If you believe homosexuality is wrong because it's not "natural" or seen in nature, would you change your position if that assumption were shown to be wrong? Please read this article and comment. Thanks.

God hates Shrimp all right :-)
+6

• Report

by 23Skidoo on June 17th, 2009

And catfish. It ain't right to hate catfish.

• Report

by xhepera on June 17th, 2009

If rimming counts as sexual activity... 0
:-)
+6

But read the article - you might enjoy it.

• Report

by 23Skidoo on June 17th, 2009

Actually my answer was going to be the same as yours

• Report

by Ailsa on June 17th, 2009

I read it... Brilliant... sorry I had not seen the irony 23Skidoo :))

• Report

by Sn50 on June 17th, 2009

Good answer ,very good :)

• Report

by pingletingle on June 17th, 2009

Agreed. Thanks, Blessed!

• Report

by the Otter on June 17th, 2009

A good answer. But since I have heard this rationale plenty of times I thought I'd ask.

+6

• Report

by 23Skidoo on June 17th, 2009

And excellent point. I just posted this because I have seen that rationale - so I wondered.
.
But thanks +6

• Report

by 23Skidoo on June 17th, 2009

+3 I know. I could see that the wording of the question was carefully chosen.

• Report

by Hyperion is back in China on June 17th, 2009

Well. I, for one, am glad about the public defecation part.
A bit more public nudity wouldn't hurt though :-)
+6

• Report

by 23Skidoo on June 17th, 2009

I agree about the public defecation..it is hard enough cleaning up after my dog!
-
they are working on public nudity...http://www.gotopless.org/ and
http://www.tera.ca/ maybe someday it will again be acceptable here in the USA as it is in Europe now.

• Report

by Thinker on June 17th, 2009

It's just one of the reasons I live here... :-)
Well... not so much the nudity as the more sensible attitude about sex and nudity in general.
:-)

• Report

by 23Skidoo on June 17th, 2009

I keep hoping it will happen here but it hasn't done so yet...

• Report

by Thinker on June 17th, 2009

In the states? Not in our lifetimes.
:-)

• Report

by 23Skidoo on June 17th, 2009

There are a few states allowing top freedom now in some places but it is still an uphill battle.

• Report

by Thinker on June 17th, 2009

During the Janek Jackson tragedy on live TV several years ago they had an evening TV magazine here talking about it. They showed her 2 seconds of (kind of) naked breast that was so tiny it was invisible. They talked for about 20 min about it, American fear and aversion to breasts, your history of puritanism and all that. For about 20 min on normal broadcast TV at maybe 7pm.
.
The entire time, running on the screen behind that news readers they had scenes from high fashion shows featuring runway model all of whom were topless or had on completely see-through tops so bounding nipples and a few bare butts were clearly visible. And this all was contrast to the story about the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave - but utterly without comment.
.
I found it too funny.
.
And they also used to have evening weather delivered by a guy or gal who came onto the set completely naked and slowly dressed appropriately for the prediction. But that was killed off some years ago. (sigh)

• Report

by 23Skidoo on June 17th, 2009

Though sexually explicit nudity (think soft core or harder) is reserved for after 10 or 11 on broadcast TV - even full frontal - male or female - is normal enough for the evening TV movie. It's sometimes still hard to get used too. :-)

• Report

by 23Skidoo on June 17th, 2009

Thanks

• Report

by 23Skidoo on June 17th, 2009

Fair enough +6

• Report

by 23Skidoo on June 17th, 2009

I agree it's subjective. That's why I qualified the question to a subset of people who think it's wrong.

As to evolution, that's nonsense. The vat majority of bees don't reproduce. They are asexual. But they work very hard to enable the queen, who carried their genes, to reproduce.

Homosexuality may have evolved as a means of producing similar reproductively neuter people to help with kids. Or it may be a consequence of some other unrelated gene combination that is unrelated to sexuality but beneficial.

Obviously homosexual reproduction is impossible - that's just a ridiculous premise.

As to applying animal behavior, you're again, absolutely right. But since the set of people addressed by this question already do apply it, it's not relevant here.

• Report

by 23Skidoo on May 15th, 2011

Not following why you brought up bees' asexuality? Reproduction is the most urgent biological initiative there is, which is why it is clear to me that homosexuality is not natural for humans.

• Report

by baysider99 on May 15th, 2011

I brought it up to show that a given individual's reproductive success needn't be important. It's the genes.

Let's say I have a gay brother who help me raise my kids. Each of my kids are likely to carry some of my brother's genes. So, from the gene's POV the gay brother increases the odds of success for our common genes.

Read The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype both by Richard Dawkins.

Homosexuality and reproductively neuter individual is natural for a very great many species including humans.

• Report

by 23Skidoo on May 15th, 2011

I'm still not following you. Bees successfully reproduce asexually, which shows asexuality it to be natural for them.

I don't see how your theory holds any water since, in reality, homosexuals are less likely to raise their nieces or nephews than the grandmother is. From a realistic standpoint, non-nuclear families produce the best results, with grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins living in close proximity. Aside from not being able to reproduce, I see no species advancement advantage to homosexuality.

your children sincerequire that homosexuality be common. Also, the same could be said about your father, mother, or even a first cousin.

One more thing, if homosexuality is genetically natural, genital to genital copulation would be facilitated.

• Report

by baysider99 on May 15th, 2011

How do you think bees reproduce? :-)

Of course they do so sexually. All multicellular organisms above the level of some molds and fungi do.

If you don't know that - you really need to learn some before getting into a discussion about biology.

And you REALLY need to learn about how evolution works.

BTW - genital to genital copulation does work. It's the way heterosexual couples have productive sex. And it's one of the ways hetero and homo couples enjoy recreational sex. Among lesbians it's called frottage. Among gay men it's sometimes referred to as jousting. And among hetero couples it's making love, screwing, boning, fucking... But just ask any adult gay person... however they call it they enjoy or know someone who enjoys exactly that.

But... please... for your own good go and pick up a decent book or two on evolution, sexual selection, etc. Maybe another suggestion that's a fun one would be Dr Tatianas Sex Advice to All Creation
http://www.drtatiana.com/

Your lack of knowledge of the subject becomes more obvious with every post.

• Report

by 23Skidoo on May 15th, 2011

So, do bees reproduce via homosexuality? Unless you can show that they or any other species does, you simply have nothing to show that homosexuality is natural in humans.

To point out what should have been obvious to you, genital to genital copulation is sexual intercourse, which biology does not allow for same sex couples. You've provided no evidence that homosexuality is natural. I suggest that you quit before you fall further behind (no pun intended).

• Report

by baysider99 on May 15th, 2011

My friend, feel ahead if you like but you've shown you don't understand any of the concepts you discuss.

All hail superiority in ignorance!

• Report

by 23Skidoo on May 16th, 2011

A person who understand the basic concepts wouldn't paint himself into a corner as you have done by making claims without evidence.

But, at least it seems that you're quitting before you fall even further behind.

I know enough to not make claims that there is no evidence for, as you have done. A person who understand the basic concepts wouldn't paint himself into a corner as you have done by making claims without evidence.

• Report

by baysider99 on May 16th, 2011

Did you notice the reading material to which I refereed? You might want to familiarize yourself with it before shooting off.

But you're right. A rational argument stands no chance against an intellect such as yours. I bow before such it.

:-)

• Report

by 23Skidoo on May 16th, 2011

Matter of fack, I did read it, including this statement: "The researchers conclude by warning that we shouldn't necessarily apply human sexual orientation labels to animals."

• Report

by baysider99 on May 17th, 2011

You mentioned that already.

How about:
Read The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype both by Richard Dawkins.

Dr Tatianas Sex Advice to All Creation
http://www.drtatiana.com/

• Report

by 23Skidoo on May 17th, 2011