Is homosexuality unnatural?

[maddog]

Originally Posted by lemit

Sorry, "maddog," it was insensitive of me. I didn't mean to cause offense.
--lemit

lemit,

NP. No offense taken. It was only a small point that "bisexuality" is really what is
being discussed for animals. IMHO, I don't think animals (mammals in particular) consider
things such as "exclusivity".

maddog

ps: Boy, I have been away for awhile from this thread.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Larv

Could be that homosexuality is no more of an affliction than is left handedness, which is also natural, and curable. But why is a "cure" for either one a bad thing? Is it wrong for a homosexual to want to be heterosexual, or vise versa? So why should a "cure" be scorned in either case? ...

Excuse me: ... When was it decreed that Handedness, in Particular Left Handedness
as being an Affliction to be "cured". Who are to be the judges, "right handed people" ?
Be careful whom you might offend. I don't feel the "need" to be "cured". I am fine with
being a lefty. Bet you didn't know that Only Left-Handed people are in the "right" minds.

Originally Posted by Larv

... If one of my children were to become a homosexual I would be very concerned. Not because I don't like homosexuals, but because I would worry about his/her future. Still, I wouldn't reject a homosexual child. ...

I am not sure how mean the above "italicized" remarks. Are you implying that a
homosexual (or other sexual orientation) has an otherwise impaired or limited future ?



When you post you may think how you will interpreted before commit the post.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by mynah

Getting back to what is "natural", rather than "moral" or "emotionally challenging", keeping dogs and cats has proved to be somewhat educational. I've seen both male dogs and cats practise fellatio on their brothers, for instance - to the obvious pleasure of recipients, although the motives of and benefits gained by the suppliers were less clear. In the case of the cats, the cat that regularly pleasured his brother still attempted to suckle milk from his mother and other nursing females even when mature: Fellatio may have provided a substitute.

I have observed similar behavior in our two dogs (dachsunds) - same litter. It appears to
be a case of extended grooming (cleaning the urine from his brothers penis). It does not
appear sexual in any way. I have also seen both lick each others asses (anus) as well.
It is us who project a "homosexual" interpretation to this activity.

maddog

[lawcat]

Humans are social beings. Social interaction influences sexual preference. I would be shocked if there was a single, unique, and determinative gay gene.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by dannieyankee

Thus stating that men seek only prime women.

One might safely assume that homosexual men do not and would not.
Now... back on-topic.

[dannieyankee]

For those opposing the idea that homosexuality is unnatural; are you saying that every homosexual who says they have these feelings naturally are lying?

Every single one of them is lying?

Obviously there are some people who feign it, particularly teenage girls feigning bisexuality, but isn't the entire argument based on the idea that yes, millions of people around the world are indeed simply lying?

Of course, if we're actually debating their ability to change their sexuality from homosexual to heterosexual, then the question is not whether or not it is natural, but why should they?

[mynah]

Originally Posted by maddog

I have observed similar behavior in our two dogs (dachsunds) - same litter. It appears to
be a case of extended grooming (cleaning the urine from his brothers penis). It does not
appear sexual in any way. I have also seen both lick each others asses (anus) as well.
It is us who project a "homosexual" interpretation to this activity.

maddog

We have four spaniels - dad, modified mum, and two five month old sons. Dad regularly bullies his smaller son into rolling onto his back, and the poor mite is frightened (or so it appears) into urinating, whereupon the father licks it from his penis while the puppy lies quite still. This kind of interaction only takes place between these two dogs. However, the same pup has been seen sucking the penis of his brother, who was having an orgasm as a result. These two actions appear to be quite different.

[sman]

Originally Posted by dannieyankee

Of course, if we're actually debating their ability to change their sexuality from homosexual to heterosexual, then the question is not whether or not it is natural, but why should they?

A homosexual lifestyle must be more diffucult than a hetreosexual one. Even in a perfect world without ostricism. I tried to portray earlier in this thread that I felt like his is a humanitarian issue. About quality of life for human beings. If science can target the beterment of the lives of these people it certainly should. Not to is immoral.
There's a barrier here, often referred to as homophobia. I see it as a genetic mechanism for preserving the harmony of the genotype, but whatever. If people are suffering....genes can go to hell.
I really think we should be studying homosexuality in humans the way we study cancer....either to kill it, to keep it from happening, or to ease the lives of those that it's already happened to. One side refuses to allocate this kind of funding because homosexuality is evil or unnatural, the other side refuses because homosexuality is not a disease in need of a cure. Both sides overlook the fact that these are real people with real lives.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by sman

I really think we should be studying homosexuality in humans the way we study cancer....either to kill it, to keep it from happening, or to ease the lives of those that it's already happened to.

Why do you presume such studies trying to eradicate homosexuality would be any different from trying to cure people from being "black," or curing asians from having more slanted eyes, or maybe "curing" people from having anything other than blond hair and blue eyes? You may see these traits as vastly different than homosexuality, but they are not.


The challenge is that you see (or, at the very least, your posts imply that) homosexuality as an illness to be fixed, as opposed to the more reasonable view based in reality that it is simply another section on the broad spectrum which is animal sexuality.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Why do you presume such studies trying to eradicate homosexuality would be any different from trying to cure people from being "black," or curing asians from having more slanted eyes, or maybe "curing" people from having anything other than blond hair and blue eyes?...

Is it understood scientifically that homosexuality is equivalent to racial features like skin and eye pigmentation or hair color? I really don't think so. As such, while you intentions of tolerance are good, you're mixing apples with oranges. Homosexuality is more like left-handedness or any other condition that is not inherited genetically. There is no "gay gene" that I know of.