Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin?

[sojourner]

False, there's not a single solitary mammal that exibits exclusive homosexuality, other than humans.

There is not a single solitary mammal that exhibits exclusive ability to play the pinao either... other than humans.

 

[Masourga]

Homosexuality is actually common when it comes to other animals as well. It has nothing to do with our changed living condition.

But, do they choose a mate and retain their homosexuality for the long haul?

That does not mean homosexuality is unnatural.

I've read and seen videos on a particular species of wasp, the male members of which, just after having sex with a female mate, will do the female dance of their kind that shows readiness/willingness to pro-create so that he can attract the attention of any nearby males, who will assail him and attempt to have sex with him. It is said that he does this so that these other males leave the true female alone, and so his seed will be the most likely to reach the egg of the female. The wasp knows that the copulation occurring with the other male is not natural, and will therefore yield no results. That is exactly why he does it.

Which also means it would be a naturally occuring way for nature to "trim the population".

Ahh... but it would only be a way to "trim the population" because it does not produce more individuals of our kind - because the parts don't jive according to nature. So, in a way, a naturally occurring method of defying the natural use of our reproductive organs. Much like the wasp mentioned above.

So now free will and the ability to choose is unnatural? Besides, homosexuality is not a matter of choice.

I never said it was a matter of choice. Neither are things like diabetes... down syndrome... conjoined twins... etc. etc. etc. But it doesn't make those things good for humanity as a species. And the natural order would have that a species propagate to the greatest of it's potential. That is what we all strive for even if we don't know it. And that is nature. We choose our mates based on a level of attraction... it is a sub-conscious effort to make sure that our seed creates the best possible combination and produces fruitful off-spring. For goodness sake, why do you think even gay people have sex?? It is because of their in-born desire to procreate. The fact that it is pleasurable is only a foot-note at the base of a huge instinct to reproduce more members of the species. But, the fact that homosexual reproduction hits a brick wall in that arena is the only point I am trying to make. Despite any "natural" tendency toward homosexual behavior, they will never "naturally" be able to achieve what their bodies are telling them they want.

I was trying to refrain from making this point also, because it is somewhat crude, and will probably offend. But an anus was not built for entry by a penis... or entry by anything, let's be honest. There are no reproductive organs within the rectum, or in the mouth. Mouth to penis, and mouth to vagina intercourse are not the natural form. They are obviously things that are possible... but it's certainly not the purpose either instrument was designed/evolved for. You can say all you want that homosexuality doesn't always involve sex. But to a greater degree than not, I would say that it does. Especially in men, who still have the higher sex-drive... the in-born desire fueled by the instinct to procreate. I mean, seriously, what percentage of homosexuals do you honestly think aren't having sex?

The sad thing is, you all understand perfectly what I am getting at.

 

[Kurt31416]

There is not a single solitary mammal that exhibits exclusive ability to play the pinao either... other than humans.

Good, it's resolved that no mammal exhibits exclusive homosexuality except humans. That's progress.

Now, it's a question of whether "natural" applies to animals being unable to play the piano the same way as all mammals' sex lives.

 

[Madhuri]

Yep, bonobos are obsessed with sex. But no mammals are exclusively homosexual.

No animals really, but someone is bound to bring up the famous two homosexual penguins, as if tormented penguins in a cage would exhibit natural behavior.

WHat do you mean by exclusive?

 

[Kurt31416]

WHat do you mean by exclusive?

Having sex by preference only with the same sex.

 

[Madhuri]

Having sex by preference only with the same sex.

Oh right, duh to me. (I'm quite sleepy)

 

[Kurt31416]

But of course, the Golden Rule says we should be tolerant as long as it's not hurting anyone else.

 

[Madhuri]

But of course, the Golden Rule says we should be tolerant as long as it's not hurting anyone else.

I believe that homosexuality in many is natural, even if it is only a phenomenon exhibited in humans. And I do agree with your statement here.

 

[Kerr]

I don't have to prove the negative. If you think Elephants have exclusively homosexual relationships, you need to demonstrate it. I say it doesn't exist. Do elephant, human, bonobo, etc. have same sex friends and allies for life? Of course.

If you want to convince me you do. Even though it is a memory of something I read in a magazine (think it was National Geographic) for a few years ago, I am sure of it.

 

[Kerr]

I believe that homosexuality in many is natural, even if it is only a phenomenon exhibited in humans. And I do agree with your statement here.

True. The natural behaviour of one species is not neccesarily the natural behaviour of another species. And as far as I know, homosexuality is as common now as before, when it was harsher out there. So I think it is natural for us.

 

[Kerr]

But, do they choose a mate and retain their homosexuality for the long haul?

As I mentioned before, I have a memory of elephants sometimes doing that. Other then that, that we do not know something means we do not know. It may or may not happen, depending on the species, but if we do not know of it happening does not mean it happens or do not happen. Personally I doubt it would not happen.

I've read and seen videos on a particular species of wasp, the male members of which, just after having sex with a female mate, will do the female dance of their kind that shows readiness/willingness to pro-create so that he can attract the attention of any nearby males, who will assail him and attempt to have sex with him. It is said that he does this so that these other males leave the true female alone, and so his seed will be the most likely to reach the egg of the female. The wasp knows that the copulation occurring with the other male is not natural, and will therefore yield no results. That is exactly why he does it.

Humans are not wasps .

Ahh... but it would only be a way to "trim the population" because it does not produce more individuals of our kind - because the parts don't jive according to nature. So, in a way, a naturally occurring method of defying the natural use of our reproductive organs. Much like the wasp mentioned above.

Exactly. It does not produce more individuals (ok, to be fair this is not true), which is a good safeguard to overpopulation. Imagine how the world would look if people only where hetrosexual sex-maniacs... and we think the world is overpopulated as it it!

Besides, I do not think it is a defience against the natural use of our reproductive organs. If it where, we all defy nature. Including animals.

I never said it was a matter of choice. Neither are things like diabetes... down syndrome... conjoined twins... etc. etc. etc. But it doesn't make those things good for humanity as a species. And the natural order would have that a species propagate to the greatest of it's potential. That is what we all strive for even if we don't know it. And that is nature. We choose our mates based on a level of attraction... it is a sub-conscious effort to make sure that our seed creates the best possible combination and produces fruitful off-spring. For goodness sake, why do you think even gay people have sex?? It is because of their in-born desire to procreate. The fact that it is pleasurable is only a foot-note at the base of a huge instinct to reproduce more members of the species. But, the fact that homosexual reproduction hits a brick wall in that arena is the only point I am trying to make. Despite any "natural" tendency toward homosexual behavior, they will never "naturally" be able to achieve what their bodies are telling them they want.

I was trying to refrain from making this point also, because it is somewhat crude, and will probably offend. But an anus was not built for entry by a penis... or entry by anything, let's be honest. There are no reproductive organs within the rectum, or in the mouth. Mouth to penis, and mouth to vagina intercourse are not the natural form. They are obviously things that are possible... but it's certainly not the purpose either instrument was designed/evolved for. You can say all you want that homosexuality doesn't always involve sex. But to a greater degree than not, I would say that it does. Especially in men, who still have the higher sex-drive... the in-born desire fueled by the instinct to procreate. I mean, seriously, what percentage of homosexuals do you honestly think aren't having sex?

The sad thing is, you all understand perfectly what I am getting at.

To be picky, the comment was not directed to you . Could maybe have made it more clear, but it was a response to something Kurt31416 said.

And I understand what you are getting at, I just don´t agree it has anything to do with what is natural or not. It is not meant to be so that we only use them to make more of us. Fact is I am sure homosexuality has its natural reasons to exist, but personally I am not sure I care very much.

 

[Masourga]

I just don´t agree it has anything to do with what is natural or not.

Last thing I'm saying on this, and it is really only regurgitating my previous statements unfortunately... but just the fact that a species of homosexuals would go extinct is enough for me to conclude that it is against the natural order.

For any of you who think that life is not almost entirely about procreating and advancing the species, you're deluding yourself. Nature has no higher calling. Nor will it ever.

 

[Kurt31416]

If you want to convince me you do. Even though it is a memory of something I read in a magazine (think it was National Geographic) for a few years ago, I am sure of it.

Well, if proving the negative is required to convince you, you'll just have to stay unconvinced.

 

[Kerr]

Last thing I'm saying on this, and it is really only regurgitating my previous statements unfortunately... but just the fact that a species of homosexuals would go extinct is enough for me to conclude that it is against the natural order.

For any of you who think that life is not almost entirely about procreating and advancing the species, you're deluding yourself. Nature has no higher calling. Nor will it ever.

You cannot draw that conclusion that homosexuality is unnatural because a species of homosexuality would not survive if you do not know what place homosexuality has in the natural order, and what I have heard it has a natural reason to exist. It is not a matter of higher calling or not.

 

[Kerr]

Well, if proving the negative is required to convince you, you'll just have to stay unconvinced.

We will have to agree to disagree then.

 

[Kurt31416]

Well, one thing we can agree on is that no one's presented any evidence any mammal other than humans are exclusively homosexual.

 

[Kerr]

Or the opposite for that matter. But I did mention one, even if it was a long time ago I read it.

In any case, behaviour from specie to specie is different, so even if you where right it is propobly a natural behaviour for our specie.

 

[Kurt31416]

Mentioning one, is quite a bit different than providing any evidence.

And humans being the only mammal out of all mammals on earth, is a bit different than things varying from species to species.

 

[Autodidact]

Is it unnatural? Of course it is. Anyone who would disagree with that is out of their minds. It may be naturally occurring, but that only means it occurs in nature (obviously), like many other things that occur to species that do not lead to more and more fruitful members thereof... it certainly does not mean that it is the way things are supposed to be. One only needs to question what would happen to our species if the evolution of our kind was toward homosexuality to see that it would quickly extinguish us from the universe. Therefore, the evolution of our kind will never be toward all of us being homosexual - hence it does not follow nature to be homosexual.

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "natural" then, because I would think that "occurring in nature" would be one common definition. What are you using the word to mean?

 

[Kerr]

Mentioning one, is quite a bit different than providing any evidence.

And humans being the only mammal out of all mammals on earth, is a bit different than things varying from species to species.

Yeah, I know it is different, but it is the closest thing anyone of us has come to evidence.

Besides, we humans are quite unique in many ways, not just in this aspect. That we are unique at something like homosexuality (which I do not believe we are) is not a good argument when it comes to it being natural or not.