homosexuality

"That would be Saint Augustine, so his opinion does carries some weight. And Christianity does frown on sex for pleasure for the most part now."
--The only way your argument would carry sufficient merit, would be to include Augustine's interpretive bible cementations within a specific Christian denomination. By living in the 500's, he played no part in forming initial scriptural documents. Keep in mind my scriptural quote (it is rare you get quotes of scripture from me, you don't find me in the bible forums), was that not erotic enough as to imply pleasure from satisfaction? Your argument requires that this not be present, also, feel free to read Song of Solomon unless its too 'juicy' for you.------------------

"It does not do you well to downplay the influence tha Augustine has had on Christianity. That influence is second only to Paul's influence, IMHO.You are correct that his is not the final word, but calling him 'some missionary' is like calling Ghengis Khan some guy who led an army."
--I can agree to the most part with you on this, John, excuse the format by which I represented Augustine regarding his credibility.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--The only way your argument would carry sufficient merit, would be to include Augustine's interpretive bible cementations within a specific Christian denomination. By living in the 500's, he played no part in forming initial scriptural documents. Keep in mind my scriptural quote (it is rare you get quotes of scripture from me, you don't find me in the bible forums), was that not erotic enough as to imply pleasure from satisfaction? Your argument requires that this not be present, also, feel free to read Song of Solomon unless its too 'juicy' for you.

​

---

He had great influence in doctrine in the Church. You are quoting from the OT and many Christians assert that the NT superceeds the OT. The fact remains that most of modern Christianity is sexually repressed.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
[B]

quote:

---

That is only true if all or a majority of individuals in a species engage in such "purely homosexual" behavior, and it is actually only true of males. Females could still be "taken" and impregnated.

​

You are right; the point of life is the propagation of species. If you are gay and your brother is not, and you help to protect and raise your brother's children, a great deal of your genes are still being passed on through your nieces and nephews.

​

In addition, if sexual behavior in humans was exclusively concerned with reproduction, there would be no reason for humans to be interested in sex except during the time when the female is fertile. The fact that we see humans as being interested in sex at all times during a woman's cycle strongly implies that, for humans, sex is a powerful bonding behavior which is very important to our success as a species.

---

quote:

---

Right, but IF homosexuality IS genetic, then those genes can be passed, and CAN become a dominant trait that COULD lead to the majority having only homosexual intercourse?

---

Like many social traits with a genetic component, it isn't as simple as "dominant expression of the gene= pure behavior", as if we were talking about eye color.Yes, I think there is a component to sexual preference which is genetic, but it may be related to a genetic influence on when a fetus is exposed (or not) to certain hormones at certain timed during gestation, and later there is social training and pressure.

quote:

---

As to why sex is pleasurable, since we will only have one child at a time normally, and the rate at which females can reproduce is once every 12-13 months, and up until recently child mortality wasnt so hot, we needed to make sure we had as many children as possible. Given the small window of opportunity there needs to be a reason to have sex as often as possible to increase the chances of copulation, hence sex feels good.

---

Wait, you didn't get my original point, which was that among mammals, humans are very unusual in that we have sex at times when there is little to no chance that the female is able to conceive.This is a great risk, because the act of copulation is a great expenditure of energy, and one is completely vulnerable to predators. Why spend lots time doing it when there is virtually no chance of getting preggers?Social bonding, baby!It is also unusual that sex for female humans is as potentially pleasurable as it is (female orgasm).

quote:

---

Except that it is obvious that a relatively small percentage of the human population follows an exclusively gay lifestyle, and this percentage has never been very high as long as such things have been recorded.

---

quote:

---

Definelty, hence my personal feelings.. But, and lets play what-if, what if the "gay genes" became dominant, and over the course of the next 100 years that small minority became the vast majority? Would you still feel the same way?

​

I am 99% sure that that wont happen, but it can't hurt to think about it, since all that will do is give you a further understanding of where this argument is coming from.

---

Let's see, considering that the means exists for people to become pregnant without having sex, I am not worried that the human race would die out, even if "everybody was gay".Like I sauis, I do not think that homosexuality is a simple dominant/recessive genetic situation like eye color. There is much more to it than that.Also, I think that a lot more people have homosexual tendencies than our culture allows them to express.

quote:

---

Just to make sure everyone knows, I am just playing Devil's Advocate, I really don't have strong feelings about the topic one way or another..

​

Red

---

I know you are just making an argument, don't worry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by schrafinator:

​

Oh, so now the broad paintbrush has been reduced to a narrower one by the admission that only the Chistian groups not included in your "heretic sects" consider sex for pleasure wrong.

​

nos, I mean this with all earnestness; please work on being less sloppy in your debating.

​

The idea is to be intelligent and fair and to stick with the evidence.

​

You all-too easily slip into a "All you religious people are a bunch of dumb poo poo heads" style of posting which is childish and diminishes the otherwise general very high quality of discourse around here.

​

You and I are often agree on the issues, but I find myself wishing you weren't on "our" side, because of how snide and condescending and downright sloppy you can be, and often are.

​

​

And while I'm at it maybe you should work on your sense of humour as well.

---

We weren't talking about me.

[QUOTE] feel free to read Song of Solomon unless its too 'juicy' for you.[/B][/QUOTE]I have to tell you, TC, that I didn't even know about the Song of Solomon in over 20 years of being a Catholic; they sure as heck didn't teach us a sinle bit of it in the 12 years of catechism I attended, and I don't think they tended to quote it much in Mass.When I read parts of it, I was shocked. It is basically some pretty erotic love poetry.The majority of the world's Christians are Catholic, and the Catholic Church is pretty sexually-repressed.They even have to supress part of their own Bible!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:We weren't talking about me.[/B][/QUOTE]Maybe you should have had a look at the end of that post with heretic sects. It had a at the end.

Hi John,Sorry I wasn't more clear. Looking back over the post, it does read somewhat "Brad-like".I was arguing with your use of bees as an example in your statement: "the pure raw mate-and-make-babies argument can only apply to non-social animals and really, there aren't very many of them. Once a social structure gets in the game, the rules change." The eusocial Hymneoptera don't support your statement. Eusociality in the groups that display it is purely based on genetics - and is about as hard-wired an example of the "mate and make babies" as you're likely to find in nature. Your point, which I think is a valid one, simply doesn't apply to bees. See, for example, E.O. Wilson, "Sociobiology", and Wilson EO, (1985) "The sociogenesis of insect colonies", Science 228: 1489-1495.Basically, the rules change only when a species has a certain type of social structure - not "sociality" in general. It was just a quibble, no need to get your knickers in a knot...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
The eusocial Hymneoptera don't support your statement. Eusociality in the groups that display it is purely based on genetics - and is about as hard-wired an example of the "mate and make babies" as you're likely to find in nature.

---

Sorry to be a pain... me not too bright... at the risk of making an idiot of myself -- no pain, no gain right? -- hard wired or not, it is still a social structure, yes? ( oh geez, I'm getting Brad-like too )

quote:

---

Basically, the rules change only when a species has a certain type of social structure - not "sociality" in general.

---

I get the feeling that we are talking about different things. I can't quite figure out the difference though.

quote:

---

It was just a quibble, no need to get your knickers in a knot...

---

No knickers to get knotted... just baby soft skin.I quibble a lot too. No big. Drives my loved-ones nuts.

quote:

---

Number of offspring isn't relevent.

---

Actually it is. Since number of offspring has a direct corallation to survival of the species. So if one human female was able to ensure the continuation of the "colony" by birthing millions of children then homosexual acts by non-breeding entities would by irrelavent.

quote:

---

I think you've got this backwards. The human menstrual cycle is extremely wasteful of nutrients and other resources. There had to be something driving it, and that driving force was social bonding via sex.

---

No, what I mean is that there is a small period of fertility, and a long gestation. Unlike says dogs, that can be breed every 6 months and have litters of 4-6 puppies. Human females can get pregnant once every 13-14 months and will typically birth only one child. That makes for a small window of opportunity compared to other animals. [quote] You don't have dogs, do you?There isn't much info here, but there is a list of critters.
[url]No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/ambwww/SCIENCE-OF-SEXUALITY.htm[/b]http://www.geocities.com/ambwww/SCIENCE-OF-SEXUALITY.htm[/b][/b]http://www.geocities.com/ambwww/SCIENCE-OF-SEXUALITY.htm[/b][/quote]Actually I do have dogs, and humping is not a sign of homosexuality, it is how dogs jocky for position withing the pack. Aggressive dogs(male or female) will hump others to show that they are higher in the pack heirarchy. My dog has been known to hump my cats for that very reason, unless you are going to tell me that my dog is both a lesbian AND into bestiality.And I checked the link, other than telling me what to research I didn't really see that much.

quote:

---

As far as I know they are also the only other species that get pleasure from the act.

​

This is a very broad statement. How do you know?

---

I don't know for sure, but I have never come accross any research that demonstrates any animal having sex for purely pleasurable motives. Even the bonobo monkies are have sex to reduce group aggression not because it just feels good.

quote:

---

You're right. This is the ludicrous end.

​

What if everyone ate only bananas? What if everyone worked at a gas station? What if everyone only slept on the right side of the bed?

---

Um I'm not sure, since I am pretty sure bannana's or gas stations, and the right side of the bed don't inhibit reproduction.

quote:

---

You can argue anything, but making a good argument is a much different thing.

---

Obviously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
In addition, if sexual behavior in humans was exclusively concerned with reproduction, there would be no reason for humans to be interested in sex except during the time when the female is fertile. The fact that we see humans as being interested in sex at all times during a woman's cycle strongly implies that, for humans, sex is a powerful bonding behavior which is very important to our success as a species.

---

The only problem with that is we don't know exactly when the perfect time is.. Therefore we "do it" as often as possible to increase the chances of getting "it done" properly.. Plus.. practice makes perfect

quote:

---

Like many social traits with a genetic component, it isn't as simple as "dominant expression of the gene= pure behavior", as if we were talking about eye color.

​

Yes, I think there is a component to sexual preference which is genetic, but it may be related to a genetic influence on when a fetus is exposed (or not) to certain hormones at certain timed during gestation, and later there is social training and pressure.

---

You are most problably right.

quote:

---

Wait, you didn't get my original point, which was that among mammals, humans are very unusual in that we have sex at times when there is little to no chance that the female is able to conceive.

​

This is a great risk, because the act of copulation is a great expenditure of energy, and one is completely vulnerable to predators. Why spend lots time doing it when there is virtually no chance of getting preggers?

​

Social bonding, baby!

---

Covered most of this above, but one other point. I am not sure its "social" bonding as much as it is woman bonding. Men do not typically become emotionally bonded to a women they mate with, women on the other hand do. Now before I really stick my foot in my mouth and go home to an empty house and a note from my wife with comments about bonding and taking my stuff and shoving it, I'm stop.

quote:

---

It is also unusual that sex for female humans is as potentially pleasurable as it is (female orgasm).

---

I think its highly unusual for any other species to find sex pleasurable, but I have not really done that much research, so I admit I could be dead wrong.

quote:

---

Except that it is obvious that a relatively small percentage of the human population follows an exclusively gay lifestyle, and this percentage has never been very high as long as such things have been recorded.

---

quote:

---

Let's see, considering that the means exists for people to become pregnant without having sex, I am not worried that the human race would die out, even if "everybody was gay".

​

Like I sauis, I do not think that homosexuality is a simple dominant/recessive genetic situation like eye color. There is much more to it than that.

​

Also, I think that a lot more people have homosexual tendencies than our culture allows them to express.

---

Well sure TODAY we can, but 100 years ago we couldnt.. I'm not sure what relevance it has, if any, but I guess modern science makes my type of argument totally null and void.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
[B]Since number of offspring has a direct corallation to survival of the species.[/quote][/b]No it doesn't. You seem to be making the case that more-offspring==better-chance-of-survival and this simply isn't the case. Some creatures lay thousands of egg, of which only 1% survive to reproduce. Some creatures have few offspring but take care of them.The number of offspring WHICH SURVIVE TO REPRODUCE has a direct correlation on the survival of the species. Social structure has a lot to do with that survival. Homosexual critters contribute to that structure, hence indirectly contribute to the survival of the species.

quote:

---

No, what I mean is that there is a small period of fertility, and a long gestation. Unlike says dogs, that can be breed every 6 months and have litters of 4-6 puppies. Human females can get pregnant once every 13-14 months and will typically birth only one child. That makes for a small window of opportunity compared to other animals.

---

Hence the need for careful care as the child grows to maturity.

quote:

---

Actually I do have dogs, and humping is not a sign of homosexuality, it is how dogs jocky for position withing the pack.

---

I expected something like this response. Try jumping your best friend and see how convincing the argument is. "I'm not gay... just jockying for position"

quote:

---

And I checked the link, other than telling me what to research I didn't really see that much.

---

Yeah, I know. I found some better stuff. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htmNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htmNo webpage found at provided URL: http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.htmlThe phrase 'homosexual animals' in Google returned mountains of results.

quote:

---

I don't know for sure, but I have never come accross any research that demonstrates any animal having sex for purely pleasurable motives. Even the bonobo monkies are have sex to reduce group aggression not because it just feels good.

---

And you know this how? Essentially the same organs-- in mammals anyway-- are involved as are involved in your own copulations.

quote:

---

Um I'm not sure, since I am pretty sure bannana's or gas stations, and the right side of the bed don't inhibit reproduction.

---

Think carefully.If everyone ate only bananas, very soon there would be no bananas and we all die. The Koala is having this problem. It only eats eucalyptus.If everyone worked at a gas station, food supply would vanish as nobody would be growing crops or raising livestock.If everyone slept only on the left side of the bed, we'd never get any sleep and go insane. Not good for survival. Or we'd all have seperate beds. Also not good for survival.You can fill in just about anything and it works.Interestingly, I found the same argument elsewhere. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.almenconi.com/media/may02/050202.html------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
{Fixed a link, etc. - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-01-2002]

Yep, Hymenoptera (or at least the social genera) have the most rigidly structured social systems on the planet. However, I thought your point was that the evolution of sociality changes the rules and removes the direct, genetically determined "make babies" impulse. IOW, sex has a strong social bonding component. I merely wanted to point out that it isn't "sociality" per se that does this - as the social insects show - but the type of social system. If you'd used dogs, primates, or any other organism that has a developed pack set-up as an example, I'd have agreed with you to the point that you'd never have heard from me on this thread. Bees don't use sex as a social instrument. Nor, for that matter, do any of the herd animals that have been studied. It's only when you deal with complex social setups that you see sex, pseudosex, affiliation, etc and other behaviors that have a social bonding component - rather than being purely procreative.

quote:

---

Actually I do have dogs, and humping is not a sign of homosexuality, it is how dogs jocky for position withing the pack. Aggressive dogs(male or female) will hump others to show that they are higher in the pack heirarchy. My dog has been known to hump my cats for that very reason, unless you are going to tell me that my dog is both a lesbian AND into bestiality.

---

Curious. My ol' mum has 3 BITCHES, & two of them hump...... ME!!!!! Not Mum, not Dad, not my brother or sister, just me! Now, I do love those dogs (but not that much!), & probably make more of a fuss of them than most. Is it then indicative that they are putting me in my place? This is more disturbing than I first thought, I'm being usurped! Oh well, there goes the "animal magnetism" theory......Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:We weren't talking about me.[/B][/QUOTE]Maybe you should have had a look at the end of that post with heretic sects. It had a at the end.[/B][/QUOTE]Oh, I noticed the smiley-face.I am just not willing to be disarmed or distracted by it at the moment.