Is homosexuality unnatural?

[REASON]

Originally Posted by pamela

This comment blows me away. Now you have catergorized your child, giving a label that separates him/her from you. Why would you even use and think the word reject here, what thought processes and biases have gone through your mind. I can tell you as a parent, that i would never even entertain the thought of rejecting my child for any reason

While I would never reject my child for who they are, I can think of some behaviors that they might engage in that I would definitely reject - even to the point where I could imagine a rift developing between us. Such things are not so uncommon in this world.

While homosexuality would not be one of those for me, it is for many parents who refuse to believe anything but that their child is choosing a lifestyle which they have been taught to reject. As such you end up with support groups such as PFLAG (Parents, Families, Friends of Lesbians And Gays) which is there to help people develop a greater understanding of homosexuality and how to cope with their feelings.

What's lacking in all of this is better information that helps people understand that most people that exhibit homosexual behavior are born with that sexual orientation. It's simply who they are. I would think that having that understanding would reduce that amount of resentment comming from parents and society in general.

But it's difficult to counter the religious disinformation machine which has always been so good at demonizing homosexuality, and so we shouldn't be shocked at the level of resentment that still exists.

[pamela]

Originally Posted by larv

What difference does it make? Are you saying a child cannot become a homosexual by choice? Do you have proof of this? And why is choice not natural? Still, it doesn’t really matter anyway; I was just just making an honest statement. The problem is perhaps that your political-correctness feathers are too easily ruffled.

have you actually read what this thread is about? exactly what type of response were you looking for when you asked me what my problem was?

Originally Posted by larv

Pamela, that’s simply a lot of emotionally loaded opinion. No labeling. No categorization. No separation. And the biases run both ways. I would just be trying to understand my child and do the right thing. What more would expect from me?

really??? Now that would be your opinion. I am however glad that you would try to understand and do the right thing
Take the time to read this quote by REASON

Originally Posted by reason

What's lacking in all of this is better information that helps people understand that most people that exhibit homosexual behavior are born with that sexual orientation. It's simply who they are. I would think that having that understanding would reduce that amount of resentment comming from parents and society in general.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by REASON

What's lacking in all of this is better information that helps people understand that most people that exhibit homosexual behavior are born with that sexual orientation. It's simply who they are. I would think that having that understanding would reduce that amount of resentment comming from parents and society in general.

Would it be resentment on my part if I became concerned about my child's homosexuality? Couldn't it be compassion instead? The honest truth is that homosexuals often face challenges (social, professional, health), any of which would cause me concern as a parent. This is not a bias statement, nor a bigoted statement, not even a resentful statement; it is just plain, unadulterated truth: a parent has a right and duty to be concerned.

But it's difficult to counter the religious disinformation machine which has always been so good at demonizing homosexuality, and so we shouldn't be shocked at the level of resentment that still exists.

Resentment? Maybe for some people—the religious nuts—but not for me. What I resent is when either side of the hetero-homo debate descends into emotional hyperbole—when a simple statement of pure truth cannot be taken as such.

[pamela]

Originally Posted by larv

Would it be resentment on my part if I became concerned about my child's homosexuality? Couldn't it be compassion instead? The honest truth is that homosexuals often face challenges (social, professional, health), any of which would cause me concern as a parent. This is not a bias statement, nor a bigoted statement, not even a resentful statement; it is just plain, unadulterated truth: a parent has a right and duty to be concerned.

we all do Larv. As parents we need to be concerned about our children's health.

Resentment? Maybe for some people—the religious nuts—but not for me.

there again another label that does indeed causes separation. Whether you agree or disagree with religious fanaticism, you have boxed people into a concept and thus removing their individuality. Do you not see how your words are passing judgement on an individual, where it should be an individual with characteristics there of?

What I resent is when either side of the hetero-homo debate descends into emotional hyperbole—when a simple statement of pure truth cannot be taken as such

we are emotional beings and where there is not love in humanity, discord is prevalent.How you think Larv, belongs to you, and you have that right. I am merely showing you another perspective.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Larv

Would it be resentment on my part if I became concerned about my child's homosexuality? Couldn't it be compassion instead? The honest truth is that homosexuals often face challenges (social, professional, health), any of which would cause me concern as a parent. This is not a bias statement, nor a bigoted statement, not even a resentful statement; it is just plain, unadulterated truth: a parent has a right and duty to be concerned.


Resentment? Maybe for some people—the religious nuts—but not for me. What I resent is when either side of the hetero-homo debate descends into emotional hyperbole—when a simple statement of pure truth cannot be taken as such.

Larv,

My use of the term "resentment" was not directed at you. I want to make that clear. To be honest, I completely understand where you're coming from and the point you're trying to make. I would share your concern in such a situation and have by the fact that I have two gay step brothers. The resentment I'm talking about is that which comes from people who do not accept homosexuality as a legitimate behavior or lifestyle, and that think it is some sort of deviant or dysfunctional choice. I do not sense from your posts that that is how you feel.

But the compassion you would feel about someone you care about who was homosexual exists because of the fact that homosexuality is still generally resented and rejected in our society. My point was to suggest that the reason for that is the fact that most people still don't understand that it is primarily something that is inherent and not chosen. If science was doing a better job conveying research that would reinforce this understanding as a counter to the profound efforts of religious institutions to control the dialogue, maybe tolerance would prevail.

I imaging that you would generally agree with those sentiments.

[lemit]

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? 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 would instead invoke Hamlet's admonition on myself: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Thankfully, I've never had to invoke it.)

Larv,

If you are truly understanding, you have chosen some very unfortunate language, the language of the Christian right.

Living in the region of Matthew Shepard, I recognize the language. I hope you don't really subscribe to the "Hate the sin; love the sinner" philosophy, which is wrong in each word, with the possible exception of "the."

I have a feeling you are a person of good will. I hope your only "sin" is in usage. I think you'll find easy acceptance here if that is the case. If it isn't, I think that, like in the conservative Christian community, you'll find love and forgiveness once you confess.

--lemit

[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.

[lemit]

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.

Thanks for the redirection, and thanks for the reminder that what we're talking about is often random behavior in the biological hope that something will result. Does anybody remember the studies of frogs? What about the transsexual nature of some species? Do the research on that too. Don't just trust me. Do some research.

Can anybody think those behaviors are learned? Are they cultural? Come on, really, aren't there more important problems to solve? Why try to solve a problem nature tells us isn't really a problem, but is instead just a behavior intended to create an environment in which the species is most likely to survive?

--lemit

[Boerseun]

If one considers that homo sapiens is the only animal on Earth so far demonstrated to connect the causality dots as far as sex and the birth of a new individual is concerned, then straigh-forward heterosexual intercourse with the express intent to procreate is one of the most unnatural occurences in the natural world.

Animals are dumb, and sex is pretty technical. Therefore, animals are duped into doing it with an orgasm as the payoff. That's as far as an animal's conscious decision to partake in sex will go. Litters seem to come by their own accord, and has nothing to do in the animal mind with the sex act that came before.

And if another member of the species happens to be of the same sex, and manages to cause an orgasm for the first animal, then that animal got rewarded by nature with an orgasm for (almost) doing what nature wanted it to do. It's a statistics game. As long as enough animals have sex in such a way as to lead to procreation and to replace the dead, Nature is happy. Nature holds no grudges against those short-sighted beasties who can't tell a boob from a boner.

[lemit]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

If one considers that homo sapiens is the only animal on Earth so far demonstrated to connect the causality dots as far as sex and the birth of a new individual is concerned, then straigh-forward heterosexual intercourse with the express intent to procreate is one of the most unnatural occurences in the natural world.

Animals are dumb, and sex is pretty technical. Therefore, animals are duped into doing it with an orgasm as the payoff. That's as far as an animal's conscious decision to partake in sex will go. Litters seem to come by their own accord, and has nothing to do in the animal mind with the sex act that came before.

And if another member of the species happens to be of the same sex, and manages to cause an orgasm for the first animal, then that animal got rewarded by nature with an orgasm for (almost) doing what nature wanted it to do. It's a statistics game. As long as enough animals have sex in such a way as to lead to procreation and to replace the dead, Nature is happy. Nature holds no grudges against those short-sighted beasties who can't tell a boob from a boner.

Very good.

Although I can almost feel the mud of D.H. Lawrence's "The Horse-Dealer's Daughter" in our arguments here, I think we're probably operating on a different plane from the strictest iterations of the philosophical and literary schools of Naturalism. I hope so anyway, no matter how much I love that philosophy and its literature.

--lemit