put words to your mouth, simply because I didn't say that you said something but that you will probably think something, which is again quite different.

the_aphid: Hypothetical scenario: If two people were in 'love' but one physically was incapable of sexual intercourse - because they were paralyzed for example - would their union be 'unnatural'? Would the 'natural' thing to do be for the healthy and sexually capable individual to leave their companion and find one who is able to have sex and produce offspring?

Again, you are using "fallacy of comparison". You really can't compare homosexual relationship with relationship where one is physically incapable of sexual intercourse. The second couple can't perform sex because of technical issue, therefore that kind of union would be not "unnatural". The first one consciously, intentionally chooses to perform homosexual act, which is quite different and incomparable with the first one. The healthy and sexual capable individual in the case of the second couple is perfectly natural to leave their companion and find one who is able to have sex and produce offspring (if they were animals, exactly that would have happened), but the real question is: Is it moral?

Here you can see how nature and human morality are not in accordance, simply they are not working together. Murder, raping, cannibalism, polygamy etc. are perfectly natural, but according to humans immoral. If you raise a group of "modern" children far away from the societies, in some jungle, they would do all that animals do and that would be natural to them, but not for us. In a way, we have rules that contradict nature.

the_aphid:What might your opinion be on the Two-Spirited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirited) nature of many Native Americans which has been "documented in over 130 North American tribes, in every region of the continent, among every type of native culture"[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirited#cite_note-1)?I concur.

My opinion would be that homosexuality didn't occur in the last 100 years, but many years ago. I never said that homosexuality is "new" phenomenon. Further more, nowhere says that those people were homosexuals, but simply man with two spirits, or people with mixed genes. Males with feminine characteristics or females with masculine characteristics. Indians were intrigued by that and they were giving high social status to those people. I think that those people had transgender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirited) issues, not homosexual issues. Anyhow if you insist, for the sake of argument I will accept that there were homosexuals among Indians, but that doesn't prove anything, except that homosexuality is older, nothing else.

Cheers, Vlatko

[Vlatko]

Flux: I'll ask again just for clarification; Vlatko, do you think that human sexuality is moral or undesireable, or do you simply dispute whether it occurs in non human animals? Because of the connotations of the word "unnatural", I had assumed you had a problem with human homosexuality, but your latest posts make me wonder if you do. In any case, it would be rather silly if we were all arguing about something we all agreed on, a phenomena that's happened to me several times in the past.

You are asking if human sexuality is moral or undesirable? Maybe you've made a mistake. Maybe you meant to ask about the homosexuality. Whether homosexuality is moral or immoral is human opinion, it is not the opinion of the existence. What is moral can be unnatural and what is natural can be immoral. Further more, for some people may be moral and for some immoral. That only shows that our morality is false. So, I can't answer if homosexuality is moral or immoral. I can only say that it's unnatural, if I look at the Earth as it is now. Also, I'm not really sure what you mean with the word undesirable, however I would say it's undesirable because if it was desirable as heterosexuality is now, that would be dangerous situation. About the second part of the question, yes I dispute whether it occurs among animals.

Flux: We think of the mental aspect, and compare the romantic and sexual emotions of homosexual and heterosexual humans. In identifying animals as being a homosexual or heterosexual in the romantic, mental, emotional sense may be anthropomorphic to an extent. Personally, I don't think that the heterosexual/homosexual distinction is concrete in the animal world--their are only acts which may be heterosexual or homosexual. Did that make any sense at all?

Hallelujah. :applause:

Flux: As far as homosexuality and Buddhism goes, it is certainly possible to be a gay Buddhist, just as it's possible to be a gay Christian.

Don't forget... maybe it's possible, but is it really acceptable by the religious people?

Cheers, Vlatko

[Taeguk]

It is really obvious that homosexuality has no evolutionary weight, whatsoever. It has no product, no goal, no purpose, nothing... it's like appendix. It's also obvious that humanity and other species need healthy heterosexuality, because its survival depends on it. Nature gives to species skills for survival, means for multiplying... and we know that homosexuals can't really produce offspring. So what is the purpose of homosexuality?

It is far from obvious that homosexuality "has no evolutionary weight". Just because homosexuals generally choose not to reproduce (and even that is far from being a given; many homosexuals have and continue to have children, so your claim that "homosexuals can't really produce offspring" is simply incorrect) the survival of the species is not merely contingent upon sexual reproduction. Offspring must survive long enough to reproduce themselves. To that end, they must be protected from predators, learn the skills they need to survive, etc. Homosexuals can and indeed have contributed in these areas.

Likewise, as the human population increases toward unsustainable levels, it very well may be that homosexuals actually are doing the race a favor by choosing not to reproduce.

On the whole your argument that homosexuality is "useless" is poorly considered. Even your analogy of the appendix fails because it is not as if the appendix never served a purpose; it did at one point.

[Taeguk]

Don't forget... maybe it's possible, but is it really acceptable by the religious people?



I am personally acquainted with numerous gay Christians and several gay Buddhists. It is more than simply "possible".

[Vlatko]

Taeguk: Just because homosexuals generally choose not to reproduce (and even that is far from being a given; many homosexuals have and continue to have children, so your claim that "homosexuals can't really produce offspring" is simply incorrect) the survival of the species is not merely contingent upon sexual reproduction. Offspring must survive long enough to reproduce themselves. To that end, they must be protected from predators, learn the skills they need to survive, etc. Homosexuals can and indeed have contributed in these areas.

To say that it is incorrect that homosexuals can't really produce offspring is really incorrect. Please clarify how can two males produce offspring? Or two females? Maybe you think of adoption or using surrogate mothers? But that is not a real production. It has absolutely no evolutionary weight in it, because simply the offspring will not be their product and technically they will not pass their genes to the next generations as a couple.

You're seriously saying that homosexuals will protect us from predators? No offense, but this becomes really funny. :lol: What predators? Humans don't have any predators above them.

Taeguk: Likewise, as the human population increases toward unsustainable levels, it very well may be that homosexuals actually are doing the race a favor by choosing not to reproduce.

So, the homosexuals eventually will save our species (or they already are saving our species) by choosing not to reproduce. Sorry, but this one is even funnier from the previous statement.

Taeguk: Even your analogy of the appendix fails because it is not as if the appendix never served a purpose; it did at one point.

The analogy with appendix was made about the present moment. The truth is that it has no purpose as homosexuality has no purpose, at this time. The past is really irrelevant but if you are considering the past can you be really sure that homosexuality had no purpose in the past. Maybe it had some use, just like the appendix. So, don't rush and prejudge.

Cheers, Vlatko

[Akamu]

I'd like to add, Vlatko, that not once have you put forth any sort of convincing argument that homosexuality is unnatural. You keep repeating your conclusion and appealing to it being unnatural due to the fact that some homosexuals don't contribute to the population of the planet, however even if I gave you that, it still proves nothing. Not every attribute we develop contributes to the human population, and yet we consider it natural. The only thing your premises leave a conclusion for is that all homosexuals are psychologically damaged or flawed. Are you willing to argue that?

As Taeguk said, in this day and age, I welcome homosexuals who don't contribute more babies to this world. Indirectly, they are protecting more lives than those people who are compulsively creating them. I'll go so far as to say nature is "aware" that overpopulation is detrimental to the integrity of a species and the planet on the whole. When such limits are breached, then counterbalances manifest themselves in the forms of disease outbreaks, famine, war, and natural disasters. I personally would much rather a fraction of our population become homosexual than to experience a mass outbreak of some incurable plague. One colossal of an evolutionary weight in my opinion.

Vlatko: To say that it is incorrect that homosexuals can't really produce offspring is really incorrect. Please clarify how can two males produce offspring? Or two females? Maybe you think of adoption or using surrogate mothers? But that is not a real production. It has absolutely no evolutionary weight in it, because simply the offspring will not be their product and technically they will not pass their genes to the next generations as a couple.


The amount of extraneous factors outside of sex that you ignore is alarming. By your logic, it is definitely unnatural for all of our women over the age of 50 to be alive. Surely they can't produce offspring, so why are they here? Human beings are unique in that their life-spans extend beyond their years of fertility. Why is this? This is because our "old" people carry just as much "evolutionary weight" as anyone else in that they are able give care to already existing offspring. Our development throughout our lives is enhanced by multiple interactions with different family members and other extraneous relationships. But of course they can't make babies, so we should call them unnatural right?

Again I am going to reiterate the simple fact that Homosexuals are here. That means they serve a purpose. Whether that purpose eludes you are not, it exists.

[the_aphid]

It is really obvious that homosexuality has no evolutionary weight, whatsoever.Despite the potential effects it has on social behavior (bisexuality in bonobos), on population control, etc.?It has no product, no goal, no purpose, nothing... it's like appendix.Well, just to clean up this analogy, and as Taeguk already mentioned, a vestigial organ is one that served a purpose but that has since become obsolete. But also just to clarify for anyone interested in the subject, scientists have new information which suggest that your appendix does serve a purpose, maintaining gut flora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Latest_Interpretation:_Maintain ing_gut_flora).It's also obvious that humanity and other species need healthy heterosexuality, because its survival depends on it.
...
In this harsh world only that counts. Survival. Hence the paradox.I feel you are looking at this whole thing too strictly, and relating it to a very 'simplistic' understanding of genetic progression. Genes aren't always simple, there are numerous factors that come into play, position on the genome, proximity to other genes, the point during the lifecycle at which they become active. For example, if you look at the double-recessive genotype for sickle-cell anaemia, you see a 'simple' genetic disease. Why then does it continue to exist if it serves no 'benefit'. Well, one argument is that it is co-dominant, that a carrier with a single-recessive gene for sickle-cell anaemia also obtains a strengthened resistance to malaria. Now, I do not mean to suggest that homosexuality is a disease, but suppose the genes that describe sexual orientation are related to another genotype in a similar manor, like diabetes or a congenital heart defect. This could explain how this particular genotype could be beneficial. But how does it get passed on if they are truly homosexual?!? Well, if the gene for homosexuality is not activated until after an individual has engaged in sex, that is one way it could be passed on. Suppose the urge for undifferentiated sexual activity is encouraged before sexual preference. There are lots of hypothetical situations, but like you said it all remains in the domain of speculation. For some, all the evidence we have gone through is reason enough to believe that exists because it serves some purpose, even if it is not entirely clear what that is.the_aphid: You observe a group of males engaging in anal intercourse, and then as soon as one of those males shows interest or gets involved in sexual acts with a female, the skeptics point and shout 'see it's not homosexual because he's doing it with a female', despite the fact the previous 9 out of 10 matings were with male companions!

Well, those males that you are mentioning are at least bisexuals, not homosexuals, since they have sexual activities with both males and females. Ratio is really irrelevant.:lol: The ratio is irrelevant? So 99:100, 999:1000, as long as there is that one 'heterosexual' encounter then we're still just talking about 'bisexuality'? I just want to put this thought out there since you seem to have neglected it, I think if giraffes have been documented engaging in anal intercourse at a 'ratio' of 9:10, given enough time you will find an individual giraffe that records a 'ratio' of 10:10. And then that last plank where all your weight stands on the 'homosexuality-is-unnatural-argument' collapses, and you're in it up to your waist. But going on...

My suggestion is that the majority of these animal which clearly display 'bisexuality' is fundamentally where homosexuality amongst humans truly evolves. This is where sexual preference and the resulting sexual behavior takes place. In these openly bisexual environments, homosexuality is encouraged.

Amongst humans, the only difference I see is this; we are unique because we are capable of making a conscious decision, a dedication to a particular lifestyle, one that other species are very unlikely to do. No, I am not saying that sexual preference is a 'choice', but ultimately which sexual behavior you eventually adopt, based on your sexual preference, is. The only difference between that 'bisexual giraffe' and a 'homosexual man' is that the man recognized his sexual preference and developed his sexual behavior around that sexual preference.

I feel like something has been overlooked, and Flux pointed it out, this confusion between romance and sexuality, which inevitable keeps people from recognizing the distinction between 'sex for pleasure' and 'sex for procreation'. See once again, humans are unique in that they also form romantic, dedicated, monogamous relationships. So for a man who prefers to be with another man, but still has some biological urges to procreate, he is very often confronted with a choice, and whichever urge is stronger essentially wins out. It is a battle between 'sex for pleasure' and 'sex for procreation', which the human species is uniquely forced to regularly distinguish.Yes, it's true. Until penetration it's curiosity, and it's not fair one to be labeled as homosexual if he reads or masturbates on "playgirl". After penetration we can't refute it, it's homosexuality.And that's the same for heterosexuals as well, correct? You are simply 'curious' of members of the opposite sex, and thus cannot determine your sexual orientation, until you've actually had sex with a member of the opposite sex?This is really ridiculous. I didn't say that I will lie, but I said that you would think that I am lying, which is quite different. I didn't put words to your mouth, simply because I didn't say that you said something but that you will probably think something, which is again quite different.:think: Umm...alright. Let me say it another way. Why would I assume you were lying? Why would I assume anyone who comes here to post their opinions would feel the need to be dishonest? And therefore, why would you assume, that I would resort to such 'assumptions'?If you raise a group of "modern" children far away from the societies, in some jungle, they would do all that animals do and that would be natural to them, but not for us. In a way, we have rules that contradict nature.So it'd be natural to them, but not to us. Why? Because their 'natural urges' aren't being 'discouraged' by rules and order? Once again, you fail to make a legitimate argument for why any of those activities should be deemed 'unnatural'. You are attempting to equate morality with nature as far as I can tell. Or perhaps not...What is moral can be unnatural and what is natural can be immoral. Further more, for some people may be moral and for some immoral. That only shows that our morality is false. So, I can't answer if homosexuality is moral or immoral. I can only say that it's unnatural, if I look at the Earth as it is now.So this 'Lord of the Flies' group of children resorting to savagery is 'natural' but 'immoral'? But it is 'unnatural' to us because we have developed a sense of 'morality'? Perhaps you could suggest a moral, but unnatural behavior? Such as celibacy??? Or, perhaps you could explain why what is 'natural' is clear and obvious, not as open to opinion as what is moral? Since you are unable to say if homosexuality is immoral or not, but you can clearly and adamantly declare it as 'unnatural'. <_<My opinion would be that homosexuality didn't occur in the last 100 years, but many years ago. I never said that homosexuality is "new" phenomenon. Further more, nowhere says that those people were homosexuals, but simply man with two spirits, or people with mixed genes. Males with feminine characteristics or females with masculine characteristics. Indians were intrigued by that and they were giving high social status to those people. I think that those people had transgender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirited) issues, not homosexual issues. Anyhow if you insist, for the sake of argument I will accept that there were homosexuals among Indians, but that doesn't prove anything, except that homosexuality is older, nothing else.See, what I feel is that the Native American's were aware of is the 'natural' manifestation of gender, and ultimately this also means 'natural' manifestation of sexuality. Also, there are a number of mentions in there about how the term 'Two-Spirited' equates to bisexuality, homosexuality, and transgender, so I feel no need to explain further.

[Taeguk]

To say that it is incorrect that homosexuals can't really produce offspring is really incorrect.

My point is that homosexual sperm and egg are as viable as heterosexual sperm and egg. Obviously, two men cannot produce a child together. But there is nothing from stopping either of them from reproducing with a member of the opposite sex while still remaining homosexual in terms of lifestyle and partner preference. A number of gay people did (and still do) have children while still identifying as homosexual.


You're seriously saying that homosexuals will protect us from predators? No offense, but this becomes really funny. :lol: What predators? Humans don't have any predators above them.

We are speaking of evolution, correct? At one point human beings were very much on the menu for animals like wolves, tigers, etc.

Furthermore it should be obvious that human beings present quite a danger to other human beings. In which case the homosexuals could defend the other members of their tribe, ensuring that the offspring from that tribe could survive. Although a homosexual might not produce any offspring of his or her own, by defending the lives of the tribe they are contributing to the continuing survival of the species.

Furthermore, homosexuals can contribute to communities in other ways, not merely through defense. If a gay person comes up with a cheap, clean source of renewable energy and works to spread it around the world, I would say that person has done a great favor to the survival of the species. And the fact that a homosexual person might not have offspring means they can devote more time and energy to such activities, which benefit the community as a whole rather than just their individual offspring.

Given that human beings have evolved as social animals that use tools, I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude that homosexuals can serve an evolutionary purpose by devoting the bulk of their time to improving tool use and improving society. This would have an effect on the entire gene pool of the community, insofar as it increases everyone's chances of survival.

[Vlatko]

Akamu: As Taeguk said, in this day and age, I welcome homosexuals who don't contribute more babies to this world. Indirectly, they are protecting more lives than those people who are compulsively creating them.

Are you serious with this? Homosexuals are protecting more lives than those people who are compulsively creating them!!! Maybe you are one of those people who think that our planet would be nicer place to live if there were only 500.000.000 inhabitants. So, you are willing to argue to the point where you putting aside all humanity just to justify the existence of homosexuals. Sad.

Akamu: By your logic, it is definitely unnatural for all of our women over the age of 50 to be alive.

That is not by my logic, but obviously by your logic. Please don't present your faulty conclusions as if they are mine.

the_aphid: But also just to clarify for anyone interested in the subject, scientists have new information which suggest that your appendix does serve a purpose, maintaining gut flora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Latest_Interpretation:_Maintain ing_gut_flora).

That purpose of the appendix that you are mentioning is only suggested purpose, possible purpose, it's only a proposal. It is not proved scientific fact accepted by the science. It is only a proposal from one scientific team. Accidentally there was a doctor near me and when she read what is being said about the appendix she couldn't stop laughing.

the_aphid: I just want to put this thought out there since you seem to have neglected it, I think if giraffes have been documented engaging in anal intercourse at a 'ratio' of 9:10, given enough time you will find an individual giraffe that records a 'ratio' of 10:10.

Well if we observe animal kingdom as a whole it turns out that in every species there are homosexuals. So according to you homosexuality is kind a way of leaving in the animal kingdom. You managed to find one man who supposedly documented male giraffes having sex and you think that it is true. Well... if one zoologist from Norway is claiming that there was anal intercourse among male giraffes that doesn't mean it is true. Yes, there are pictures of the mounting male giraffes displayed in Oslo, but none of those pictures shows actual penetration in the anus. The penis is there, the mounting is there but the actual penetration is not seen. He is only saying that there is anal penetration without actual support.

Think of it this way. The anus is made for something else, not for sex. The anus is a way out for the garbage that the organism is producing everyday. There are no sensitive cells there that will generate sexual sensation, as they are located in the penis or vagina. Penis and vagina are made for sex, not the anus. Yes, man can be pervert and delude himself that there is pleasure there, but the actual, obvious truth is that the anus is made for something else not for sex.

Having said that do you really think that there is animal out there in the animal kingdom that will let penetration of a penis in his anus? Come on.:o. Not just letting penis penetration, but even having pleasure while receiving that penetration. There is no such thing. Do you think that the experts that were making Planet Earth would not be interested about such important thing. By now if it existed it would be well documented, recorded and proved. But the truth is that is not.

In the anus you have a lot of bacteria that will do harm to any penis if that penis isn't washed immediately. I guess sometimes have happened to you not to wash your penis for some time because of the circumstances. You know how sensitive penis is and what happens. Imagine putting your penis in an anus full of feces. It would not be just disgusting but even dangerous because of the chances of getting infection. Here are some things that could happen to you if you try to receive a penis in your anus:

# Enlarged, swollen veins in the anus (hemorrhoids).
# Structural problems, such as anal fissures and fistulas or rectal prolapse.
# Infection, such as a sexually transmitted disease, prostate infection, an abscess, or a pilonidal cyst.
# Injury from foreign body insertion, anal intercourse, or abuse.
# Cancer of the rectum or the prostate or skin cancers, such as squamous cell cancer and Bowen's disease.
# Rectal spasms (proctalgia fugax)

From above you can see that simply it is UNNATURAL. Anus is not made for sex. Sure that people can prevent this things to happen by maintaining good hygiene but the question is if animals can prevent these things? Certainly not. So, which animal would jeopardize his reproduction organs or even his life for something that has no goal whatsoever. Everything that you said about the animal homosexuality is only a mounting and social parade, not homosexuality as people think of it.

the_aphid: Or, perhaps you could explain why what is 'natural' is clear and obvious, not as open to opinion as what is moral? Since you are unable to say if homosexuality is immoral or not, but you can clearly and adamantly declare it as 'unnatural'.

You can learn more about the morality here (http://thebigview.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85173&postcount=1), but I will try to explain it further to you. What I'm saying is that being moral and immoral is human concept. What is moral to one society can be immoral to another one. What was moral in the past can be immoral now. Morality is a mind product and heavily depends on the society that you lave in. Therefore it is very variable. However what is natural is very obvious no matter where you live. For example every single man on this Earth, no matter of his age, color, size, sex, etc. is eating through the mouth. It is obvious. It is totally different question how he puts the food in his mouth. Somewhere with hands, somewhere with sticks, somewhere with forks and spoons, etc. So if you are in China and if you try to eat with your hands they will think that you are very rude, but not in India. However if you try to eat the food through your nose no matter where are you in the world, everybody will think that you are strange. Makes sense? Therefore homosexuality in Netherlands is very well accepted and in Canada also, but in Iran and 60% of the world is taboo because of the different scales of morality. On the other hand nobody disputes heterosexuality. It is perfectly moral for every country in this world. Why? It is like eating through the mouth that's why? Homosexuality is like eating through the nose, thus it is questioned everywhere.

Taeguk: My point is that homosexual sperm and egg are as viable as heterosexual sperm and egg. Obviously, two men cannot produce a child together. But there is nothing from stopping either of them from reproducing with a member of the opposite sex while still remaining homosexual in terms of lifestyle and partner preference. A number of gay people did (and still do) have children while still identifying as homosexual.

Wait a minute, you are talking about bisexuality here, not homosexuality. Those people if they decide to reproduce, that would make them bisexuals. Therefore it still stands that homosexuality has no evolutionary weight whatsoever.

Taeguk:Given that human beings have evolved as social animals that use tools, I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude that homosexuals can serve an evolutionary purpose by devoting the bulk of their time to improving tool use and improving society. This would have an effect on the entire gene pool of the community, insofar as it increases everyone's chances of survival.

It is enough just to ask ourselves what is the purpose of our lives? What is the purpose of all leaving things? Our bodies and the bodies of all leaving things are designed in a such a way that they contain great potential just for one thing and that is creating a replica, thus continuing the life itself. If you think of the process that is taking place when a female is conceiving you will realize how truly that process is complex. Creation of life is one of the most complex processes in the nature. So many things have to be arranged and satisfied life to be conceived. From outside it looks very simple but in fact it is not. People have appropriately designed tools on their bodies, outside and inside, that are made just for one purpose: CREATING NEW LIFE. That is natural. That is obvious, indisputable fact. Using those tools in a wrong manner in wrong places and undermining the beauty and complexity of IT, is absolutely against nature. That is my opinion.

Cheers, Vlatko

[Flux]

It has no product, no goal, no purpose, nothing... it's like appendix. So what is the purpose of homosexuality?

I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude that homosexuals can serve an evolutionary purpose by devoting the bulk of their time to improving tool use and improving society.

Of course, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as evolutionary purpose, as evolution is undirected. I don't think that homosexuality serves any sort of evolutionary “purpose” any more than heterosexuality does. Part of the problem lies in our use of language. We use the same language to describe human tools as we do to describe the rest of nature, and thus tend to think of natural phenomena in terms of the purpose that they serve, as if they were man-made tools. For example, we are more apt to say that the purpose of our hands is to manipulate objects, when in fact it might be more accurate to say that our hands are an incidental part of a causal process by which objects are moved. In general, we have a marked tendency to equate causality with purpose.

Yes, we can say: "there is no purpose, everything exists because it exists", but really what is nature accomplishing by producing homosexuals?

I believe that you hit the nail on the head with your quote, but supplied an inadequate response. Nature is that which; it has no need or drive to accomplish anything. No goals, no agenda, no progression. I’m inclined to agree with the late Stephen Jay Gould--Descent with Modification, Darwin's original term for evolution, is altogether more accurate term, although it's a bit of a mouth-full. Evolution is nothing more than the notion that in a given environment at a given time, some traits will persist, and some will not carry to the next generation. Which traits do persist is entirely dependent on the environment; there are no hard and fast guidelines as to what sort of traits are more "productive" or "efficient" for the evolutionary process. If a madman decided to go around the world shooting everyone who didn't have 6 fingers on 1 hand, having 6 fingers would be a trait that persists. It would, however, be misleading in such a scenario to claim that having 6 fingers came to serve an "evolutionary purpose" per se.

In any case, I agree with Vlatko that homosexuality has not evolved as a mechanism to prevent species from overpopulation, although that may indeed be a beneficial side effect of the existence of homosexuals. I don’t, however, believe that this implies that the existence of homosexuals is any more “incidental” than the existence of heterosexuals. To suggest that nature somehow made a mistake by producing homosexuals is to suggest that nature had some sort of goal in mind. The purpose of evolution is not to allow species to reproduce and increase in numbers—it’s simply the process by which the reproduction and increase happens to come about. Evolution gives us the how, and the why falls in the domain of philosophy and spirituality.

By the way, your right Vlatko, I did mean homosexuality rather than human sexuality in the last post. My bad!

[the_aphid]

Maybe you are one of those people who think that our planet would be nicer place to live if there were only 500.000.000 inhabitants. So, you are willing to argue to the point where you putting aside all humanity just to justify the existence of homosexuals. Sad.This is one impressive leap to a conclusion. Let's follow the logic, shall we? So, I feel that the world is overpopulated, that mankind is consuming natural resources at an unsustainable level, and that this ultimately threatens human life along with the vast web of biodiversity all life depends on. And from this I determine that perhaps it would be better for humans to reduce their population and encourage sustainable levels of consumption, and then suggest that homosexuality is quite possibly a natural and biologically evolved behavior to encourage a reduction in population. What you are suggesting Vlatko, is that I am simply coming to this conclusion, and all of the preceding conclusions purely to satisfy the homosexuals of the world?!? :rofl:
That purpose of the appendix that you are mentioning is only suggested purpose, possible purpose, it's only a proposal. It is not proved scientific fact accepted by the science. It is only a proposal from one scientific team. Accidentally there was a doctor near me and when she read what is being said about the appendix she couldn't stop laughing.And the theory of evolution is simply a theory, and it was at one time proposed by a single man, and was not readily supported. So what??? There was a doctor reading over your shoulder at the time, and couldn't stop laughing? Is that how you decide what is worthy of belief? Well to counter your random laughing doctor support, my girlfriends father is also a doctor, and he believes this proposal is quite convincing. But anyways...Well if we observe animal kingdom as a whole it turns out that in every species there are homosexuals.I don't know where you're getting this from? Where did I suggest that homosexuality was observed in every species?So according to you homosexuality is kind a way of leaving in the animal kingdom. You managed to find one man who supposedly documented male giraffes having sex and you think that it is true. Well... if one zoologist from Norway is claiming that there was anal intercourse among male giraffes that doesn't mean it is true.Fair enough, it doesn't mean that it is true, and you can go on discounting whatever evidence you like in this way, but how rational and open-minded is that? I think the amount of evidence from many different scientists, observing many different species, provides a reliable amount of cumulative information to make an informed interpretation of the evidence. But you can look at it however you want, and determine the validity based on the reaction of that strange doctor laughing next to you as far as I'm concerned.Think of it this way. The anus is made for something else, not for sex.And breasts are 'made' for something else as well, producing milk. Nipples are the organ which allows milk to be fed to an infant. However, they are also an erogenous zone.Here are some things that could happen to you if you try to receive a penis in your anus:
...
From above you can see that simply it is UNNATURAL. Anus is not made for sex.Have you been reading James W. Holsinger's white paper report? Basically he made the exact same argument to the United Methodist Church. The only problem with this logic is that it focuses on the worst possible consequences of anal intercourse, and then compares them to the most tame examples of heterosexual intercourse. What about bruising or urinary tract infections, or the various other sexually transmitted diseases that are localized to the genitals?You can learn more about the morality here (http://thebigview.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85173&postcount=1), but I will try to explain it further to you.I recall your stance on morality, and I remembering explaining why I disagreed with it here (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85180&postcount=20). Therefore homosexuality in Netherlands is very well accepted and in Canada also, but in Iran and 60% of the world is taboo because of the different scales of morality. On the other hand nobody disputes heterosexuality. It is perfectly moral for every country in this world. Why? It is like eating through the mouth that's why? Homosexuality is like eating through the nose, thus it is questioned everywhere.:rofl:This is absurd.Wait a minute, you are talking about bisexuality here, not homosexuality. Those people if they decide to reproduce, that would make them bisexuals. Therefore it still stands that homosexuality has no evolutionary weight whatsoever.No Vlatko, it would not make them bisexuals. It has been said a number of times already, having a sexual encounter with a member of the opposite sex does not 'make' you a heterosexual, just as having a sexual encounter with a member of the same sex does not 'make' you a homosexual. What makes you a homosexual is underlying sexual attraction to members of the same sex, what sexual activities you engage in are truly irrelevant. Lets bring up another 'fallacy of comparison' and say someone was forced into having sex with a member of the same sex, does that make them gay? No. Why not? Because they did not want to, because they did not agree, because they did not enjoy it. So what makes someone a homosexual then? When they engage in sex with a member of the same sex, because they want to, because they agree to it, and because they enjoy it. How is this differentiated from bisexual? A bisexual simply identifies themselves as desiring and enjoying sexual intercourse with members of both sexes. One more time, there is a distinction between sex for pleasure and sex for reproduction which you are just blatantly ignoring. It is obvious by this point that you don't agree, so lets just drop it. Your point has been made, many people have disputed it, nobody has agreed with it, so I suppose that is where it will be left.

[Akamu]

Vlatko: Are you serious with this? Homosexuals are protecting more lives than those people who are compulsively creating them!!! Maybe you are one of those people who think that our planet would be nicer place to live if there were only 500.000.000 inhabitants. So, you are willing to argue to the point where you putting aside all humanity just to justify the existence of homosexuals. Sad.


Spare me your value judgments. Yes, I do believe the planet has reached a population beyond our current capacity to efficiently maintain it. We will not be able to safely keep up with the rate at which our population is increasing until humans evolve a bit. This includes people waking up and realizing birth control, especially those who are not fit to be parents (ie drug addicts.) I don't know what your last sentence is about at all. You think I would sacrifice the human populous for homosexuals? Where would you get that notion? All I said is I welcome the lifestyles of homosexuals if it will spare our race some tragedy by not contributing to the problem. It would be nice for people in this world to help us carry our burden without simply dedicating all their energy to inject more people onto the planet.

Vlatko: That is not by my logic, but obviously by your logic. Please don't present your faulty conclusions as if they are mine.


Of course it is your logic. your argument is simply that homosexuals are unnatural because they carry no "evolutionary weight" which of course means to you that they don't pump out babies to perpetuate our species. Well neither do our senior citizens, and they don't have the potential to. You can't have it both ways, stick to your guns and claim that anything that doesn't contribute to our population is unnatural or acknowledge that human worth is not measured by their fertility rates. Quality over quantity.

[Taeguk]

Taeguk: My point is that homosexual sperm and egg are as viable as heterosexual sperm and egg. Obviously, two men cannot produce a child together. But there is nothing from stopping either of them from reproducing with a member of the opposite sex while still remaining homosexual in terms of lifestyle and partner preference. A number of gay people did (and still do) have children while still identifying as homosexual.

Wait a minute, you are talking about bisexuality here, not homosexuality. Those people if they decide to reproduce, that would make them bisexuals. Therefore it still stands that homosexuality has no evolutionary weight whatsoever.

The Aphid has already mentioned that the definition of "homosexuality" you are adopting is highly rigid and idiosyncratic. By "homosexual" I am talking about a sexual preference and a lifestyle that involves acting sexually on that preference. Neither of these precludes occasional or infrequent heterosexual contact; and as I mentioned earlier, sexuality exists along a continuum. If one wants to get extremely technical, few people are exclusively heterosexual or homosexual in terms of behavior or orientation. Given this, it seems rather silly to essentialize homosexuality as you've been doing.


It is enough just to ask ourselves what is the purpose of our lives? What is the purpose of all leaving things? Our bodies and the bodies of all leaving things are designed in a such a way that they contain great potential just for one thing and that is creating a replica, thus continuing the life itself.
If you think of the process that is taking place when a female is conceiving you will realize how truly that process is complex. Creation of life is one of the most complex processes in the nature. So many things have to be arranged and satisfied life to be conceived.

Nature is not only about creating new life; that life must be maintained. Homosexuals may not contribute to the creation of new life (although many do), however they do contribute to maintaining the lives of those who do. Conception is highly important, I agree. But it is not enough for a female to simply give birth to new offspring. Those offspring have to survive outside of the womb. And organisms must also contribute to the survival of their offspring once born, otherwise life does not continue.

[Vlatko]

the_aphid: This is one impressive leap to a conclusion. Let's follow the logic, shall we? So, I feel that the world is overpopulated... What you are suggesting Vlatko, is that I am simply coming to this conclusion, and all of the preceding conclusions purely to satisfy the homosexuals of the world?!? :rofl:

Don't panic, stay calm. I was not commenting on your argument, I was commenting on Akamu's point of view. You are talking as I was arguing with you. Or maybe you just wanted to say word two about that pretending that I'm talking to you.

the_aphid: And the theory of evolution is simply a theory, and it was at one time proposed by a single man, and was not readily supported. So what???

Ok true enough. However, the theory of evolution is still theory, that's why it's called "theory". And when a theory about the appendix will become widely accepted as the theory of evolution only than you will stand on hard ground, until than holding to that theory is like standing in mud.

the_aphid: There was a doctor reading over your shoulder at the time, and couldn't stop laughing? Is that how you decide what is worthy of belief?

No I'm not deciding like that what is worthy of belief at all. I thought just to mention how subject matter expert feels when this theory of appendix is introduced.

the_aphid: But anyways...I don't know where you're getting this from? Where did I suggest that homosexuality was observed in every species?

Ok I'm sorry not every species, but 1500 species. It's almost every species.

the_aphid: But you can look at it however you want, and determine the validity based on the reaction of that strange doctor laughing next to you as far as I'm concerned.

Ok here you panic even more. Why you're saying that the doctor is strange? Don't do that. It is rude dude. Say anything you want about me, but don't exaggerate and offend other people.

the_aphid:And breasts are 'made' for something else as well, producing milk. Nipples are the organ which allows milk to be fed to an infant. However, they are also an erogenous zone.

Ahh... the breasts ARE designed to serve in two ways: like milk factories and erogenous zone. Those are the two natural purposes of the breasts. But anus is not made for sex and releasing feces at the same time. You can ask your girlfriend's father to confirm that. I hate to repeat myself but again not knowingly you are using "the fallacy of comparison".

the_aphid: I recall your stance on morality, and I remembering explaining why I disagreed with it here (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showpost.php?p=85180&postcount=20).

Hmm... I thought that there we were talking about Osho, not strictly about morality. You just said exactly like here that you disagree, without explaining why.

the_aphid:It is obvious by this point that you don't agree, so lets just drop it. Your point has been made, many people have disputed it, nobody has agreed with it, so I suppose that is where it will be left.

OK, a little dose of irony will not do any harm. I will take it easily.

So... if you think that you, Akamu and Taeguk are many people than really I don't know what to say. You say that nobody has agreed with me but I think that Flux partially agreed with me and I partially agreed with him. I think we are done here.

Cheers, Vlatko

[the_aphid]

Ok I'm sorry not every species, but 1500 species. It's almost every species.Yeah :lol: 1500 species, every species, what's the difference? Only a possible 100 million species. But you're right, why quibble?Ok here you panic even more. Why you're saying that the doctor is strange? Don't do that. It is rude dude. Say anything you want about me, but don't exaggerate and offend other people.I was not being offensive Vlatko, :duh: I was using strange as in stranger, someone who is unknown. A strange dog, a strange person, a being that is unknown to you, a stranger. But yes, I was sarcastically implying that you determine the validity of opinions based on what strangers think of them and how they react to them. Since your justification for rejecting the proposal as nonsense was based on the laugh of some person that could, or could not, have been a doctor.Ahh... the breasts ARE designed to serve in two ways: like milk factories and erogenous zone. Those are the two natural purposes of the breasts. But anus is not made for sex and releasing feces at the same time. You can ask your girlfriend's father to confirm that. I hate to repeat myself but again not knowingly you are using "the fallacy of comparison".Of course, another 'fallacy of comparison'. This whole argument is just one big 'fallacy of comparison' to you, that much is clear. You're logic on the topics sexuality and biological function is proving to be quite limited Vlatko. Also, just since we're on the topic of erogenous zones, maybe you should look into the male 'g-spot', otherwise known as the prostate.Hmm... I thought that there we were talking about Osho, not strictly about morality. You just said exactly like here that you disagree, without explaining why.Look again...I explained the fundamental disagreement that I had with your concept of morality:Like with your example of bringing up the dead, I believe the act itself is not moral or immoral, it is really neither, but the reason for bringing up the dead is either moral or immoral. If you are bringing up the dead as a means of celebrating their life, or if you are bringing them up to search for forensic evidence, than I don't think it would be considered immoral. But if you are bringing up the dead because you just bought the land and want to build a golf course and don't like the idea of having dead bodies buried in 'your land', then I don't think this is a moral action.
You say that nobody has agreed with me but I think that Flux partially agreed with me and I partially agreed with him. I think we are done here.Yeah, Flux partially agreed with you that it seemed unlikely that homosexuality had an effect on population. Agreed.

Well, I don't know about everyone else, but I've had my fill with this discussion of sexuality. I'm going to go eat some wholesome and innocent fruit :P

[Akamu]

Yea, Aphid, the topic did veer off track a little :think: It really deserved a thread all its own. Oh well, I apologize about where we ended up in this conversation. But thanks to everyone who contributed.

[the_aphid]

Yea, Aphid, the topic did veer off track a little :think: It really deserved a thread all it's own. Oh well, I apologize about where we ended up in this conversation. But thanks to everyone who contributed.Well I think I assisted in the 'veering' of the thread, so I'll offer up an apology as well. My apologies.:)

[j000han]

Well I think I assisted in the 'veering' of the thread, so I'll offer up an apology as well. My apologies.:)
Suppose giant metor would knock planet earth out of orbit,
or better a galaxy intercepts with our galaxy would that be considered galactic intercourse/galactic rape.
Is that to be considered as
hetero or homo galactic intercourse/galactic rape or perhaps simply a
cosmic accident?:D

[Vlatko]

OK than, I will offer my apologies too. Cheers.