Political Crossfire Forums

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6788 Location: Ohio

I was referring to the fact that homosexuality is not biologically correct.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5586 Location: Fulton, Ks

Well homosexual sex may not be "biologically correct" in the sense that they cannot reproduce, but in that case sex while a woman isn't ovulating isn't biologically correct as it wouldn't be possible to reproduce without an egg. my feeling (and this is just speculation as there obviously isn't any real facts on the subject) is that homosexuality has nothing to do with biology. Just like you liking your favorite kind of food isn't biological. Liking ice cream isn't embedded in your DNA.

Next about being P.C., there's a difference between not being politically correct and saying someone is f****d up.

Being in a minority doesn't mean anything is f***ed up, or else your obviously f***ed up for posting on PCF since most of the population doesn't post here. Why do you enjoy debating? most people don't like getting in arguments, so are you f***ed up biologically?

EugenicHegemony · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 4658

Demonic Spoon wrote: Homosexuality is biologically wrong. That's a fact. Sex is for reproduction, and attraction is ment to aid in that.

EugenicHegemony wrote: See, that's why I made this thread. It's supposed be 100% natural, and people such as yourself see it as ' biologically wrong' or 'f****d up'. If it is 100% natural and homosexuals are not to procreate then it would follow that they'd all be sterile by natural planned design.

Demonic Spoon wrote: A hormonal imbalance in the brain, causing homosexuality, would not affect the production of eggs/sperm.

EugenicHegemony wrote: Ah, and it's supposed to be 100% natural, ergo no, "hormonal imbalance in the brain causing homosexuality". If it's all 100% natural, and this is as natural as the color of your eyes, then it would follow that sterilization of homosexuals would also be a 100% natural, and all would be born that way. If they are never to procreate because that's what nature intended then they would all be naturally sterile.

UrielsFyre wrote:

You are attempting to personify nature and biology into a "rational" entity. In addition, you are making the argument that one genetic difference should have compounded effects on seperate biological functions. If, as studies have suggested, homosexuality is due to a difference in cerebral functioning and chemistry it would not stand to reason that the chemistry would be similary altered in the reproductive organs. Blindness does not cause deafness, and neither would mental differences cause sterility.

EugenicHegemony wrote: So then it is a mental thing, and not a natural biological thing. Because if it was a 100% natural biological thing, then all homosexuals would be sterile (lesbians would be barren) as they are not naturally meant to procreate.

floridaguy wrote: Do women who reach metapause become lesbians? By using your logic they must. Or do you think they there could be another reason to have sex other than to procreate? Is that the only reason that straight people have sex?

EugenicHegemony wrote: Sure there are other reasons. That still does not answer my question. No one is denying anyone sexual pleasure of any kind. You don't need to be fertile to have sexual pleasure, never have, and never will. Menopause, and men having nipples has zero bearing on this discussion, and are absurd to even mention. And why aren't any of you polling?

F'losrix

EugenicHegemony wrote: If it's true that you're (man/woman) who's (born) gay by natural design, then why can you procreate? It would seem to me that if you weren't put on this earth to coitus, then you wouldn't even be capable of procreation. Why aren't all homosexuals sterile?
Why are some heterosexuals sterile?

The reason homosexuals aren't sterile is because attraction is more closely linked with the urge for sexual gratification than procreation. Think about it - when you see someone who you find attractive, your first thoughts aren't about making babies, they're about obtaining sexual gratification. The link between sexual gratification and reproduction is fairly loose; reproduction is certainly promoted by this linkage, but it isn't entirely dependent upon it. You don't have to be attracted to someone to make a baby with them; guys aren't necessarily thinking about their partner during sex - sometimes they're fantasizing about someone else. I defy anyone to prove that doing so negates their procreative abilities.

Sexual orientation isn't really about the desire for sexual gratification or a desire to avoid procreation, it's about attraction. The traits to which one feels an attraction might even be argued as not having as much to do with sexual gratification, much less procreation, as one might initially be tempted to think. Does being a redhead endow one with a natural talent for giving sexual gratification, superior to that of a brunette? Just because she (or he) posesses that color of hair? If the answer is 'no', then why do some of us find redheads more attractive (or sexier) than brunettes? Likewise, is a redhead going to be any better at producing children than a brunette? Obviously, there must be something more at work here than just our desires for sexual gratification or to procreate.

In short, the ability of homosexuals to procreate doesn't prove anything one way or the other about whether or not their sexual orientation is a matter of 'natural design'.

Now, we can certainly question whether issues of attraction are dependent upon 'natural design', psychology alone, or are based on a complex interaction of pscyhology, biology and environment. If they're determined by environmental influences, what are those influences? Do those influences operate independent of any biological factors? If not, are those biological factors at all influenced by genetics? It would seem that some attractions/dislikes are more firmly fixed than others. Some are quite fluid, others may shift over long stretches of time, some don't appear to change at all. Is it possible that the reason is because some attractions are more easily influenced by environmental factors while others are more rooted in biology? If an attraction is more or less fixed, when during our development does that occur?

You see, I have a LOT of questions. The causes of attraction are hard to pinpoint because of its subjectivity. We'd like some clear, black & white answers when it comes to the question of sexual orientation, but I feel we aren't going to get them so long as we don't have firm answers about how attractions in general develop and what factors influence that development.

F'losrix · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:42 am Post subject:

EugenicHegemony wrote: If it's all 100% natural, and this is as natural as the color of your eyes, then it would follow that sterilization of homosexuals would also be a 100% natural, and all would be born that way.
Not necessarily - that's a leap of logic.

Quote: If they are never to procreate because that's what nature intended then they would all be naturally sterile.
The only thing you can take away from this, based on what we know of reality, is that nature didn't intend for homosexuals to be sterile; it tells us nothing about whether or not homosexuality is itself natural by design.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8771

EugenicHegemony wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:

You are attempting to personify nature and biology into a "rational" entity. In addition, you are making the argument that one genetic difference should have compounded effects on seperate biological functions. If, as studies have suggested, homosexuality is due to a difference in cerebral functioning and chemistry it would not stand to reason that the chemistry would be similary altered in the reproductive organs. Blindness does not cause deafness, and neither would mental differences cause sterility.

EugenicHegemony wrote: So then it is a mental thing, and not a natural biological thing. Because if it was a 100% natural biological thing, then all homosexuals would be sterile (lesbians would be barren) as they are not naturally meant to procreate.

Again, faulty connection. You are still making the assumption that gay men and women, through some cosmic edict, are not SUPPOSED to procreate. Meaning, that they are recieving some sort of ban on doing so.

And, still, you are making a connection between one physiological system and another. Sexual attraction and orientation have NOTHING to do with the reproductive systems. They are completely seperate.

However, if you feel that it stands to reason that sterility should be a symptom of homosexuality, answer these questions: Since blind people aren't supposed to see, why do they have eyes? If deaf people aren't supposed to hear, why do they have ears? If some people are born sterile, why are they still heterosexual? All of these questions are running under the same faulty assumption that you are making. They are assuming that the inability for a function means that the organs required for said function should not be biologically present.

Homosexuality and reproductive ability are NOT connected.

Sage Orator · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 334

EugenicHegemony wrote: Sure there are other reasons. That still does not answer my question. No one is denying anyone sexual pleasure of any kind. You don't need to be fertile to have sexual pleasure, never have, and never will. Menopause, and men having nipples has zero bearing on this discussion, and are absurd to even mention. And why aren't any of you polling? [/quote]
The point of men having nipples being mentioned is that, if every part of the body were to be used for its "original" purpose then men wouldn't have nipples because we cannot nurse a baby. During menopause you can't do what you were originally meant to do, or at least according to you, so why does it happen? It isn't performing the "original" purpose. Since the women going through menopause can procreate why are they becoming sterile? That's because nature isn't perfect.

EugenicHegemony · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 4658

EugenicHegemony wrote: Sure there are other reasons. That still does not answer my question. No one is denying anyone sexual pleasure of any kind. You don't need to be fertile to have sexual pleasure, never have, and never will. Menopause, and men having nipples has zero bearing on this discussion, and are absurd to even mention. And why aren't any of you polling?

Sage Orator wrote: The point of men having nipples being mentioned is that, if every part of the body were to be used for its "original" purpose then men wouldn't have nipples because we cannot nurse a baby. During menopause you can't do what you were originally meant to do, or at least according to you, so why does it happen? It isn't performing the "original" purpose. Since the women going through menopause can procreate why are they becoming sterile? That's because nature isn't perfect.

Menopause is a natural progression in a womans life cycle. Men having nipples has nothing (never has had anything) to do with breast feeding, and that's why it's not even worth mentioning.

F'losrix · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject:

EugenicHegemony wrote: Men having nipples has nothing (never has had anything) to do with breast feeding, and that's why it's not even worth mentioning.
I disagree - it is worth mentioning. What purpose do nipples on men serve? As another poster pointed out - why do we still have an appendix?

You're basically making an argument that homosexuality can't be natural because if it were, they'd be sterile; the reasoning being that a natural design wouldn't allow for the alleged 'flaw' of someone who is considered unlikely to reproduce nonetheless having the ability to procreate.

Our point - and it IS relevant - is that there are plent of examples of 'features' in humans that are apparently quite naturally occurring but don't seem to fulfill any purpose that would make sense as part of a natural design. Nipples on men is one example.

Moreover, things like attraction, sexual orientation, etc. don't have simple, black & white answers as I've shown in my rather lengthy post above.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see solid logic behind your implied assertion. If you want to break it down premise by premise for us, maybe we can examine it further. Otherwise I'm inclined to think we've completed the task of showing why it does indeed make sense for homosexuals to have procreative abilities.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6788 Location: Ohio

Quote:
Next about being P.C., there's a difference between not being politically correct and saying someone is f****d up.

Being in a minority doesn't mean anything is f***ed up, or else your obviously f***ed up for posting on PCF since most of the population doesn't post here. Why do you enjoy debating? most people don't like getting in arguments, so are you f***ed up biologically?

I leave threads when arguements start, since debating is the purpose. There's a difference.

And homosexuality is "biologically wrong" because sex is a method of reproduction, to ensure the survival of the species. Sexual creatures evolved as a survival mechanism-sexual reproduction is better for large creatures than asexual reproduction, because sexual reproduction allows for more genetic variation, helping the process of evolution and conforming to ones surroundings. You need to understand WHY sexuality evolved-as a method of reproduction. It's not something creatures evolved just for the fun of it.

EugenicHegemony · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 4658

Skeptical Mystic wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Men having nipples has nothing (never has had anything) to do with breast feeding, and that's why it's not even worth mentioning.
I disagree - it is worth mentioning. What purpose do nipples on men serve? As another poster pointed out - why do we still have an appendix?

You're basically making an argument that homosexuality can't be natural because if it were, they'd be sterile; the reasoning being that a natural design wouldn't allow for the alleged 'flaw' of someone who is considered unlikely to reproduce nonetheless having the ability to procreate.

Our point - and it IS relevant - is that there are plent of examples of 'features' in humans that are apparently quite naturally occurring but don't seem to fulfill any purpose that would make sense as part of a natural design. Nipples on men is one example.

Moreover, things like attraction, sexual orientation, etc. don't have simple, black & white answers as I've shown in my rather lengthy post above.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see solid logic behind your implied assertion. If you want to break it down premise by premise for us, maybe we can examine it further. Otherwise I'm inclined to think we've completed the task of showing why it does indeed make sense for homosexuals to have procreative abilities.

Quote: I'm sorry, but I just don't see solid logic behind your implied assertion. If you want to break it down premise by premise for us, maybe we can examine it further. Otherwise I'm inclined to think we've completed the task of showing why it does indeed make sense for homosexuals to have procreative abilities.

I will do my best to 'break it down'.

Quote: I disagree - it is worth mentioning. What purpose do nipples on men serve?

Sexual pleasure

Quote: As another poster pointed out - why do we still have an appendix?

Equilibrium

Quote: You're basically making an argument that homosexuality can't be natural because if it were, they'd be sterile; the reasoning being that a natural design wouldn't allow for the alleged 'flaw' of someone who is considered unlikely to reproduce nonetheless having the ability to procreate.

I hear some here say it's 'natural', and then I hear other's say it's more of a matter of 'brain chemistry'. Psychiatrists have been arguing for years, that it's in the brain. 'Unlikely' is not the word I would use. Homosexuals are not supposed to ever have a sexual attraction to the opposite sex, correct? So, if nature is saying 'homosexuals are only made to have sex with oneanother, because that's what nature has intended' (written in your DNA), then why do they have the capability to inseminate a woman?

They do have it, because it's in the brain, and not a biological phenomenon, is that what you're saying?

Quote: Moreover, things like attraction, sexual orientation, etc. don't have simple, black & white answers as I've shown in my rather lengthy post above.

So then all homosexual people are actually bisexual? Then that would make sense as to them being able to procreate.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5586 Location: Fulton, Ks

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
Next about being P.C., there's a difference between not being politically correct and saying someone is f****d up.

Being in a minority doesn't mean anything is f***ed up, or else your obviously f***ed up for posting on PCF since most of the population doesn't post here. Why do you enjoy debating? most people don't like getting in arguments, so are you f***ed up biologically?

I leave threads when arguements start, since debating is the purpose. There's a difference.

And homosexuality is "biologically wrong" because sex is a method of reproduction, to ensure the survival of the species. Sexual creatures evolved as a survival mechanism-sexual reproduction is better for large creatures than asexual reproduction, because sexual reproduction allows for more genetic variation, helping the process of evolution and conforming to ones surroundings. You need to understand WHY sexuality evolved-as a method of reproduction. It's not something creatures evolved just for the fun of it.
Well homosexual sex may not be "biologically correct" in the sense that they cannot reproduce, but in that case sex while a woman isn't ovulating isn't biologically correct as it wouldn't be possible to reproduce without an egg. my feeling (and this is just speculation as there obviously isn't any real facts on the subject) is that homosexuality has nothing to do with biology. Just like you liking your favorite kind of food isn't biological. Liking ice cream isn't embedded in your DNA.

In addition, many things have been evolved to serve more than one purpose. When you drink to much soda you take a whizz out of the same thing you have sex with.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6788 Location: Ohio

You miss the point. Sex and urination are both NECESSARY functions. Pleasure is not.

Quote: but in that case sex while a woman isn't ovulating isn't biologically correct as it wouldn't be possible to reproduce without an egg.

Technically, no, it's not

Quote: Just like you liking your favorite kind of food isn't biological. Liking ice cream isn't embedded in your DNA
You're right. It's not in your DNA, since it's your BRAIN that controls food cravings and sexual urges. BOTH of those are a result of your brain.

F'losrix · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject:

EugenicHegemony wrote: Homosexuals are not supposed to ever have a sexual attraction to the opposite sex, correct?
Wrong. Do heterosexuals never feel an attraction to the same sex? Just because one feels an attraction, that by itself doesn't make one gay or straight. It's both the ratio of opposite sex/same sex attraction and the depth of feeling attached to those attractions that inform a person of whether they're heterosexual or homosexual. The labels we use for these differences are themselves misleading, as they imply absolutes where there rarely are any.

Quote: So, if nature is saying 'homosexuals are only made to have sex with one another, because that's what nature has intended' (written in your DNA), then why do they have the capability to inseminate a woman?
I'd argue that this isn't what nature is saying, and not what most scientists studying sexuality or even gay people themselves are saying about it for the most part.

It isn't that homosexuals are made to only have sex with members of the same sex. It's that there may be some naturally occurring but unusual and complex interplay of genetics, biology and environment that gives rise to a small minority of people feeling more strongly attracted to their same sex, in a sort of disconnect between attraction and procreation. The problem is that you're approaching this with an expectation that nature conforms to our ideas of logic and reasoning to produce outcomes that always make sense, illustrate a clear purpose, etc. But as I noted before, procreation isn't the basis of attraction. There's the intervening urge for sexual gratification which helps to promote procreation, but does not always have procreation as its singular goal. And, attraction has a lot of other stuff influencing it that doesn't seem to necessarily be linked to procreation, or an end goal resulting from procreation.

For example, if you find leather miniskirts to be a turn on, what argument can you possibly make for that being based on a desire for producing some specific procreative result, different from what you'd hope to get from a woman wearing red silk undies and fishnet stockings? Does what she's wearing determine what kind of baby she's going to produce? Do leather miniskirts produce piano prodigies, for example?

Quote: They do have it, because it's in the brain, and not a biological phenomenon, is that what you're saying?
They have the capability to procreate as a matter of basic human biology. Attraction (and it's subset, sexual orientation) may have roots in our genetics, biology, psychology, reaction to environmental influences or some combination of all of those things. We really just don't know for sure, but we have various scarps of evidence that seem to indicate there is at least some interplay with biology. Biology is obviously largely determined by genetics, but those genetics may themselves be impacted by environmental influences. It's also clear that there is interplay between biology and psychology, and a definite affect upon psychology by the environement.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Attraction is not solely determined on genetics, as far as we know. It is therefore unlikely that sexual orientation is determined solely by genetics (and twin studies bear this out). But that does not mean that there is no genetic or biological component, and it certainly does not mean that sexual orientation is so closely linked to procreation as a matter of genetics or biology that we should expect homosexuals to be sterile.

Quote: Quote: Moreover, things like attraction, sexual orientation, etc. don't have simple, black & white answers as I've shown in my rather lengthy post above.

So then all homosexual people are actually bisexual? Then that would make sense as to them being able to procreate.

Not just homosexual people - nearly all people are thought to experience some degree of bisexual attraction. The great majority are overwhelmingly more heterosexual than homosexual. A small minority are more homosexual than heterosexual. A probably even smaller minority experience nearly equal attraction to either sex.

It's not as if a heterosexual can only experience sexual gratification with persons of the opposite sex. Many if not most may assume that to be the case because they have no great desire and no pressure from society to experience homosexual sex. In fact, they experience a lot of pressure from society discouraging it. Now look at the flip side, being gay. Gay people experience tremendous pressure to conform to society's norms regarding sexual behavior - [b]heterosexual[/i] behavior. It's not so surprising that many gay people experiment with heterosexuality, then. A significant number of gay people enter into heterosexual marriages in hopes that 'practice makes perfect' - that it will change them into heterosexuals so they won't have to continue feeling marginalized as a minority. Some do it having accepted that they're always going to feel gay on the inside no matter what kind of heterosexual behavior they engage in - because they figure there's too much at stake, too much to lose from trying to live openly as a homosexual.

It's important at this point to note that just because a person can experience sexual gratification with either sex, that doesn't mean the emotional portion of that experience will be equally fulfilling with either sex. Nor will having a pleasurable experience change a person's core sexual orientation. Strength of pleasure does not equal strength of attraction or affection.

Does that help?

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5586 Location: Fulton, Ks

Demonic Spoon wrote: You miss the point. Sex and urination are both NECESSARY functions. Pleasure is not. Pleasure is necessary for your mental well being. Being in poor mental health can lead to physical problems (although admittedly i'm reaching here).

Quote:
You're right. It's not in your DNA, since it's your BRAIN that controls food cravings and sexual urges. BOTH of those are a result of your brain. And nothings f***ed up about liking ice cream or likeing the same sex.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6788 Location: Ohio

Biologically, yes there is, because homosexuality prevents the use of a bodily function necessary for survival of the species.

LDA · Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 508 Location: Raleigh, NC

Demonic Spoon wrote: Biologically, yes there is, because homosexuality prevents the use of a bodily function necessary for survival of the species.

Yeah, I agree. It seems like everyone is taking this more personally than they should. I'm not telling you that you don't love someone of the same sex. I've never suggested that. From a purely biological perspective, homosexuals serve no actual purpose. Yes; just like sterile heterosexuals. Biologically, they serve no purpose.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5586 Location: Fulton, Ks

Demonic Spoon wrote: Biologically, yes there is, because homosexuality prevents the use of a bodily function necessary for survival of the species.

Common Misconception, but a misconception none the same. As has been stated numerous times in this thread a homosexual can have kids and a lot of them do. They cannot reproduce TOGETHER, however most of them, like most hetero people, do not have only one partener in a lifetime. Often times another partner is of an oppisite gender.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6788 Location: Ohio

Quote:

Common Misconception, but a misconception none the same. As has been stated numerous times in this thread a homosexual can have kids and a lot of them do. They cannot reproduce TOGETHER, however most of them, like most hetero people, do not have only one partener in a lifetime. Often times another partner is of an oppisite 11111gender.

You miss the point. Attraction is to AID the survival of the species. Gays can have children biologically, yes, but attraction increases the chances of children,

F'losrix · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: Biologically, yes there is, because homosexuality prevents the use of a bodily function necessary for survival of the species.
So do masturbation and birth control. So if you don't have a problem with those things, then I have to assume your problem is with the degree of 'harm' caused by unreproductive homosexuals. Funny that the disrespect and disdain for unreproductive heterosexuals doesn't rise to nearly the same level.

But just how badly does the species need my offspring or that of all the rest of the gay people on the planet for its continued survival? (No doubt some people are glad that I'm not passing down my genes to future generations.)

So go ahead and think I'm f****d up if it makes you feel better about yourself. I think you can pretty well guess what my opinion of you is at this point.