Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Clthomps wrote:LoL that is not thought out well at all. Homosexuality in nature is usually a dominance thing, and has nothing to do with reproduction.

It's more frequently a social tool to promote unity between members of an animal society.

Guys, lets not talk about the sexual and reproductive urges of animals please, it slightly freaks me out.

DukeBadham wrote:Guys, lets not talk about the sexual and reproductive urges of animals please, it slightly freaks me out.

Theeeen shouldn't you leave this thread?

Humans are animals.

I've never understood why homosexuality being found in animals is meaningful one way or the other. Who cares what animals do? I've never seen a dog eat it's own gak and thought, well, that must be okay for humans, too.

Melissia wrote:

DukeBadham wrote:Guys, lets not talk about the sexual and reproductive urges of animals please, it slightly freaks me out.

Theeeen shouldn't you leave this thread?

Humans are animals.

Let me rephrase this:
Guys, lets not talk about the sexual and reproductive urges of wild animals in nature please, it slightly freaks me out.
That better.

DukeBadham wrote:That better.

No. If a topic that doesn't break Dakka's rules freaks you out then you should just not participate.

Manchu wrote:I've never understood why homosexuality being found in animals is meaningful one way or the other. Who cares what animals do? I've never seen a dog eat it's own gak and thought, well, that must be okay for humans, too.

People claim it's unnatural.
Others point to animals as evidence that it isn't unnatural.

And pleae don't get into another rant about "just cause it's natural doesn't mean it's good". Yes, we know. Move along.

As I mentioned extensively in this thread, the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" is not the same thing as saying "it's not found in nature." A dog eating its own gak is found in nature but a human eating her or his own gak could easily be called "unnatural" in the sense that being homosexual has been labeled "unnatural." When people say being gay is "unnatural" they're not making a biological argument. They're not going to be convinced by a biological or animal behaviorist answer. Rather, they are making a moral argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Yes, we know. Move along.

Clearly not.

Manchu wrote:As I mentioned extensively in this thread, the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" is not the same thing as saying "it's not found in nature." A dog eating its own gak is found in nature but a human eating her or his own gak could easily be called "unnatural" in the sense that being homosexual has been labeled "unnatural." When people say being gay is "unnatural" they're not making a biological argument. They're not going to be convinced by a biological or animal behaviorist answer. Rather, they are making a moral argument.

I didn't claim otherwise.
I was simply saying why homosexuality in animals is 'of consequence' to some people...

purplefood wrote:I was simply saying why homosexuality in animals is 'of consequence' to some people...

Yes, I get that some people think so. But their stated reasons make no sense.

Manchu wrote:

purplefood wrote:I was simply saying why homosexuality in animals is 'of consequence' to some people...

Yes, I get that some people think so. But their stated reasons make no sense.

Neither does saying it isn't natural...
Go figure i guess.

Saying something is "unnatural" in a moral sense is a subjective claim; it doesn't have to make sense in an objective way. Morality is going to be either more or less convincing; not just correct or incorrect. You can't just say to a bigot "homosexuality is not morally wrong, deal with it" and expect her or him to get on board -- you have to explain why it's not morally wrong. "Look, monkeys do it," is not a meaningful moral explanation. Monkeys do lots of things that are not okay for humans to do, after all. Same thing with "look, it's a genetic thing." So what? Lots of diseases are genetic -- that doesn't make them good. The best argument, IMO, is "there is no harm to either society or individuals." All the research about brain structure or genes is never going to make for a more just and equitable society, regarding sexuality. Rather, the research about how gay people do not undermine society, etc, is more important.

That's nice.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Humans use contraception and take infertile or sub-optimal partners.

Especially around last call.

Am I right, fellas?

Monster Rain wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Humans use contraception and take infertile or sub-optimal partners.

Especially around last call.

Am I right, fellas?

Lol, well what I mean is that ideally you want a fit and healthy mate for reproduction, but many many partnerships demonstrate this not to be the case because we put so much on personality and lots of people never have children.

Sub-optimal is better than no- optimal.

Manchu wrote:As I mentioned extensively in this thread, the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" is not the same thing as saying "it's not found in nature." A dog eating its own gak is found in nature but a human eating her or his own gak could easily be called "unnatural" in the sense that being homosexual has been labeled "unnatural." When people say being gay is "unnatural" they're not making a biological argument. They're not going to be convinced by a biological or animal behaviorist answer. Rather, they are making a moral argument.

Well, they're making a moral argument, and couching it in terminology which is elevated, aesthetically, above distaste.

Its a convenient way of justifying your beliefs to yourself without having to actually confront the substance of what you believe, and why you believe it.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:I believe you are ignorant because you are ignorant

And yet you have failed to demonstrate that by actually addressing my points.

Ahem, Manchu the old belief was that sexuality was a choice and this was mainly due to the fact that at those times all understanding on psychology was kind of wonky, however there are now(as in current and new) examples of cases that indicate homosexuality and sexuality itself are genetically inherited. There is a strong correlation between twins both being being homosexual which means that there is strong evidence that there is some type of commonly inherited trait that makes them homosexuals. If you look at a series of 3 brothers then the youngest is most likely to be a homosexual and all of this is also linked to the whorl of a person's hair and their preference of what hand they are dominant in.

This is NEW science that is disproving the previously held belief that it was a lifestyle choice. No this isn't some political slogan, this is actual science, actual psychology, actual biology, and actual case studies compared to people like Sarah Palin who say that it is a choice. Now if a person is going out with a woman and is unhappy with it but marries and has kids due to social pressure then they really aren't straight if they end up preferring men. All that is, is the person finally realizing what his body and mind was telling him to do and allowing it to happen.

halonachos wrote: There is a strong correlation between twins both being being homosexual which means that there is strong evidence that there is some type of commonly inherited trait that makes them homosexuals.

Not necessarily. It is strong evidence that something which the twins have in common caused their homosexuality, but it doesn't need to be genetic.

halonachos wrote:
If you look at a series of 3 brothers then the youngest is most likely to be a homosexual and all of this is also linked to the whorl of a person's hair and their preference of what hand they are dominant in.

Many scientists believe that hand preference isn't genetically determined.

Also, the hair whorl theory has been discredited.

Once again, prejudice against homosexuals does not necessarily entail thinking that homosexuality is a choice.

Many people who are prejudiced against homosexuals do not think it is a choice but rather a disease or mental disorder. Diseases and mental disorders are both found "in nature" and are the result of genetics, biology, etc.

Some questions:

In what way is homosexuality unnatural?

Why does this matter anyway?

Albatross wrote:Why does this matter anyway?

EXACTLY my point!

Manchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why does this matter anyway?

EXACTLY my point!

Actually your point was that homosexuality shouldn't be called genetic because its a poor politically motivated battle cry for homosexual rights.

halonachos wrote:
Actually your point was that homosexuality shouldn't be called genetic because its a poor politically motivated battle cry for homosexual rights.

It is a good point, given that the majority of people taking that stance have a poor grasp of genetics, and the way political considerations influence them.

halonachos wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:Why does this matter anyway?

EXACTLY my point!

Actually your point was that homosexuality shouldn't be called genetic because its a poor politically motivated battle cry for homosexual rights.

No, I believe he accepts that it's genetic. His point, which is largely correct, is that it is an irrelevance. Arguing the 'naturalness' of homosexuality to argue against claims of immorality merely panders to the belief that what is 'right' is only what is 'natural'. In fact it should not matter if something is 'natural' or not, this is an irrelevance regarding morality. It should not even matter whether a person can 'choose' their sexuality or if it is the way they are born.

The question is whether it is harmful. It isn't, so there is nothing wrong with it, it isn't immoral. Even if people could choose to be gay, why would that make a difference? You shouldn't say "this is okay because they are born that way", you should say "this is okay because it's harmless and consensual".

You don't really need to argue the naturalness or genetics of it, regardless of its basis (choice, environment, genetics), it's a harmless, freedom of expression for an individual - and that should quash any claims of wrongness or immorality alone.

What about the other question? How is homosexuality unnatural?

Albatross wrote:What about the other question? How is homosexuality unnatural?

To quote myself:

Its a convenient way of justifying your beliefs to yourself without having to actually confront the substance of what you believe, and why you believe it.

I really like that, Dogma.

I remember when I asked my mother when I was a child if she believed in God, and she said yes. When I questioned her why she believed this, she couldn't give me a real answer, aside from "how can you not?"

I hate Religion D;

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:What about the other question? How is homosexuality unnatural?

To quote myself:

Its a convenient way of justifying your beliefs to yourself without having to actually confront the substance of what you believe, and why you believe it.

I just quoted you, quoting yourself in answer to my question. Which you quoted.

Yeah, I know the answer, which is of course that homosexuality is evidently part of human nature and therefore natural. It is not introduced from outside of human nature. It naturally occurs.

The problem, as you alluded to, is 'unnatural-to-mean-bad'. I wish people would just be honest and use the word 'bad' instead. It's marginally less embarrassing for them.