Re: homosexuality.

Homosexuality is as natural as hetersexuality. Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of species of animals, as well as having been present in humanity as long as history has been recorded.

(Just for example, certain types of naturalist would have to accept ANYTHING that happened as natural, so the word would be virtually meaningless with respect to behavior.)

I would agree. Homosexuality is natural. And even if it weren't, what's the problem? How many things in my life are not natural? My species didn't evolve to do calculations and write word-documents, yet here I am...

This reminds me: food commercials that say their food is "natural", as if that means it's healthful. Newsflash, people... URANIUM is technically natural. Do you want to eat it?

And my point is not to compare homosexuality with eating uranium, of course. My point is that people assume "natural" always equals "something I like".

"My point is that people assume "natural" always equals "something I like""

I don't think that's true. Cockroaches are "natural".

Agreed. The occurrence of homosexuality in our world is surely proof that homosexuality is naturally-occuring and therefore natural.

"Natural Selection" - layman's definition (i.e. mine...) the process by which any species reproduces and passes on the strongest traits in order for said species to continue and thrive.

By this definition, homosexuality is *not* natural, because it does nothing to further along the process of survival and enhancement of the species.

This is not a moral judgement AT ALL...and does not take in to account that, yes, sex can be for pleasure. But from a purely scientific, evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality falls outside the "normal", and is neutral at best, harmful at worst to the species.

The argument is made that homosexuality is "natural" simply because it exists. Then so is murder, because it exists, too, but I doubt there are many advocates for it here. I know...mixing my arguments. So really the question isn't "is it natural"...the questions shoul dbe "is it beneficial". That I wont' answer...

""Natural Selection" - layman's definition (i.e. mine...) the process by which any species reproduces and passes on the strongest traits in order for said species to continue and thrive."

But that's a flawed argument precisely because homosexuals don't reproduce. There is no 'history' of homosexuality in my family, for example, yet I am gay. Homosexuality is natural because it is randomly-occurring and cannot be curtailed by "selection".

"The argument is made that homosexuality is "natural" simply because it exists. Then so is murder, because it exists, too"

That again is incorrect. Homosexuality occurs without the process of choice. Murder is a choice. The invention of the refrigerator has occurred, that does not make it natural.

After a lifetime of observation I have concluded beyond doubt that "natural" can be defined as wasps, ants and the smell of ripe manure one encounters when attempting a romantic picnic.

Trying to apply the word "natural" to anything else is problematic. You could argue that homosexuality is natural because it seems to just sort of happen in human society (in the animal world it gets a tad complicated as some animals just can't tell males from females and adopt a scattergun approach to mating). You could also argue that homophobia is natural on the same basis. Best, therefore, to ignore it all and get on with the picnics.

Krellin: "The argument is made that homosexuality is "natural" simply because it exists. Then so is murder, because it exists, too"

That again is incorrect. Homosexuality occurs without the process of choice. Murder is a choice. The invention of the refrigerator has occurred, that does not make it natural.
Please answer my point.

"Homosexuality occurs without the process of choice"

People (not me) will contest this statement, which I think could be pivotal in arguing whether homosexuality is "natural"

"Natural Selection" - layman's definition (i.e. mine...) the process by which any species reproduces and passes on the strongest traits in order for said species to continue and thrive. By this definition, homosexuality is *not* natural, because it does nothing to further along the process of survival and enhancement of the species."

I challenge your premise. You are not allowed to redefine "natural" because somebody previously used it to help define something called "natural selection."

The "Natural" used in "natural selection" has a different meaning than the "natural" used in Sarg's question, so from a flawed premise, you draw a flawed conclusion.

You are arguing along the same lines as this guy:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2013#comic

I can tell you what is not natural. Almost everything all modern humans do.

YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT 'NATURAL'. DON'T FUCK WITH ME.

Tom Bombadil: "Homosexuality occurs without the process of choice" (Quoting Sargmacher)

Tom Bombadil: "People (not me) will contest this statement, which I think could be pivotal in arguing whether homosexuality is "natural"


Tom, please could you explain what you mean?

Sargmacher, homosexuality is an action driven by a feeling. So is murder. You are wrong.

Also, homosexuality, where it to become the dominant trait of a species, would cause the species to cease to exist, and thus is not a positive aspect of natural selection. It is an aberration of "normal", and can not possibly contribute to the positive progression of a species.

And Sarg....before you get all huffy becuase I didn't answer you immediately...some of us have a real life...and I just got back to the forums. Now answer MY point about how homosexuality AT BEST is neutral for a species, and at worse is destruction, and is therefore wholly against the concept of survival of the fittest.

It's hilarious how you so easily were caught in the murder scenario...showing the faulty nature of your logic.

"Sargmacher, homosexuality is an action driven by a feeling. So is murder. You are wrong."

Only in the same way, then, that sexuality as whole is a feeling. You're getting in to the realm of instincts vs ethics. It's not a black and white issue at all.

" homosexuality, where it to become the dominant trait of a species, would cause the species to cease to exist, and thus is not a positive aspect of natural selection. It is an aberration of "normal", and can not possibly contribute to the positive progression of a species."

But homosexuality is not the dominant trait of the species. Why do neoconservatives always have to resort to hyperbolic hypotheticals to make their logic work?

And I'm still writing my reply to your 'survival of the fittest' comment so please give me a few minutes, lest you get all "huffy" as you say - which I find as pandering to an unhelpful stereotypical characterization at best.

All actions are driven by feeling.

" homosexuality, where it to become the dominant trait of a species, would cause the species to cease to exist, and thus is not a positive aspect of natural selection. It is an aberration of "normal", and can not possibly contribute to the positive progression of a species."

I'm willing to accept this statement as long but in what fantasy world do you live in that this relates to humanity.

I assume your reasoning is something along the lines of gays-don't-make-babies... Beyond a quick lesson about human biology and modern medicine, would this not make childless straight people just as abnormal. And even! It's their choice to do that!

Gasp, society must be digressing if people aren't popping out 2 point whatever number of babies we need to sustain a constant population size.

@krellin, don't you mean were it, not where it? :{p

HARD COCK http://www.springerlink.com/content/j517r35408304087/

research shows gays tend to have brain activity more similar to that of the other gender. not sure if anyone brought this up cause i didn't read all the posts. i'm not sure if brainscans were done to compare masterbators to non-masterbators also not sure if masterbator ends in an e or an o.

" Now answer MY point about how homosexuality AT BEST is neutral for a species, and at worse is destruction, and is therefore wholly against the concept of survival of the fittest."

I completely disagree with this view. Yes, from a Darwinist reproductive perspective, homosexuality does not fit into a society's survival - that is not rocket science, it is obvious. But, if you actually read Darwin's and Darwinist writing on survival of the fittest, which I have, survival of the fittest is not simply a matter of reproduction but of 'the fittest', ie, how much they can offer to society. In that sense, gay people have contributed more than their fair share to society:

Leonardo da Vinci
Michelangelo
Alexander the Great
Hans Christian Anderson
Florence Nightingale
Tchaikovsky
Gershwin
Zeffirelli
Giorgio Armani
Jean-Paul Gaultier
Susan B. Anthony
Auden
Eliot
Oscar Wilde
E.M. Forster
Christopher Isherwood
Ivor Novello
Gore Vidal
Tennessee Williams
Rita Mae Brown
Billy Jean King
Martina Navratilova
Jana Novotna
Tracy Chapman
Bret Easton Ellis
Justin Fashanu
Errol Flynn
James Ivory
Frida Kahlo
Foucault
Ayn Rand
Stephen Fry
RuPaul
Sir Cameron Mackintosh
Sir Ian McKellen
Sir John Gielgud
George Michael
Freddie Mercury
Harvey Milk
Gus van Sant
Stephen Sondheim
Dusty Springfield
James Dean
Alan Turing
Andy Warhol
Virginia Woolf

If you take this list of people into account, then your argument that homosexuals don't contribute in terms of 'the fittest' of our society falls apart.

Furthermore, capitalism aside, we do not live in a Darwinist society - so this whole notion is out of place anyway. We do not select our citizens based on highly subjectivised notions of who 'the fittest' are. If you are start with homosexuality, where you stop? Disabled babies? Babies that might develop cancer? Babies that might have brown hair? Babies that will prefer baseball to hockey? Using the notion of 'survival of the fittest' to argue against inclusivity in society is extremely dangerous and is exactly the kind of path that the Nazis went down.

You forgot mapleleaf. Oh wait! Nvm, he has never contributed anything positive to society.

@Sarg -- if murder is a choice, according to you, then so is homosexuality. both are actions that result from feelings....or feelings that provoke actions....either way, same beast. You just don't like that society has distinctly condemned one choice/action, and you support the other.

You will note that I have not made a statement in support of or against homosexuality...I'm just examine it from 1. It's role (or lack thereof) in evolution and natural selection/survival of the fittest, etc, and 2. It's comparison to other behaviors/feelings.

@Yonni...humanity has nothing to do with what is natural, or what is evolutionary. Sad little man...you are letting your feelings get in the way of a logical argument. In fact, "humanity", or civilization, etc is perhaps the most unnatural thing on the planet.

Take a look at early man, hunter/gatherers, etc, before technology and such invaded and then talk to me about humanity. "Humanity" as you are implying is a false construct that has only been made possible because of the excess of wealth...i.e. cheap sources of energy...that allows mankind to have comfortable living and cheap food (for the most part), which in turn allowed man to expand into more useless (from an evolutionary standpoint) endeavors....like arts and sports....hell, even medical science that extends life and conquers disease is anti-evolutionary and should be an abomination to any true evolutionist, as it truly corrupts the species by allowing those to survive that shouldn't, and thus allows them to pass on their faulty genes.

Now...might I refer you all to that fantastic movie: "Idiocracy"...which represents a not-too-distant America...