<!--QuoteBegin-littlewild+May 19 2004, 03:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (littlewild @ May 19 2004, 03:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't see how you can discuss this issue without bringing in moral values.
I mean, why do you think death or extinction is bad for any population? The backdrop of this discussion is that if a population fails to reproduce, then whatever caused it to do so must be bad. Where do you derive this notion of "bad" from? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yesterday I ate a hamburger.
I'm supporting the extinction of cattle. I am a sinner, and murderer, and should be hung.
Or not. Ask yourself 'why' and the answer you come up with is the same for what you proposed.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Actually, I still like it best when put this way:
What, do you think I woke up one day and just <i>decided</i> to live as one of the currently most-oppressed segments of the world? I CHALLENGE any straight person to honestly be physically attracted to the same sex if they think it's a choice, even for just one day.
Yes, as I've said in the prior threads on this kind of topic, I'm homosexual. I don't usually make a point of it, but it really pisses me off when people say things like that it's a choice, or that you could just be not-**** if you really wanted to. Also, the bits about not comparing humans to animals is quite funny, given that homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. Meaning it's a <b>natural occurrance</b>, for those not following along. And like it or not, humans are animals. Just like dogs, cats, dolphins, weasels, and so on. The only difference is that we're the only species egocentric enough to think we're any better.
I will repeat. This thread is excluding religion from the debate. Any future religion-based posts will be deleted outright, and repeat offenders may receive correctional steps, as per the addendum to the FAQ. If you're posting in here and haven't read it, do so immediately. Failure to follow the rules in this section of the Forums *will* lose you access to it.
and by "scientifically wrong" you mean... deleterious to its(homosexuality's) own existence? bad for humankind's progess(define progress)? what?
too many replies focused on homosexuality's consequences for pure reproduction. well duh it's hard to get pregnant unless it's heterosexual intercourse. but who cares? the focus needs to be brought around to how, even more importantly, homosexuality's existence affects the LANDSCAPE of humankind. like nem said, the sociological/mementic etc. aspects... i.e. the BIG PICTURE. it's not just about "teh sex" and an individual's gene survival! our society owns us. that is, the way someone fits into and is part of society is so much more important in our hypersocial species.
and now the UNCOMMON part of my opinion. i believe that the harsh distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality is a symptom of our society's strong gender roles. i really believe that everyone is bisexual... and just tends to lean a certain way BUT MOST of the leaning is due to society! i'm sure there are some pheromonic/biophysiochemical effects as well, but put 10 boys and 10 girls in a "cage" from the day they are born (providing them with food etc) but with NO CONTACT with our society or anyone from it, i guarantee you they'll mostly end up freaking each other, boys and boys, and girls and girls, and boys and girls and boys all together. seriously.
look inside yourself... free your mind from the shackles of our homophobic society, and understand who you are... you are... BI!
This is a far more complicated issue than science is able to discuss. There is no yet discovered "****" gene.
Most straight males would never admit to ever having a sexual thought about another male, simply out of fear. In Western society, homosexuality is not just a grave sin (stupid religion), but it is also a sign of weakness. No dad wants his son to be ****, because it means that his son is less of a "man." I'm simply speaking about Western culture here, not about my own opinions.
The most basic flaw in this discussion is that it seeks to make science choose what is right/wrong, something that science is not prepared, or able, to do. Science is inherently imperfect, especially so when dealing with human behavior. A human cannot be compared to any other animal, because we are the only truly conscious creature (to our knowledge, please, no flames regarding the intelligence of chimps) on earth. Therefore, we do not play by the rules of the world around us. In fact, we constantly seek to bend those rules to their breaking point.
Scientifically, at the moment, there is no "homosexuality" gene that has been discovered yet. There may be one that is simply better hidden than they imagine. Or, it may simply be a matter of preference. The idea of consciousness has a lot to do with choice. It will always be my opinion that homosexuality is a choice and a matter of preference.
Also, as far as procreation goes, science easily points out that there is hardly a need for all to be propagating at this point, since our species is exhausting the world's natural resources due to an extremely large population.
Once science comes to this conclusion, then it is really left up to society to decide "right" and "wrong," which are two ideas meant to keep the peasants in check.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
As said before, its impossible to NOT bring morals into this.
But frankly- no, we are NOT all bisexual. That would assume I am naturally attracted to men- nope. Now, I can easily force my brain to think sexually about a man, but thats proving nothing but that my imagination ain't half bad.
Homosexuality I believe is something that CAN happen- but rarely. TBH, many of the things between the old men/women in SF getting married has nothing to do with their sexuality. They just want the free benefits a married couple gets.
I don't support homosexuality, but I'm not against it. Being I'm not one, I'm kind of in a "No care" state myself.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Unfortunately or not, science is the basis for this thread. Religion threads tend to come down to the simple basis of 'I believe my god says X'... which cannot be argued, as it's ENTIRELY faith-based. Perhaps this will allow you to understand why the seperation has to happen.
And actually, science CAN at the very least defend it; given that homosexual behaviour is displayed across nearly the entire known animal kingdom, both in the wild and in captivity. It's called behavioural studies, a branch of psychology. The central reason behind its cause is not set in stone... but it cannot be denied that it happens virtually EVERYWHERE. From homosexual dogs to queer bats to lesbian seagulls to 'funny' dolphins, there've been documented cases put forth left and right, when the researcher wasn't afraid of being labelled as a 'qu**r' themselves.
It's difficult to say that something is 'wrong' when it's standard practice for the rest of the world. But then, this is a retread of the previous five threads on the subject.
Apparently science has proved that within the first month of someones life that person knows which sexuality it prefers, although the environment which they are brought up in will change, support or make that person feel an outcast because of which they prefer. How they proved this, god knows.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+May 23 2004, 05:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ May 23 2004, 05:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is a far more complicated issue than science is able to discuss. There is no yet discovered "****" gene. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're limiting yourself to genetic biology here. Psychology and sociology are sciences, as well, and all three combined, we may still not have definite answers, but at least a great deal of hints as to how homosexuality could work - which is frankly the best any science taking its own premises seriously can commit itself to.
Seeing that this went a little out of the tracks, I'd propose to re-formulate Mojos initial question into whether the tendency of homosexuality can be considered harmful for either a species' prospects of survival, or the individual practicing it, in both cases in an evolutionary sense of the word 'harmful'. Look ma, no morals!
[edit](I'm sorry for responding this late, it has been a busy time for me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->) <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dr. Alan Turing, sadly, was driven to suicide over his sexual preferences. If he was "straight", and had become older, he might have been able to contribute even more to Computer Science. In turn, that might have rewarded the society.
Does that show a defect in the society mechanism?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Interesting question. I do not think that the tragedy of Dr. Turings later life proves the evolutionary model of societal organization defect on any basic level. Evolution does not strive for absolute efficiency, it merely strives for an edge over the rest, and Turing certainly supplied that in his lifetime. That said, I agree that the British societies intolerance of Turings personal lifestyle - not trying to say whether it really was a choice or not - is a case of two potentially benefical factors - the strength and reliance of society on the one, and Dr. Turings personal abilities, all of which could be called 'eccentricies' on the other hand - not harmonizing with each other, but there's a multitude of such examples observed throughout biology.[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+May 23 2004, 02:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ May 23 2004, 02:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And actually, science CAN at the very least defend it; given that homosexual behaviour is displayed across nearly the entire known animal kingdom, both in the wild and in captivity. It's called behavioural studies, a branch of psychology. The central reason behind its cause is not set in stone... but it cannot be denied that it happens virtually EVERYWHERE. From homosexual dogs to queer bats to lesbian seagulls to 'funny' dolphins, there've been documented cases put forth left and right, when the researcher wasn't afraid of being labelled as a 'qu**r' themselves. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I haven't actually read any of these studies...
Have scientists actually proved that there are homosexual animals, or just that animals will have sex indiscriminately of gender? I can't remember seeing proof of gender discriminant sexual behevior in any animal homo or heterosexual.
Very true, I have never heard of a case of total homosexuality among any species beyond humans.
Talesin, perhaps you could locate a link to such a case?
Since Nemesis Zero wants this thread back on track, I might as well make a post on the main question.
Now, would science consider homosexuality detrimental to a species? It really does depend on the species. For a species starting out, homosexuality is detrimental, considering that they need as many as possible breeding. Now, is homosexuality detrimental to an overpopulated species? No. I'd actually say that temporary homosexuality among an overpopulated species is beneficial in bringing balance back without having a significant portion killed off.
That's only one issue though. Science would have to consider whether or not the majority of the homosexuals were bringing promiscuous, thus having possibly a higher level of disease, which would be dangerous for the entire population. It would also have to consider whether or not homosexuality would be tolerated, or if it would divide the species up.
All in all, I don't believe that science is either prepared to, nor able to, answer the question. It is simply too complex of an issue.
All that would prove - and I won't go into details here as it's 2am where I live, but your stances seem to be based on grossly simplified terms and are thus in many cases 'shaky' - is that science can't deliver an <i>easy</i> answer. Still no reason to call it inappropriate.
<!--QuoteBegin-Thursday-+May 23 2004, 03:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thursday- @ May 23 2004, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Apparently science has proved that within the first month of someones life that person knows which sexuality it prefers, although the environment which they are brought up in will change, support or make that person feel an outcast because of which they prefer. How they proved this, god knows. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They chopped out the brains of songbirds and switched them around. In cases where they switched male forebrains into female forebrains, they were able to show that the birds displayed mounting and song behaviour (male only normally). In the other case, they took female forebrains and put them into male birds and got female characteristics.
In humans, it has now been demonstrated that sexual development begins <b>before</b> hormones come into play. Various genes which are regulated on the Y chromosome can influence the brain. These genes tend to have a different expression ratio in the brains of males to females, and you see a corresponding difference in neural density in certain regions of male and female brains. Interestingly enough, transgender individuals often have 'female' patterns that explain why they feel as they do (more often men are transgender).
So it isn't much further to go before we establish that homosexuality, and other sexual conditions are the result of abnormal brain development due to mutations in things like Y chromosome gene regulons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A **** father may not necessarily have a **** son, and a **** daughter may not have a **** mother. So the link to biology is faulty at best.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or your understanding of biology is faulty at best, which in this case is most likely. You can have two completely normal parents give birth to a son with a wide range of disorders or conditions. These are known as "sex linked" disorders that are carried on the X chromosome. If the male gets the X chromosome with the harmful gene, it is expressed and you get the pathogenic phenotype. However, a daughter may not as she'll have two copies of the X chromosome, and may never even remotely notice she has a genetic fault that could be lethal for her sons.
Just because the parents are normal, doesn't mean that the children will be.
<!--QuoteBegin-Aegeri+May 23 2004, 08:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ May 23 2004, 08:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So it isn't much further to go before we establish that homosexuality, and other sexual conditions are the result of abnormal brain development due to mutations in things like Y chromosome gene regulons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yet to be proven to say the least.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+May 23 2004, 08:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ May 23 2004, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Aegeri+May 23 2004, 08:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ May 23 2004, 08:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So it isn't much further to go before we establish that homosexuality, and other sexual conditions are the result of abnormal brain development due to mutations in things like Y chromosome gene regulons. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yet to be proven to say the least. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not proven, but it is getting to that point. There is more than sufficient evidence coming that brain development (sexual identity in particular) is set well before hormones. Considering that this is already becoming well established in transgender (IE gender confused) individuals, they may soon find that similar patterns are occuring in homosexuals*.
As I said, DNA microarray studies have showed that Y chromosome genes are expressed differently in certain areas of the brains of males. These are more than likely to give rise to "male" characteristics. It is not very much of a logical extension to begin looking at this gene expression to investigate if differences between heterosexual males and homosexual males is different. If it is, that will be an incredibly strong correlation to a natural cause.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Probably one of the better books would be <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312192398/102-4153462-7930551?v=glance' target='_blank'>Biological Exuberance</a>, one of the few published books on the subject that was not promptly banned. It explains that a number of other research projects could not outright call the observed behaviours 'homosexual', for a number of reasons. Also, the book listing on Amazon (where the link points) has links to other useful books.
One of the more famous cases is the (captive) lesbian seagull pair who would care for their (nonfertile) eggs for months, driving off potential male mates and remaining monogamous. Similar studies have been found with male lions refusing to mate with harems when presented with the opportunity, as well as several species of fruit bats who display the same relationships... tending to communal duties, caring for the pups of others, but never mating heterosexually. Dogs as well.. I could relate a first-hand-witness story about a **** doberman and **** golden retriever that was written off officially as a 'stray fight', when it was anything but.
The argument about increased virulence of STDs in homosexuals is irrelevant, as heterosexuals display the same (if not more, in many cases) level of promiscuity. AIDS, as an example, is <b>far</b> more widespread at the moment in the heterosexual community than the homosexual. On the other side of the coin, a larger-than-widely-portrayed group of homosexuals are in monogamous relationships, or closed polyamourous relationships.
The following links contain language that might be construed as being past child-friendly, but given that we're in the Discussions forum, a level of maturity is assumed.
<a href='http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm' target='_blank'>The Natural "Crime Against Nature"</a> <a href='http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/2004/02/12/News/Animal.Homosexuality.Adds.To.****.Rights.Debate-605235.shtml' target='_blank'>Animal Homosexuality Adds to G*y Rights Debate</a> <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188636009X/ref=pd_sim_books_1/102-4153462-7930551?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality</a> (Amazon link, correct retranslations of the original hebrew manuscripts, with improved interpretations)
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+May 23 2004, 09:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ May 23 2004, 09:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188636009X/ref=pd_sim_books_1/102-4153462-7930551?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality</a> (Amazon link, correct retranslations of the original hebrew manuscripts, with improved interpretations)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nice link Talesin, I read this one a month or so ago when I stumbled on it.
[offtopic] I find it interesting that you would link that book (What the Bible Really Says), so here's an equally interesting <a href='http://www.reformed.org/social/' target='_blank'>refutation.</a>. it's at the bottom of the first page.
How can homosexuality be wrong or right scientifically? I could possibly understand good or bad, but not wrong or right.
<span style='color:white'>That's why I wrote this one page back: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seeing that this went a little out of the tracks, I'd propose to re-formulate Mojos initial question into whether the tendency of homosexuality can be considered harmful for either a species' prospects of survival, or the individual practicing it, in both cases in an evolutionary sense of the word 'harmful'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></span>
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Hmm. A segment of the population that does not contribute to the population growth (read: children that place a drain on the community/area resources) yet still contribute to benefit the group? I'd say that would be an evolutionary advantage more than anything else. Maybe not if you're dealing with the last 10 endangered purple-backed lemurs in the world, where breeding is imperative to restore the population... but when you have well over 6.3 BILLION of a species, 10% of that *not* breeding can only be a good thing. Less chance of overflowing the available space and overpopulating the planet.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+May 25 2004, 05:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ May 25 2004, 05:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm. A segment of the population that does not contribute to the population growth (read: children that place a drain on the community/area resources) yet still contribute to benefit the group? I'd say that would be an evolutionary advantage more than anything else. Maybe not if you're dealing with the last 10 endangered purple-backed lemurs in the world, where breeding is imperative to restore the population... but when you have well over 6.3 BILLION of a species, 10% of that *not* breeding can only be a good thing. Less chance of overflowing the available space and overpopulating the planet. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There's no chance of overflowing the planet to begain with.
Population of any species will never grow to the point where it will consume the planet. Once we will hit Earth's natural limit, we will know because our population will stop growing.
It is already happening in Europe, and it's only a matter of time before it happens to the rest of the world.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+May 25 2004, 05:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ May 25 2004, 05:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+May 25 2004, 05:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ May 25 2004, 05:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm. A segment of the population that does not contribute to the population growth (read: children that place a drain on the community/area resources) yet still contribute to benefit the group? I'd say that would be an evolutionary advantage more than anything else. Maybe not if you're dealing with the last 10 endangered purple-backed lemurs in the world, where breeding is imperative to restore the population... but when you have well over 6.3 BILLION of a species, 10% of that *not* breeding can only be a good thing. Less chance of overflowing the available space and overpopulating the planet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's no chance of overflowing the planet to begain with.
Population of any species will never grow to the point where it will consume the planet. Once we will hit Earth's natural limit, we will know because our population will stop growing.
It is already happening in Europe, and it's only a matter of time before it happens to the rest of the world. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> . . .
And what do you think the expression of homosexuality in a culture-base is an apparent sign (if not first-step) of? Also, have you looked at Japan or India's population density statistics lately? Won't overpopulate, my ****.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+May 26 2004, 01:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ May 26 2004, 01:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is already happening in Europe, and it's only a matter of time before it happens to the rest of the world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Erm... I'm sorry to say that I haven't got the slightest idea of how you came to this conclusion.
The fact of the matter is that Europes natural resources - energy, nutrition, clean water, space, the whole deal - are more than sufficient for even a theoretical <i>growing</i> population - a lot of our current economical problems can in fact be attributed to the <i>sinking</i> population. The myth that we are 'a people without of space' is a piece of old right-wing propaganda that somehow managed to be carried on into later times. We are, in fact, a space without people.
The claim that humanity will 'respect' its natural limits with Europe as prove can not be accepted, and with the examples of India, Japan, and the African areas victim to desertation, indeed be refuted.
The reason that the population in Europe is not growing is due to a worldwide culture shift wherein women moved from the kitchen and into the office. Women do not want to lose their hard worked for career to have a child until their mid to upper 30's, past their child bearing prime. There are more pregnancy risks at this age, and they have less a chance to bear more than 2 children, most settling for one.
<span style='color:red'>*NUKED.* You WILL read all other posts in a thread before replying to it, or you will not continue posting in Discussions for long. -Talesin</span>
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+May 26 2004, 12:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ May 26 2004, 12:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not sure about that; there was rampant homosexuality in the classical period, and those weren't exactly "population-dense." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, like the Greeks.
They even had delightful romps with teenage boys too.
Comments
I mean, why do you think death or extinction is bad for any population? The backdrop of this discussion is that if a population fails to reproduce, then whatever caused it to do so must be bad. Where do you derive this notion of "bad" from? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yesterday I ate a hamburger.
I'm supporting the extinction of cattle. I am a sinner, and murderer, and should be hung.
Or not. Ask yourself 'why' and the answer you come up with is the same for what you proposed.
What, do you think I woke up one day and just <i>decided</i> to live as one of the currently most-oppressed segments of the world? I CHALLENGE any straight person to honestly be physically attracted to the same sex if they think it's a choice, even for just one day.
Yes, as I've said in the prior threads on this kind of topic, I'm homosexual. I don't usually make a point of it, but it really pisses me off when people say things like that it's a choice, or that you could just be not-**** if you really wanted to.
Also, the bits about not comparing humans to animals is quite funny, given that homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. Meaning it's a <b>natural occurrance</b>, for those not following along. And like it or not, humans are animals. Just like dogs, cats, dolphins, weasels, and so on. The only difference is that we're the only species egocentric enough to think we're any better.
I will repeat. This thread is excluding religion from the debate. Any future religion-based posts will be deleted outright, and repeat offenders may receive correctional steps, as per the addendum to the FAQ. If you're posting in here and haven't read it, do so immediately. Failure to follow the rules in this section of the Forums *will* lose you access to it.
too many replies focused on homosexuality's consequences for pure reproduction. well duh it's hard to get pregnant unless it's heterosexual intercourse. but who cares? the focus needs to be brought around to how, even more importantly, homosexuality's existence affects the LANDSCAPE of humankind. like nem said, the sociological/mementic etc. aspects... i.e. the BIG PICTURE. it's not just about "teh sex" and an individual's gene survival! our society owns us. that is, the way someone fits into and is part of society is so much more important in our hypersocial species.
and now the UNCOMMON part of my opinion. i believe that the harsh distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality is a symptom of our society's strong gender roles. i really believe that everyone is bisexual... and just tends to lean a certain way BUT MOST of the leaning is due to society! i'm sure there are some pheromonic/biophysiochemical effects as well, but put 10 boys and 10 girls in a "cage" from the day they are born (providing them with food etc) but with NO CONTACT with our society or anyone from it, i guarantee you they'll mostly end up freaking each other, boys and boys, and girls and girls, and boys and girls and boys all together. seriously.
look inside yourself... free your mind from the shackles of our homophobic society, and understand who you are... you are... BI!
Most straight males would never admit to ever having a sexual thought about another male, simply out of fear. In Western society, homosexuality is not just a grave sin (stupid religion), but it is also a sign of weakness. No dad wants his son to be ****, because it means that his son is less of a "man." I'm simply speaking about Western culture here, not about my own opinions.
Scientifically, at the moment, there is no "homosexuality" gene that has been discovered yet. There may be one that is simply better hidden than they imagine. Or, it may simply be a matter of preference. The idea of consciousness has a lot to do with choice. It will always be my opinion that homosexuality is a choice and a matter of preference.
Also, as far as procreation goes, science easily points out that there is hardly a need for all to be propagating at this point, since our species is exhausting the world's natural resources due to an extremely large population.
Once science comes to this conclusion, then it is really left up to society to decide "right" and "wrong," which are two ideas meant to keep the peasants in check.
But frankly- no, we are NOT all bisexual. That would assume I am naturally attracted to men- nope. Now, I can easily force my brain to think sexually about a man, but thats proving nothing but that my imagination ain't half bad.
Homosexuality I believe is something that CAN happen- but rarely. TBH, many of the things between the old men/women in SF getting married has nothing to do with their sexuality. They just want the free benefits a married couple gets.
I don't support homosexuality, but I'm not against it. Being I'm not one, I'm kind of in a "No care" state myself.
And actually, science CAN at the very least defend it; given that homosexual behaviour is displayed across nearly the entire known animal kingdom, both in the wild and in captivity. It's called behavioural studies, a branch of psychology. The central reason behind its cause is not set in stone... but it cannot be denied that it happens virtually EVERYWHERE. From homosexual dogs to queer bats to lesbian seagulls to 'funny' dolphins, there've been documented cases put forth left and right, when the researcher wasn't afraid of being labelled as a 'qu**r' themselves.
It's difficult to say that something is 'wrong' when it's standard practice for the rest of the world. But then, this is a retread of the previous five threads on the subject.
You're limiting yourself to genetic biology here. Psychology and sociology are sciences, as well, and all three combined, we may still not have definite answers, but at least a great deal of hints as to how homosexuality could work - which is frankly the best any science taking its own premises seriously can commit itself to.
Seeing that this went a little out of the tracks, I'd propose to re-formulate Mojos initial question into whether the tendency of homosexuality can be considered harmful for either a species' prospects of survival, or the individual practicing it, in both cases in an evolutionary sense of the word 'harmful'. Look ma, no morals!
[edit](I'm sorry for responding this late, it has been a busy time for me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dr. Alan Turing, sadly, was driven to suicide over his sexual preferences. If he was "straight", and had become older, he might have been able to contribute even more to Computer Science. In turn, that might have rewarded the society.
Does that show a defect in the society mechanism?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting question. I do not think that the tragedy of Dr. Turings later life proves the evolutionary model of societal organization defect on any basic level. Evolution does not strive for absolute efficiency, it merely strives for an edge over the rest, and Turing certainly supplied that in his lifetime.
That said, I agree that the British societies intolerance of Turings personal lifestyle - not trying to say whether it really was a choice or not - is a case of two potentially benefical factors - the strength and reliance of society on the one, and Dr. Turings personal abilities, all of which could be called 'eccentricies' on the other hand - not harmonizing with each other, but there's a multitude of such examples observed throughout biology.[/edit]
I haven't actually read any of these studies...
Have scientists actually proved that there are homosexual animals, or just that animals will have sex indiscriminately of gender? I can't remember seeing proof of gender discriminant sexual behevior in any animal homo or heterosexual.
don't happen to have a handy link do you?
Talesin, perhaps you could locate a link to such a case?
Since Nemesis Zero wants this thread back on track, I might as well make a post on the main question.
Now, would science consider homosexuality detrimental to a species? It really does depend on the species. For a species starting out, homosexuality is detrimental, considering that they need as many as possible breeding. Now, is homosexuality detrimental to an overpopulated species? No. I'd actually say that temporary homosexuality among an overpopulated species is beneficial in bringing balance back without having a significant portion killed off.
That's only one issue though. Science would have to consider whether or not the majority of the homosexuals were bringing promiscuous, thus having possibly a higher level of disease, which would be dangerous for the entire population. It would also have to consider whether or not homosexuality would be tolerated, or if it would divide the species up.
All in all, I don't believe that science is either prepared to, nor able to, answer the question. It is simply too complex of an issue.
They chopped out the brains of songbirds and switched them around. In cases where they switched male forebrains into female forebrains, they were able to show that the birds displayed mounting and song behaviour (male only normally). In the other case, they took female forebrains and put them into male birds and got female characteristics.
In humans, it has now been demonstrated that sexual development begins <b>before</b> hormones come into play. Various genes which are regulated on the Y chromosome can influence the brain. These genes tend to have a different expression ratio in the brains of males to females, and you see a corresponding difference in neural density in certain regions of male and female brains. Interestingly enough, transgender individuals often have 'female' patterns that explain why they feel as they do (more often men are transgender).
So it isn't much further to go before we establish that homosexuality, and other sexual conditions are the result of abnormal brain development due to mutations in things like Y chromosome gene regulons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A **** father may not necessarily have a **** son, and a **** daughter may not have a **** mother. So the link to biology is faulty at best.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or your understanding of biology is faulty at best, which in this case is most likely. You can have two completely normal parents give birth to a son with a wide range of disorders or conditions. These are known as "sex linked" disorders that are carried on the X chromosome. If the male gets the X chromosome with the harmful gene, it is expressed and you get the pathogenic phenotype. However, a daughter may not as she'll have two copies of the X chromosome, and may never even remotely notice she has a genetic fault that could be lethal for her sons.
Just because the parents are normal, doesn't mean that the children will be.
Yet to be proven to say the least.
Yet to be proven to say the least. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not proven, but it is getting to that point. There is more than sufficient evidence coming that brain development (sexual identity in particular) is set well before hormones. Considering that this is already becoming well established in transgender (IE gender confused) individuals, they may soon find that similar patterns are occuring in homosexuals*.
As I said, DNA microarray studies have showed that Y chromosome genes are expressed differently in certain areas of the brains of males. These are more than likely to give rise to "male" characteristics. It is not very much of a logical extension to begin looking at this gene expression to investigate if differences between heterosexual males and homosexual males is different. If it is, that will be an incredibly strong correlation to a natural cause.
*Edit: DOH.
One of the more famous cases is the (captive) lesbian seagull pair who would care for their (nonfertile) eggs for months, driving off potential male mates and remaining monogamous. Similar studies have been found with male lions refusing to mate with harems when presented with the opportunity, as well as several species of fruit bats who display the same relationships... tending to communal duties, caring for the pups of others, but never mating heterosexually. Dogs as well.. I could relate a first-hand-witness story about a **** doberman and **** golden retriever that was written off officially as a 'stray fight', when it was anything but.
The argument about increased virulence of STDs in homosexuals is irrelevant, as heterosexuals display the same (if not more, in many cases) level of promiscuity. AIDS, as an example, is <b>far</b> more widespread at the moment in the heterosexual community than the homosexual. On the other side of the coin, a larger-than-widely-portrayed group of homosexuals are in monogamous relationships, or closed polyamourous relationships.
The following links contain language that might be construed as being past child-friendly, but given that we're in the Discussions forum, a level of maturity is assumed.
<a href='http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm' target='_blank'>The Natural "Crime Against Nature"</a>
<a href='http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/2004/02/12/News/Animal.Homosexuality.Adds.To.****.Rights.Debate-605235.shtml' target='_blank'>Animal Homosexuality Adds to G*y Rights Debate</a>
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188636009X/ref=pd_sim_books_1/102-4153462-7930551?v=glance&s=books' target='_blank'>What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality</a> (Amazon link, correct retranslations of the original hebrew manuscripts, with improved interpretations)
Nice link Talesin, I read this one a month or so ago when I stumbled on it.
I find it interesting that you would link that book (What the Bible Really Says),
so here's an equally interesting <a href='http://www.reformed.org/social/' target='_blank'>refutation.</a>. it's at the bottom of the first page.
<span style='color:white'>That's why I wrote this one page back:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seeing that this went a little out of the tracks, I'd propose to re-formulate Mojos initial question into whether the tendency of homosexuality can be considered harmful for either a species' prospects of survival, or the individual practicing it, in both cases in an evolutionary sense of the word 'harmful'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></span>
Maybe not if you're dealing with the last 10 endangered purple-backed lemurs in the world, where breeding is imperative to restore the population... but when you have well over 6.3 BILLION of a species, 10% of that *not* breeding can only be a good thing. Less chance of overflowing the available space and overpopulating the planet.
Maybe not if you're dealing with the last 10 endangered purple-backed lemurs in the world, where breeding is imperative to restore the population... but when you have well over 6.3 BILLION of a species, 10% of that *not* breeding can only be a good thing. Less chance of overflowing the available space and overpopulating the planet. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no chance of overflowing the planet to begain with.
Population of any species will never grow to the point where it will consume the planet. Once we will hit Earth's natural limit, we will know because our population will stop growing.
It is already happening in Europe, and it's only a matter of time before it happens to the rest of the world.
Maybe not if you're dealing with the last 10 endangered purple-backed lemurs in the world, where breeding is imperative to restore the population... but when you have well over 6.3 BILLION of a species, 10% of that *not* breeding can only be a good thing. Less chance of overflowing the available space and overpopulating the planet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no chance of overflowing the planet to begain with.
Population of any species will never grow to the point where it will consume the planet. Once we will hit Earth's natural limit, we will know because our population will stop growing.
It is already happening in Europe, and it's only a matter of time before it happens to the rest of the world. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
. . .
And what do you think the expression of homosexuality in a culture-base is an apparent sign (if not first-step) of? Also, have you looked at Japan or India's population density statistics lately? Won't overpopulate, my ****.
Erm... I'm sorry to say that I haven't got the slightest idea of how you came to this conclusion.
The fact of the matter is that Europes natural resources - energy, nutrition, clean water, space, the whole deal - are more than sufficient for even a theoretical <i>growing</i> population - a lot of our current economical problems can in fact be attributed to the <i>sinking</i> population. The myth that we are 'a people without of space' is a piece of old right-wing propaganda that somehow managed to be carried on into later times. We are, in fact, a space without people.
The claim that humanity will 'respect' its natural limits with Europe as prove can not be accepted, and with the examples of India, Japan, and the African areas victim to desertation, indeed be refuted.
Yeah, like the Greeks.
They even had delightful romps with teenage boys too.
Damn Greeks.
Anything can happen scientifically with animals such as cross-breeding somethin else too but I forget the name of it.