Homosexuality is not natural and is not normality

[Robert.Evans]

Design requires a designer, but everything we know about life shows that what we describe as "design" is shorthand for function created by adaptation by way of natural selection.

Why does design require a designer?
Do we not see design everywhere?
But where does this process of natural selection come from?
Who is to say it is not evolving from something already known?
And you said that the body is not designed to do anything and yet we can see that it is. Surely you don't think it is shere luck? Presumably you think mechanisms and processes were involved, but from where do they come?

 

[sojourner]

Perhaps I should rephrase?
Homosexuality is not normal sexual behavior to me.
I'm heterosexual, ergo same gender sex isn't natural or normal in my
world view.
I don't care about homosexual behavior as it affects me not in the least.
Anyone care to pic the nit some more?

Yes. "Homosexuality is not the right sexual orientation for me."

 

[gsa]

Why does design require a designer?
Do we not see design everywhere?
But where does this process of natural selection come from?
Who is to say it is not evolving from something already known?
And you said that the body is not designed to do anything and yet we can see that it is. Surely you don't think it is shere luck? Presumably you think mechanisms and processes were involved, but from where do they come?

There are parameters, sometimes described as "laws" but really just constraints on movement. It is no different than the flow of water being impeded and "directed" by geological barriers. Anyway, if you are claiming that there is some "purpose" behind nature which renders some acts "natural" and some acts "unnatural," just say so and don't beat around the bush. And of course, I'd ask for some evidence to substantiate this argument.

 

[Jumi]

No we do not see design everywhere. What survives isn't "luck" but what works when you subject it to over millions of years of natural world. And sometimes we see throwbacks that no longer work in our current environment. Think of the tailbone.

 

[Ultimatum]

Technically, it most certainly is NOT absolute necessary for "any" species

Naturally and evolutionarily, of course it is.

, and more to the point, only procreation is necessary for "the survival of any species,"

Of course.

but not necessarily a sufficient condition. The idea of species selection is also very controversial. Evolution has no apparent goal or aim.

Naturally, of course it is a sufficient condition.


Please try to keep things in context here, gsaseeker. I'm being very careful and selective with the words that I am using.

 

[Estro Felino]

Therefore, homosexual sex is perfectly normal and natural, because it's a bonding experience that heterosexual people can still relate to.

Of course it is absolutely normal that two gay men feel the urge to make love to each other, and to do whatever they like in bed-
I would never dare comment what they do in bed.

the problem is that straight people have, potentially, much more possibilities to create a perfect and healthy sex life together.
that's the truth. and denying it, means to neglect gay people and the disadvantages deriving from their condition

 

[Ultimatum]

Then let the heterosexuals take care of that little task. Ever heard of "overpopulation?

The conceptual process of natural selection doesn't care for overpopulation

 

[Ultimatum]

Then let the heterosexuals take care of that little task. Ever heard of "overpopulation?

Also, we are too far from overpopulation to worry about this. If everyone stood side-by-side, they would only fill up a small US state.
The problem is overconsumption, which is separate to the argument.

 

[gsa]

Naturally and evolutionarily, of course it is.

As you acknowledge elsewhere, there are species that do not sexually reproduce. Hence my "technically" point.

Naturally, of course it is a sufficient condition.

I disagree. The ability to reproduce will not ensure species survival standing alone. Eating and avoiding death long enough to reach reproductive maturity is quite important, particularly for hominids.

Please try to keep things in context here, gsaseeker. I'm being very careful and selective with the words that I am using.

You are certainly being more careful than the OP.

 

[dust1n]

Wrong. Even homosexuals know that MALE/FEMALE procreation, evolutionarily, is absolutely necessary for the survival of any species.

Any species? Most species don't even have genders.

 

[Ultimatum]

And gays can reproduce for that matter

Wrong. Naturally and evolutionarily (note the specific wording), human homosexual relations cannot produce offspring, which is my point.

The problem with Hay85 and the others is that they are imposing backwards "natural law" arguments onto a debate over societal treatment of homosexuality. But those conventions are theological, not biological.

"And the others" probably includes me, right?
In that case, you are completely wrong. I see homosexuals just the same as everyone else. I'm not religious and have no theological view.

Of course, that means that they would be engaged in "unnatural" lifestyles, using contraceptives or other techniques designed to avoid reproduction.

Separate discussion.

There's a lot of things that are not natural, humans driving cars, flying in an airplane, smoking and on and on........and what is "normal", something that is normal to one culture may not be normal for another

Separate discussion.

Here's another problem: The body is not designed to do anything. The body is the product of billions of years of evolution, through the mechanism of natural selection. The body has functions within the limits of these parameters, but design implies a designer, and there's no evidence that this is by design.

The female vagina has developed over the ages to accommodate the human penis: therefore this is the vagina's function: to accommodate for and start life.
The anus, for example, is not meant to accommodate the penis or start life.

If you think gay sex is unnatural because it does not have a reproductive function, then you have limited "natural" sex to reproductive sex, which is a very small piece of the pie. You are also calling into question the "naturalness" of the human body itself, since there are vestiges that have no modern function. Does that make humans unnatural? No, that's absurd.

Evolutionarily and naturally, the only reason the vagina is there is for procreation. Note the specific wording.
Natural selection NEEDS the biologic process of reproduction to be a biological fact.

But for a species as dominant as ours it doesn't matter if even more humans were gay or asexual. I don't think we are even evolving at this point since most can reproduce.

Separate discussion.

But the point is dumb. If you believe this, then only one action is "natural," and that is vaginal intercourse with the possibility of procreation. Any other activity is rendered "unnatural," including vaginal sex with contraceptives or condoms, oral sex, etc.

Used this way, most sexual behavior is unnatural. Which is ridiculous.

I have used the words "evolutionarily" and "naturally" throughout this thread. Verily, it seems that you want to find conflict with me!

 

[Riverwolf]

Of course it is absolutely normal that two gay men feel the urge to make love to each other, and to do whatever they like in bed-
I would never dare comment what they do in bed.

Why?

the problem is that straight people have, potentially, much more possibilities to create a perfect and healthy sex life together.
that's the truth. and denying it, means to neglect gay people and the disadvantages deriving from their condition

There's no such thing as a "perfect" sex life. A healthy sex life is one where everyone involved is consenting to everything happening; it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the amount of holes involved.

I would never claim that homosexual people have the potential for the exact same experiences that heterosexual people have. But that's not really a disadvantage unless you allow it to be one. Creativity shines brightest when limitations are imposed.

 

[Ultimatum]

As you acknowledge elsewhere, there are species that do not sexually reproduce. Hence my "technically" point.

I acknowledge this. But I talk in reference to humans.

I disagree. The ability to reproduce will not ensure species survival standing alone. Eating and avoiding death long enough to reach reproductive maturity is quite important, particularly for hominids.

For humans, ensuring the species' survival lies in reproduction. Whether or not you are a great survivor is a separate discussion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I just feel it is unnatural that specific actions and use of artificial things (for gratification rather than protection purposes) we do that our biological body is not made for is unnatural. Other than that, it's up to the personal preference, religious views, and individual morals to decide what they feel is right when displaying other forms of intimacy.

But the point is dumb. If you believe this, then only one action is "natural," and that is vaginal intercourse with the possibility of procreation. Any other activity is rendered "unnatural," including vaginal sex with contraceptives or condoms, oral sex, etc.

Used this way, most sexual behavior is unnatural. Which is ridiculous.

 

[gsa]

For humans, ensuring the species' survival lies in reproduction. Whether or not you are a great survivor is a separate discussion.

Evolution is not about the survival of species. Species are taxonomic categories, mutable blips in deep time. Evolution is a description of things that happen, and in the aggregate this includes species level impacts. In reality, it is all about the survival of an organism and its successful reproduction. Which is why any gay person who reproduces, in any way (i.e., sperm donation) is indistinguishable from this vantage point, from a heterosexual who reproduces.

What Hay is describing is normative. You don't seem to be making the same argument, but I don't agree that evolution is about species survival. There's a much better argument that it is about DNA survival.

 

[dust1n]

Addendum: Well not most, I'm not actually sure how to go about finding that out... but a significant portion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I take it that when you refer to gay people not being able to "compliment" each other, you're referring to femininity and masculinity? There's feminine gay men and masculine gay men. Same with lesbians.

 

[Uberpod]

Wrong. Naturally and evolutionarily (note the specific wording), human homosexual relations cannot produce offspring, which is my point.

Okay, but homosexuals can reproduce.

The female vagina has developed over the ages to accommodate the human penis: therefore this is the vagina's function: to accommodate for and start life. The anus, for example, is not meant to accommodate the penis or start life.

"The male vagina" has often been mistaken as a female vagina, as in the case of Madam Butterfly. What does that tell you about how uniquely it is designed?

Evolutionarily and naturally, the only reason the vagina is there is for procreation. Note the specific wording.
Natural selection NEEDS the biologic process of reproduction to be a biological fact.

Do you deny that sex acts may serve a wider array of purposes? Most sex acts in humans are not preformed for procreation by far. What does that tell you about purpose?

 

[Jumi]

Separate discussion.

Not really. I don't know why you replied if you wanted to avoid discussion.

 

[Sunstone]

I think we can settle this argument once and for all by taking a closer look at evolution.

I am a firm and staunch believer that evolution is about the survival of the orgasm and its replication. Therefore, multiple orgasms, however achieved, are what we evolved for. I myself have no problem with this, except that I find my desire these days now that I'm 58 begins to wane after six or seven orgasms a day. I have found, however, that additional orgasms can be accomplished by imagining MysticSang'ha in various yoga positions. So far as I can see, this is perfectly natural. QED: There's nothing wrong with evolutionary theory when it comes to the survival of the orgasm.