Homosexuality "Sick?"

[Autodidact]

in nature how often do you see two males or two females of any species start a "family" or "raise offspring"? (and im not just referring to the physical impossibility, im talking about the actual raising, and the male/female's role in this affair)......a vast majority of the time its always a male and a female, and the male is almost always the "protector/provider/boss etc." while the female is submissive and stays behind with the little ones.

Apparently you know nothing about Biology. I see that doesn't stop you from sharing your uninformed opinion.

how often do you see a female court a female, or male court a male in nature?

Quite often, actually.

how often do you see the female be the "protector/provider/alpha-female" of the family/offspring. while the male is the submissive one?

Last time I saw a hyena, for example, but what does this have to do with homosexuality?

there is a reason why the term alpha-male is so common in nature.

I suggest that you learn what it means before you use it. Hint: It does not mean dominance over females of the same species.

and again, there are always exceptions to the rule, just like there are exceptions in human society (homosexuals). but at the end of the day the basic male/female couple concept is an overwhelming majority in nature. its just how we are naturally built.

Well, most species on earth are beetles, but that doesn't mean we all have to be beetles.

Most species don't drive cars, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with people doing it.

Are you familiar with the naturalistic fallacy?

 

[Autodidact]

you can blame that on superstitious religious fools, not nature.

Now think really hard, chris. To believe that we all have to be the same, and that people who are different, means you're a superstitious fool. Now read back over your posts. Now think some more. A mirror may help.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

in nature how often do you see two males or two females of any species start a "family" or "raise offspring"? (and im not just referring to the physical impossibility, im talking about the actual raising, and the male/female's role in this affair)......a vast majority of the time its always a male and a female, and the male is almost always the "protector/provider/boss etc." while the female is submissive and stays behind with the little ones.

Here you go.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/74223-gay-penguins.html

 

[J Bryson]

I used to go into "adult" chats and spam them with the gay penguins story under the heading "Hot Gay Action!"

 

[painted wolf]

in nature how often do you see two males or two females of any species start a "family" or "raise offspring"? (and im not just referring to the physical impossibility, im talking about the actual raising, and the male/female's role in this affair)......a vast majority of the time its always a male and a female, and the male is almost always the "protector/provider/boss etc." while the female is submissive and stays behind with the little ones.

You really need an education in biology.
The male is usually a "pretty boy" who does nothing but inseminate the female. He is no more "protector/provider or boss" than he is involved in his offsprings lives.

One third of Lyasian albatross are happy lesbian couples who raise healthy offspring year after year. They only bother with males long enough to get pregnant and then ditch them to share the nesting experience with female mates.
Science News / Two-mommy Bird Nests

10-15% of western gulls form stable female-female pairs and raise eggs together.

Male-male pairs of penguins are known to adopt even to steal eggs from inexperienced hetero-pairs and do a very good job of raising the offspring.

Male-male pairs of Black Swans have been known to form temporary "threesomes" with females then drive her away after she has laid a clutch of eggs.

Honestly single mothers are the most common mammal 'family'. The most common reproductive strategy is to simply lay'em and leave'em. Neither parent cares a whit about the kids.

wa:do

 

[MidnightSun]

I think it's a case that somehow straight people might be influenced to suddenly become gay and the world will come to an end.....I couldn't care less about homosexuality, but I do get a quiver in my stomach when I see guys kissing.....and what's with all the mincing about? Just me......

How would that end the world?
Well for Christians, it would I guess...haha.

I don't see anything bad with guy's kissing but girls kissing just isn't something I'd like to see everyday. I guess that's because I'm female, yes.

 

[painted wolf]

I almost forgot... that manliest of manly animals the lion is often also quite happily homosexual.

It's rare that a single male lion runs a pride... more often it's a pair or more of brothers who team up to defend territory. Quite often those brothers engage in more than the rare sexual act with one another... you know, to keep close to one another.

wa:do

 

[cristheseeker]

Hair variations and dominant limb variations appear in nature, but when people are ostracized for this, it is due to superstitious religious fools.

Homosexuality appears in nature, but when people are ostracized for this, it is due to it being unnatural.

Just so you know:

Homosexuality is slightly less common than left-handedness among humans, and slightly more common than redheadedness. Therefore, your appeal to numbers is even less relevant, unless you want to include all genetic variations within the same numerical range as being equally "wrong".

there is a clear distinction here, being homosexual is not the same as being left handed, having a certain skin/hair tone/color etc.

it is not unnatural to look a certain way. (red hair, skin color etc.)

something unnatural/abnormal, is defined as "unnatural/abnormal " because it is something that a vast majority of humans/animals are not.

dwarfs are unnatural/abnormal. someone born with authism or any other mental/psychological or even physical "disease" , or physical abnormality such as missing/or having extra limbs is unnatural/abnormal, a homosexual is also considered unnatural/abnormal because he/she was born with an "abnormality, or imbalance" in hormones (or however it can be biologically explained) a vast majority of us are not subject to any of these conditions, and so we consider them unnatural/abnormalities. but if we were, then we would consider them normal/natural, just like we consider a variety of skin/hair colors natural.

and by the way, while i do believe that many homosexuals were born that way, i also believe that a majority of homosexuals choose/chose the lifestyle. so lets not jump on the "oh, those poor homosexuals, they have no choice in the matter, they were just born that way, just like i was born black/white/brown/yellow etc. bandwagon

 

[Green Gaia]

and by the way, while i do believe that many homosexuals were born that way, i also believe that a majority of homosexuals choose/chose the lifestyle. so lets not jump on the "oh, those poor homosexuals, they have no choice in the matter, they were just born that way, just like i was born black/white/brown/yellow etc. bandwagon

Yeah, all of us queer folk have a choice to make: to live openly as who we are (queer), or we can choose to hide, lie and pretend to be something we are not (straight). Which would you choose? Which do you think we should choose?

 

[no_spoon]

something unnatural/abnormal, is defined as "unnatural/abnormal " because it is something that a vast majority of humans/animals are not.

This may be a true statement but I don't see the relevance to the thread. Or are you saying anything unnatural/abnormal is a sickness (see title of thread)?

Genius is abnormal, as is the ability to run a 4 minute mile. I don't see those attributes as being "sick".

So what your statement boils down to is that you feel that certain (but not all) less common traits are bad because it's not the way it's supposed to be, but since you personally didn't design the human race, I don't accept you as an expert.

I would also refer you to the many excellent posts up thread, as well as to the wonderful link contained in one of them, for a more thorough treatment of the subject.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I almost forgot... that manliest of manly animals the lion is often also quite happily homosexual.

It's rare that a single male lion runs a pride... more often it's a pair or more of brothers who team up to defend territory. Quite often those brothers engage in more than the rare sexual act with one another... you know, to keep close to one another.

wa:do

They're not much at being the provider either. The females do all the hunting while the male sleeps.

 

[DallasApple]

How would that end the world?
Well for Christians, it would I guess...haha.

Thats not fair..And I dont think its funny either..

Love

Dallas

 

[J Bryson]

there is a clear distinction here, being homosexual is not the same as being left handed, having a certain skin/hair tone/color etc.

it is not unnatural to look a certain way. (red hair, skin color etc.)

something unnatural/abnormal, is defined as "unnatural/abnormal " because it is something that a vast majority of humans/animals are not.

dwarfs are unnatural/abnormal. someone born with authism or any other mental/psychological or even physical "disease" , or physical abnormality such as missing/or having extra limbs is unnatural/abnormal, a homosexual is also considered unnatural/abnormal because he/she was born with an "abnormality, or imbalance" in hormones (or however it can be biologically explained) a vast majority of us are not subject to any of these conditions, and so we consider them unnatural/abnormalities. but if we were, then we would consider them normal/natural, just like we consider a variety of skin/hair colors natural.

and by the way, while i do believe that many homosexuals were born that way, i also believe that a majority of homosexuals choose/chose the lifestyle. so lets not jump on the "oh, those poor homosexuals, they have no choice in the matter, they were just born that way, just like i was born black/white/brown/yellow etc. bandwagon

So much to cover, so I'll stick to a couple of salient points.

You seem to contradict yourself when you state that abnormality is something that a vast number of humans are not, when you just stated that being redheaded is not an abnormality. This despite my showing you numbers that there are more homosexuals than redheads.

I don't recall talking about "poor homosexuals", but I'll let that pass.

There's plenty of evidence out there that homosexuality has a strong genetic component, with some environmental influences playing a part as to whether or not the person acts on these tendencies. Where, outside of rather extreme self-described "Christian" sites, is the scientific evidence that it is a choice?

 

[invisible chzbrgr]

This may be a true statement but I don't see the relevance to the thread. Or are you saying anything unnatural/abnormal is a sickness (see title of thread)?

Genius is abnormal, as is the ability to run a 4 minute mile. I don't see those attributes as being "sick".

So what your statement boils down to is that you feel that certain (but not all) less common traits are bad because it's not the way it's supposed to be, but since you personally didn't design the human race, I don't accept you as an expert.

I would also refer you to the many excellent posts up thread, as well as to the wonderful link contained in one of them, for a more thorough treatment of the subject.

^^There are so many who deserve fruballs in this thread, I have to say. Hope my fruballizationatorizors are enacted soon so I can show my appreciation.:clap

 

[cristheseeker]

This may be a true statement but I don't see the relevance to the thread. Or are you saying anything unnatural/abnormal is a sickness (see title of thread)?

Genius is abnormal, as is the ability to run a 4 minute mile. I don't see those attributes as being "sick".

So what your statement boils down to is that you feel that certain (but not all) less common traits are bad because it's not the way it's supposed to be, but since you personally didn't design the human race, I don't accept you as an expert.

I would also refer you to the many excellent posts up thread, as well as to the wonderful link contained in one of them, for a more thorough treatment of the subject.

something unnatural/abnormal is neither bad nor good. im not saying homosexuals are better or worse than heterosexuals, im just saying they are abnormal/unnatural human beings simply because of statistics(concepts people agree/disagree on)

if a majority of people were born homosexual, then heterosexual human beings would be considered unnatural/abnormal.

if a majority of us were dwarfs, then that would be considered natural/normal.

but that is just not the reality we live in.

take any word for example. the primary definition of that word is one that a majority of people agree with. now that definition might be accurate, it might be inaccurate, but it is accepted as "truth" or "accurate" in the society/reality in which it was defined.


so the title of this thread is "Homosexuality "Sick?" my answer was, maybe yes, maybe no, but one thing is for sure, it is unnatural/abnormal in the reality we live in.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

there is a clear distinction here, being homosexual is not the same as being left handed, having a certain skin/hair tone/color etc.

it is not unnatural to look a certain way. (red hair, skin color etc.)

Is it unnatural to dye one's hair? Is it unnatural to change one's cloths (Or, in fact, to wear any clothes at all)? Is it unnatural to build, or to destroy? Is it unnatural to understand life and death?

something unnatural/abnormal, is defined as "unnatural/abnormal " because it is something that a vast majority of humans/animals are not.

Are people with albinism natural? By your above definition, looking a certain way is not unnatural. But by your other definition, if the majority of humans are not albino, then they are unnatural. Can you determine this for me?

Studies approximate that around 5% of the world's population are known to be homosexual. Estimating the world's population at around 6 billion, that's 300 million people. That's quite a lot of people. Less than 1% of the population are Jews, and even less than that are Sikhs. Are Sikhs and Jews 'unnatural'?

dwarfs are unnatural/abnormal. someone born with authism or any other mental/psychological or even physical "disease" , or physical abnormality such as missing/or having extra limbs is unnatural/abnormal, a homosexual is also considered unnatural/abnormal because he/she was born with an "abnormality, or imbalance" in hormones (or however it can be biologically explained) a vast majority of us are not subject to any of these conditions, and so we consider them unnatural/abnormalities. but if we were, then we would consider them normal/natural, just like we consider a variety of skin/hair colors natural.

and by the way, while i do believe that many homosexuals were born that way, i also believe that a majority of homosexuals choose/chose the lifestyle. so lets not jump on the "oh, those poor homosexuals, they have no choice in the matter, they were just born that way, just like i was born black/white/brown/yellow etc. bandwagon

I still fail to understand why it matters? If you wouldn't discriminate against a dwarf or an autistic or physically handicapped person why would you have a different attitude towards homosexuals. It's certainly true that people can choose to be homosexual, but again: why does it matter. Is it affecting you? Unless you have a strong religious belief that the presence of homosexuality is bad for you, then I fail to see the problem...

GhK.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

there is a clear distinction here, being homosexual is not the same as being left handed, having a certain skin/hair tone/color etc.

it is not unnatural to look a certain way. (red hair, skin color etc.)

something unnatural/abnormal, is defined as "unnatural/abnormal " because it is something that a vast majority of humans/animals are not.

That might work as a definition of "abnormal", but "abnormal" doesn't necessarily imply "bad".

And "unnatural" refers to things that don't occur naturally. All the examples you gave occur naturally, and are therefore natural... but again, by itself, this doesn't imply "good" or "bad".

The frequency with which a trait occurs doesn't imply anything about whether it's positive or negative; that determination has to be justified on its own merits, and so far, you've failed to do that.

and by the way, while i do believe that many homosexuals were born that way, i also believe that a majority of homosexuals choose/chose the lifestyle. so lets not jump on the "oh, those poor homosexuals, they have no choice in the matter, they were just born that way, just like i was born black/white/brown/yellow etc. bandwagon

Are you saying that the only thing stopping you from adopting a homosexual lifestyle is a conscious, deliberate choice on your part?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

take any word for example. the primary definition of that word is one that a majority of people agree with. now that definition might be accurate, it might be inaccurate, but it is accepted as "truth" or "accurate" in the society/reality in which it was defined.

Such as the words "abnormal" and "unnatural", which you seem to have chosen your own personal definitions for.

so the title of this thread is "Homosexuality "Sick?" my answer was, maybe yes, maybe no, but one thing is for sure, it is unnatural/abnormal in the reality we live in.

By the definitions of "unnatural" and "abnormal" you've used in this thread, the following are all unnatural and abnormal as well:

- Christians
- Europeans
- South Americans
- North Americans
- Africans
- in the US, registered Republicans
- in the US, registered Democrats
- in the US, registered independents
- in the context of humanity, males
- in the context of animals generally, anything other than beetles
- in the context of life as a whole, anything other than bacteria

I think you get the idea.

 

[Spiritone]

But it's NOT obviously wrong, like killing and raping, so how do you justify lumping it in with them?

You are right. I did not clearly express what I wanted to say. So I'll compare homosexuality (when seen as a problem) to alcoholism. It is something some people are born with and decide how to handle it. There are also many other non-heterosexual "serious hang-ups" that do damage others and have to be restrained as much as possible.
I'll quote something interesting from the Gnostic Gospels. Jesus said, "Male must become female and female must become male."
Puzzling isn't it?

 

[cristheseeker]

That might work as a definition of "abnormal", but "abnormal" doesn't necessarily imply "bad".

ive already said, in my above post that something unnatural/abnormal is neither good nor bad, it is simply that, unnatural.

Are you saying that the only thing stopping you from adopting a homosexual lifestyle is a conscious, deliberate choice on your part?

for me, and other people like me who were not born gay, yes, the only thing stopping us is our consciousness. but our consciousness is also defined by our physical bodies(hormones etc.)