Is homosexuality unnatural?

[pamela]

originally posted by moontanman
Does anyone know if homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament?

Off topic

from Bible gateway
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (New International Version)
8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

originally posted by Michaelangelica
It would be interesting to see how many paedophiles were Christian or Christian Clergy (the ones convicted and in jail). A good bit of statistical research for someone?
So then we would know if we could say "Christianity causes buggery" or some such similar.
Where does it say in the Bible or New Testament that we should bugger little children? Perhaps some one got the grammar wrong in the translation of Jesus'
words, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me" or perhaps many clergy are dyslectic

from dictionary.com
sexual desire in an adult for a child.

this is aberrant behaviour that stems from mental illness not from a religion. It is quite common for individuals suffering from mental ilnesses to gravitate towards religion. Off topic

originally posted by infinitenow
It's hard not to just do or think anything you want when you believe that you're being told to hate someone because god (and your infallible book) wants you to. There aren't a lot of logical arguments (if there are any at all) which can overcome a delusion as deep and broad as that.

let's stay on topic here. This thread is about natural/unnatural homosexuality, and not a forum for religion bashing

[HydrogenBond]

What we need to do, to solve this riddle is define natural and natural human. Natural may not be the same for all critters. For example, what comes natural for a lion will not be the same as what comes natural for a gazelle. There will be some natural overlap, but there will also some natural differences. One can't assume just because gazelles eat grass, this is natural to lions because we have some observations of lions eating grass. In this case, the natural function is different for the same behavior. The gazelle does it for food but the lion might do it to help digestion without ever really digesting it.

Once we define natural human, human willpower is able to tweak the natural human set point. For example, the human arms have a natural range of capability. We can add a backhoe as an extension of the human arms, to increase this natural capability. Driving a backhoe is not natural, but it extends the natural capability. On the other hand, placing handcuffs on the wrists will lower the capability of the arms, relative to natural. This is also unnatural but it dips natural below the natural set point.

Relative to the gay riddle, we need to first define "natural human" and then figure out if gay is at natural, dips below natural or goes beyond the natural. The debate has been whether gay is natural or unnatural. Science appears to say natural and religion appears to say unnatural. Nobody is arguing that gay extends natural to the right. Everyone is plotting gay somewhere between natural and the left of natural (handcuffs) but not to the right of natural (backhoe). We just need to figure out where that point is.

In a qualitative way, one can rough it in even before we define natural human. One natural purpose of sex is procreation. This can be deduced from the observation that sexual organs generate gamete cells, which science has shown is connected to procreation. Science has also shown that only certain combinations of sexual behavior will lead to procreation. That part of sex appears to be one aspect of natural, since all higher critters reproduce the same way.

Another aspect for sex is social bonding. Sex is very pleasurable, even if the goal is not procreation. One thing that comes to mind, for this bonding affect, is analogous to a bonding addiction loop for repeatable behavior. For example, if touching a particular person's hand gave a "crack' buzz, one could get addicted to that touch and form a bond, because of the association loop between the touch, the person, the buzz, the addiction, etc. This type of strong "buzz" affect could help bond individuals even if they is not compatible. This "buzz" loop could also assist procreation with a particular source of "buzz" helping to maintain bonding continuity in a situation where continuity would not be possible without the "buzz" loop.

In the case of multiple bonding sources, using the strong "buzz" affect, if it leads to group cohesion, this might be natural. But if it led to group dissociation, the social bonding affect does not apply, exactly. For example, if it stimulated jealousy, causing the group to break apart, the "buzz" is not for group bonding. This is more a self addiction loop. The lion may mate will all the lionesses, but that strengthens the group. A self addiction loop "buzz" may create the illusion in the mind this is bonding one to the group, but if reality data is doing the opposite, it is an ego-centric illusion. This is not natural unless the group is growing closer because of it.

One source of weak bonding "buzz" could be scent. A group scent or scent of one's child or mate can form a scent-loop for bonding. This might be common among families or clans of animals. The strong "buzz" may not be needed, unless there is a requirement of pairing or if the scent is getting nebulous.

Although humans use these natural affects, humans can also bond without scent and without the requirement of a "strong buzz". For example, people can talk and bond though audio type cues, which are not chemical. People with similar beliefs can bond even if scent or "buzz" is not there. This is more characteristic of humans and may be part of natural human or human that is to the right side of natural, since it first required the invention of language.. Language is sort of one backhoe affect that can extend human bonding even when scent and strong "buzz" are not available.

Relative to religion, it is only the "buzz" loop that is questioned. Beyond that one really can't tell the difference with straight since the affect are similar. The buzz loop does not integrate with the procreation loop. But even straight people "buzz" bond 95% of the time without this goal in mind. We need to define natural human.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by pamela

let's stay on topic here. This thread is about natural/unnatural homosexuality, and not a forum for religion bashing

I suggest you are over sensitive. It was a statement of fact, no bashing. When someone believes they are acting on the will of god, reason and logic are no longer viable weapons to correct them on their misguided path.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

What we need to do, to solve this riddle is define natural and natural human. (very long passage) We need to define natural human.

There was a lot of text in your post which sounded very off-topic to me. Are you comparing the tendency of people to be interested in each other with the tendency of people to fall in love with others of the same sex? Or what was the point of the whole "buzz" thing?

As for defining "natural human", it sounds very fundamentalist to me. I am sure you can find a lot of people who will support the very idea that there is such a thing as a "natural human", but I bet you'll get 6 billion answers as to what that is.

I think you might be better off defining "natural" and "human" in isolation, but it still won't get you anywhere, IMHO.

[pamela]

originally posted by infinitenow
I suggest you are over sensitive. It was a statement of fact, no bashing. When someone believes they are acting on the will of god, reason and logic are no longer viable weapons to correct them on their misguided path.

well, you are most certainly welcome to your opinion, whether there be any truth to it or not. The point was to stay on topic.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by pamela

well, you are most certainly welcome to your opinion, whether there be any truth to it or not. The point was to stay on topic.

Perhaps you'd be able and willing to help me out, then. The discussion here is about whether or not homosexuality is natural or unnatural. A significant amount of data was shared that it IS natural, and this position was well supported during the first three pages of the thread.

However, challenges continue to come that homosexuality is NOT natural, and the only reason presented for support of this position have been religiously based and motivated.

I commented that it is difficult to argue using logic, reason, and scientific evidence against a person who believes they are acting on the will of god and the infallibility of a book, yet that's all these people who suggest homosexuality is unnatural have to support their position.

How was I off topic? I welcome clarification so I can ensure I am aligned with the desires of the site staff such as yourself.



EDIT: I do note that HydrogenBond attempted to offer evolutionary based reasoning to support the unnatural argument, in that he says two gay people cannot reproduce. As I've already corrected him, however, that relies on a misframing of evolutionary theory, treating single instances of procreation as more important than survival of the offspring, and further... survival of the larger group. Looking merely at individual instances of procreation ignores the social benefit conferred by fellow members of the pack in aiding child survival, the broader health of the pack, and the decrease in social tensions and increase in social bonding brought by sexual activity among both same and opposite sex group members. I also specifically referenced the grandmother hypothesis for a parallel view on this suggestion. In essence, the only non-religious-based "homosexuality is unnatural" position shared has already been flatly refuted as inaccurate and based on faulty premises, hence the present argument is squarely with the religiously-supported/motivated position.

[pamela]

posted by Infinite
Perhaps you'd be able and willing to help me out, then. The discussion here is about whether or not homosexuality is natural or unnatural. A significant amount of data was shared that it IS natural, and this position was well supported during the first three pages of the thread.

However, challenges continue to come that homosexuality is NOT natural, and the only reason presented for support of this position have been religiously based and motivated.

Infinitenow, you were not the first to stray off topic, you happened to be the last.I am attempting to divert the topic back to a biology based discussion and not one of theology.

I commented that it is difficult to argue using logic, reason, and scientific evidence against a person who believes they are acting on the will of god and the infallibility of a book, yet that's all these people who suggest homosexuality is unnatural have to support their position.

I agree with your statement, do not be mistaken.Problem is, religious views are not scientifically based and cannot hold water on this subject. Hence my redirecting the topic of discussion back to biology

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks for the clarification. That was a very fair response. I am also not privy to whatever correction you used against those who DID bring religion into a biology forum thread, so I'm confident you weren't singling me out, and that you and the staff DID take action against the original transgressors.

[pamela]

I have adjusted the above post for fairness to you. I was not intentionally singling you out

[InfiniteNow]

More on the misconceptions surrounding evolution and homosexuality.


Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality

There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual behaviour, which is common in many species of animals


There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual behaviour, which is common in many species of animals

"Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality - how would a homosexuality gene get selected for?" "Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?"

Such arguments are surprisingly common - and completely wrong.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population.

A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.

Reasons why
Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words.

It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.

Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).

For your health
Or perhaps homosexuality is neutral, neither reducing nor boosting overall fitness. Attempts to find an adaptive explanation for homosexual behaviour in macaques have failed, leading to suggestions that they do it purely for pleasure.

Even if homosexuality does reduce reproductive success, as most people assume, there are plenty of possible reasons why it is so common. For instance, gene variants that cause homosexual behaviour might have other, beneficial effects such as boosting fertility in women, as one recent study suggests, just as the gene variant for sickle-cell anaemia is maintained because it reduces the severity of malaria. Homosexuality could also be a result of females preferring males with certain tendencies - sexual selection can favour traits that reduce overall fitness, such as the peacock's tail (see Evolution always increases fitness).

Given that, until recently, homosexual behaviour in animals was ignored or even denied, it's hardly surprising that we cannot yet say for sure which of these explanations is correct. It could well turn out that different explanations are true in different species.

There is, of course, much more. That was just something I re-read this evening and thought I'd share here.