Homosexuality related question
-
Guys I am not against homosexuality and I certainly do not have a problem with single-sex marriages being given legal status. But I was just wondering as to homosexuality being natural. Assume homosexuality is a biological thing. But then it's very curious indeed that homosexuality (to my knowledge) is not found among similar mammals to man like apes and monkeys. Now assume it's a mental thing - this is now rather tricky. Because now the genes and hormones are out of it. A person becomes homosexual by discovery. But then it can be argued that he wouldn't have realized his homosexuality had he not already been aware of such a thing. Rather confusing indeed eh? The natural conclusion is that homosexuality is an unnatural state of mine a human being can slip into. Now while we need not think of it as being basically wrong, it's probably very much possible to revert someone's homosexuality by counselling or some such psychiatric treatment. The advantage would be that the person would now be able to do things as the majority of people would be doing. And since there are more heterosexual people out there, he/she has a much bigger pool now from which to choose his/her partner. Obviously this would be a better option for him/her unless he/she really likes to be the odd man out. BTW in my school ( a jesuit catholic school ), three students were suspended in Class 7 for indulging in homosexual activities in the school auditorium during a games break. Their parents were informed, they were severely reprimanded and all 3 of them suffered public humiliation and ended up as the subject of various gay jokes till they passed out of school. So I sorta grew up thinking homosexuality is a mental disease condition. Now, while I personally am not even remotely interested in anything homosexual, and even feel yucky when I think of it; I am fully okay with other people around me - colleagues, friends, family members being gay. Just because I am right-handed, I can't expect everyone else to be right-handed too, can I? Nish
Nishant S wrote: The natural conclusion is that homosexuality is an unnatural state of mine :laugh: That Freud can be a real bitch. ;P pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
-
http://www.zoosociety.org/Conservation/Bonobo/WhatIs.php[^]
Bonobos have developed a set of ritualized socio-sexual behaviors that are specific to their species. Sexual behaviors, displayed by individuals of all ages, have evolved to strengthen group cohesion. For example, mating is common between male and female adults even when the female is not fertile. There is also a higher frequency of homosexual behavior among bonobos of all ages (especially among adult females), and genital contact functions as social appeasement during times of group tension.
and...http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520205359/ref%3Dnosim/dannyyeesbook-20/002-2979371-7812039[^]
The bonobos are best known as the sexy chimpanzees. Their most striking idiosyncrasy is their readiness to use sex as a social lubricant. Any tension within a bonobo group is normally resolved by a quick orgy, in which they all have sex with one another, in all positions and combinations. Yet, as Frans de Waal explains in the elegant photo-essay Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, this is just one way in which they diverge markedly from the other chimpanzees. (NYT review of the linked book)
Stan Shannon wrote: Observations used to indicate that the sun went around the earth so, nothing is provable by observation...? we could be wrong about the earth going around the sun - who knows, maybe 100 years from now, some bright person will find the real truth. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
It seems these two studies contradict each other. One assumes "homosexual behavior" the other "orgies". The would appear to me to be a classic case of anthropomorphizing (sp?) the behavior of the bonobos. Perhaps it has something to do with their religious beliefs or perhaps it is intended to confuse predetors, or perhaps they themselves are merely confused. Yes, I think that is my hypothesis - during times of stress the bonobos lose the ability to distinquish one sex from another and actually believe themsleves to be copulating with members of the opposite gender. :laugh: In either case, this behavior would seem to discredit current theories of homosexuality. The bonobos do not seem to have an intrinsic "sexual prefrence" at all - homosexual or heterosexual during times of stress, but than return to heterosexual behavior. I don't see how these studies answer Nish's original question. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: But it does indicate that "sexual preference", which we are currently taught is unchagable and intrinsic, is, in fact, subject to culturally defined norms. It means that we need to realize that "sexual preference" isn't a good enough term. A straight man - ie a man who deeply feels the need for a loving relationship with a woman and wants to have children with her, etc. can still enjoy having sex with men just for the pleasure aspects of it. Here you have a man whose "sexual preference" can obviously not be described with a single term. Even the word "bi" falls short. We need to understand that who you fool around with bears little or no relationship to your "official" sexual orientation. Have I ever had a gay experience? No. Do I want to? No. Do gay people bug me? No. Have I gone to bars with gay friends? yes. Did I have a fun time flirting? Yes. Am I a cock tease? Apparently so. Straight men (ie your ancient greeks) can have same-sex partners and still be straight. Your intrinsic sexual preference is probably unchangable. But that doesn't preclude you from sharing pleasure with whoever you want from whatever gender you want.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
I don't disagree with any of that. In fact, I'm told that in many hispanic cultures men freqeuntly engage in what we would call homosexual behavior. But it is the one who assumes the role of the female who is considered homosexual and not the one in the role of the male - he is still considered 'straight'. My only point is that the current political charged definitions regarding homsexuality do not stand up to such observations. The homosexual movement is trying to legitimize itself with phony, or at least questionable, "science". "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
It seems these two studies contradict each other. One assumes "homosexual behavior" the other "orgies". The would appear to me to be a classic case of anthropomorphizing (sp?) the behavior of the bonobos. Perhaps it has something to do with their religious beliefs or perhaps it is intended to confuse predetors, or perhaps they themselves are merely confused. Yes, I think that is my hypothesis - during times of stress the bonobos lose the ability to distinquish one sex from another and actually believe themsleves to be copulating with members of the opposite gender. :laugh: In either case, this behavior would seem to discredit current theories of homosexuality. The bonobos do not seem to have an intrinsic "sexual prefrence" at all - homosexual or heterosexual during times of stress, but than return to heterosexual behavior. I don't see how these studies answer Nish's original question. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: It seems these two studies contradict each other. One assumes "homosexual behavior" the other "orgies". i don't see how that's a contradiction. if i catch you at an orgy giving someone a BJ, how should i describe it ? Stan Shannon wrote: The bonobos do not seem to have an intrinsic "sexual prefrence" at all - homosexual or heterosexual during times of stress, but than return to heterosexual behavior. one behavior for pleasure or social maintenance, one behavior for breeding and pleasure. if they were people, we'd call them "bi-sexual". perhaps bonobos are simply less rigid in their hetero/homo preferences - perhaps the norm for a bonobo is what we would call bi-sexual. if they could talk, maybe they'd say humans were strange for being so uptight and rigid about sex. but, if you want a clear preference, check out the penguins. Stan Shannon wrote: I don't see how these studies answer Nish's original question. what was the question? the only questions he asked were, i assume, rhetorical. but is homosexuality natural? yes, i think it is. it's not common, directly beneficial to breeding, or easy to explain (but neither is hermaphrodism), but it certainly happens. it can't be a product of our society or our times, because it's happened all through history, in all societies. -c Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Nishant S wrote: The natural conclusion is that homosexuality is an unnatural state of mine :laugh: That Freud can be a real bitch. ;P pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
:laugh: BW CP Member Homepages
"And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun" -
Nishant S wrote: The natural conclusion is that homosexuality is an unnatural state of mine :laugh: That Freud can be a real bitch. ;P pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
sweet. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
I don't disagree with any of that. In fact, I'm told that in many hispanic cultures men freqeuntly engage in what we would call homosexual behavior. But it is the one who assumes the role of the female who is considered homosexual and not the one in the role of the male - he is still considered 'straight'. My only point is that the current political charged definitions regarding homsexuality do not stand up to such observations. The homosexual movement is trying to legitimize itself with phony, or at least questionable, "science". "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: But it is the one who assumes the role of the female who is considered homosexual and not the one in the role of the male - he is still considered 'straight'. :) Yep. As long as you are the one "giving it to" your partner, you are still macho :) Even in prison - the guy doing the raping is straight - the one recieving is the bitch. Stan Shannon wrote: The homosexual movement is trying to legitimize itself with phony, or at least questionable, "science". Yeah - but that is true with all movements. Have you watched the Penn and Teller: Bullshit series on Showtime? It is really good at pointing out the various pseudo-scientific fallacies associated with environmental groups and other movements.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
Nishant S wrote: The natural conclusion is that homosexuality is an unnatural state of mine :laugh: That Freud can be a real bitch. ;P pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
:) Good catch!
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
Guys I am not against homosexuality and I certainly do not have a problem with single-sex marriages being given legal status. But I was just wondering as to homosexuality being natural. Assume homosexuality is a biological thing. But then it's very curious indeed that homosexuality (to my knowledge) is not found among similar mammals to man like apes and monkeys. Now assume it's a mental thing - this is now rather tricky. Because now the genes and hormones are out of it. A person becomes homosexual by discovery. But then it can be argued that he wouldn't have realized his homosexuality had he not already been aware of such a thing. Rather confusing indeed eh? The natural conclusion is that homosexuality is an unnatural state of mine a human being can slip into. Now while we need not think of it as being basically wrong, it's probably very much possible to revert someone's homosexuality by counselling or some such psychiatric treatment. The advantage would be that the person would now be able to do things as the majority of people would be doing. And since there are more heterosexual people out there, he/she has a much bigger pool now from which to choose his/her partner. Obviously this would be a better option for him/her unless he/she really likes to be the odd man out. BTW in my school ( a jesuit catholic school ), three students were suspended in Class 7 for indulging in homosexual activities in the school auditorium during a games break. Their parents were informed, they were severely reprimanded and all 3 of them suffered public humiliation and ended up as the subject of various gay jokes till they passed out of school. So I sorta grew up thinking homosexuality is a mental disease condition. Now, while I personally am not even remotely interested in anything homosexual, and even feel yucky when I think of it; I am fully okay with other people around me - colleagues, friends, family members being gay. Just because I am right-handed, I can't expect everyone else to be right-handed too, can I? Nish
Nish, in terms of gay people, think of it in terms of who they love. I think people focus on the 'sex' part of it and exclude that. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Nishant S wrote: The natural conclusion is that homosexuality is an unnatural state of mine :laugh: That Freud can be a real bitch. ;P pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
He wouldn't be the first... The tigress is here :-D
-
Try googling for the valid scientific research which challenges those theories. Such differences of opinion are common in any trully scientific field. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
I've seen bulls having a go at it. But then again, I'm not a scientiest, so maybe I just imagined the whole thing... :P -- Booohoo!
-
I've seen bulls having a go at it. But then again, I'm not a scientiest, so maybe I just imagined the whole thing... :P -- Booohoo!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: maybe I just imagined the whole thing... Or fantasized about it... sicko!! ;P "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
Guys I am not against homosexuality and I certainly do not have a problem with single-sex marriages being given legal status. But I was just wondering as to homosexuality being natural. Assume homosexuality is a biological thing. But then it's very curious indeed that homosexuality (to my knowledge) is not found among similar mammals to man like apes and monkeys. Now assume it's a mental thing - this is now rather tricky. Because now the genes and hormones are out of it. A person becomes homosexual by discovery. But then it can be argued that he wouldn't have realized his homosexuality had he not already been aware of such a thing. Rather confusing indeed eh? The natural conclusion is that homosexuality is an unnatural state of mine a human being can slip into. Now while we need not think of it as being basically wrong, it's probably very much possible to revert someone's homosexuality by counselling or some such psychiatric treatment. The advantage would be that the person would now be able to do things as the majority of people would be doing. And since there are more heterosexual people out there, he/she has a much bigger pool now from which to choose his/her partner. Obviously this would be a better option for him/her unless he/she really likes to be the odd man out. BTW in my school ( a jesuit catholic school ), three students were suspended in Class 7 for indulging in homosexual activities in the school auditorium during a games break. Their parents were informed, they were severely reprimanded and all 3 of them suffered public humiliation and ended up as the subject of various gay jokes till they passed out of school. So I sorta grew up thinking homosexuality is a mental disease condition. Now, while I personally am not even remotely interested in anything homosexual, and even feel yucky when I think of it; I am fully okay with other people around me - colleagues, friends, family members being gay. Just because I am right-handed, I can't expect everyone else to be right-handed too, can I? Nish
Good post Nisho ! Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
Nish, in terms of gay people, think of it in terms of who they love. I think people focus on the 'sex' part of it and exclude that. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Yes.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
Nish, in terms of gay people, think of it in terms of who they love. I think people focus on the 'sex' part of it and exclude that. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: in terms of gay people, think of it in terms of who they love. I think people focus on the 'sex' part of it and exclude that Then why am I only allowed to love one other person? I can love several people just as much as one! Watch, I can prove it just like those two guys over there can prove how they love one another. How is their love any better then mine? Why does society permit homosexual "civil-unions", but polygamy is frowned upon! :mad: That's blatant discrimination. Where's my lawyer! I smell a lawsuit somewhere! X| ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
start -
Guys I am not against homosexuality and I certainly do not have a problem with single-sex marriages being given legal status. But I was just wondering as to homosexuality being natural. Assume homosexuality is a biological thing. But then it's very curious indeed that homosexuality (to my knowledge) is not found among similar mammals to man like apes and monkeys. Now assume it's a mental thing - this is now rather tricky. Because now the genes and hormones are out of it. A person becomes homosexual by discovery. But then it can be argued that he wouldn't have realized his homosexuality had he not already been aware of such a thing. Rather confusing indeed eh? The natural conclusion is that homosexuality is an unnatural state of mine a human being can slip into. Now while we need not think of it as being basically wrong, it's probably very much possible to revert someone's homosexuality by counselling or some such psychiatric treatment. The advantage would be that the person would now be able to do things as the majority of people would be doing. And since there are more heterosexual people out there, he/she has a much bigger pool now from which to choose his/her partner. Obviously this would be a better option for him/her unless he/she really likes to be the odd man out. BTW in my school ( a jesuit catholic school ), three students were suspended in Class 7 for indulging in homosexual activities in the school auditorium during a games break. Their parents were informed, they were severely reprimanded and all 3 of them suffered public humiliation and ended up as the subject of various gay jokes till they passed out of school. So I sorta grew up thinking homosexuality is a mental disease condition. Now, while I personally am not even remotely interested in anything homosexual, and even feel yucky when I think of it; I am fully okay with other people around me - colleagues, friends, family members being gay. Just because I am right-handed, I can't expect everyone else to be right-handed too, can I? Nish
Nishant S wrote: they were severely reprimanded and all 3 of them suffered public humiliation and ended up as the subject of various gay jokes till they passed out of school. So I sorta grew up thinking homosexuality is a mental disease condition. You grew up right then! Nishant S wrote: I am not against homosexuality and I certainly do not have a problem with single-sex marriages being given legal status. You should be. Why should they be given "legal-status", but I can only have 1 wife? I can love 12 people just as much as 2 guys love one another, and I can prove it just as validly as they can. Now the fixation on 2 people is totally arbitrary, why not leagalize group marriages? Why is incest wrong? Incest is no more wrong than homosexuality and if you even attempt to bring the Bible or moraliy into it, the argument blows away in the wind. ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
start -
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: maybe I just imagined the whole thing... Or fantasized about it... sicko!! ;P "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
Moooooooo! ;P -- Booohoo!
-
Citations please. [edit] Observations used to indicate that the sun went around the earth, but fortunantly, there were those who challanged those initial - politically charged - conclusions. [\edit] "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
There is a difference between observations about the sun and the earth and a pair of monkeys having sex. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
Trollslayer wrote: in terms of gay people, think of it in terms of who they love. I think people focus on the 'sex' part of it and exclude that Then why am I only allowed to love one other person? I can love several people just as much as one! Watch, I can prove it just like those two guys over there can prove how they love one another. How is their love any better then mine? Why does society permit homosexual "civil-unions", but polygamy is frowned upon! :mad: That's blatant discrimination. Where's my lawyer! I smell a lawsuit somewhere! X| ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
startNitron wrote: but polygamy is frowned upon Not by me. I made a point about pluralised unions the last time we had the whole civil unions debate. The gist of it was: a) There's no excuse to hold back the rights of one group (gays wanting to marry) because resolving the rights of another (polyamourists) is more complicated. b) Polygamy is traditionally associated with One Lucky Guy and his wives - who don't get to veto any additional ones. This cannot be considered just. A pluralistic marriage where all people consent to be legally bound to the others isn't a problem, just more complicated (because dissolving those relationships gets exponentially harder as you increase the number involved). c) Existing legal stuff, employment benefits, etc are detailed with a single partner in mind. Making that apply for homosexual relationships is easy. Making that apply for relationships where there are multiple partners :rolleyes:
Ian Darling "If we've learned anything from history, it's that those who feed trolls are condemned to repetitive conversations. Or something like that." - Eric Lippert
-
There is a difference between observations about the sun and the earth and a pair of monkeys having sex. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
Interpreting observations to support some preconceived belief system, whether orbiting planets or sexual activity among primates is all to common through out history. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."