homosexuality

quote:

---

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 just had to comment on that, I actually spit out my coffee when I read this...I also wanted to comment on homosexuality.. This is not my belief btw, I feel that as long as I'm not involved, and no one is getting hurt then by all means be "gay"BUT, it can be viewed as wrong from an evolutionary/biological standpoint quite easily. The point of life is the propogation of species, and obviously people engaged in purely homosexual relations will never fullfill their evolutionary destiny. Obviously that can be construed as a "bad" thing and therefore homosexuality must be bad since it could concievable lead to the extinction of humans.Remember this is not my thinking, but it CAN be used as an argument as to why homosexuality is wrong, or bad, or whatever...Red[This message has been edited by RedVento, 10-31-2002]

quote:

---

And hundreds of millions of bees never mate. They are incapable of it, actually. I think 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. Things that may not be beneficial for loners may suddenly become helpful. I personally think that sexuality in humans serves to maintain social bonds, which we depend upon a great deal.

---

Well when one human female can birth litereally millions of offspring then comparing a bee's sexuality to a humans might have some weight, until then I am not convincened. As to sexuality used to maintain social bonds I would tend to agree, since sex is pleasurable. And since there is a relativily small window in which to procreate during a cycle we need a reason to have sex as often as possible to ensure or try to ensure pregnancy. But that also lends itself towards propogation.

quote:

---

There is pretty good evidence that homosexual behavior has been around a VERY long time. It also exists in other animals. It seems, therefore, that there is something wrong with the analysis of the behavior as 'bad' and leading to extinction.

---

There is only one other animal I know of that exhibit "homosexual" behaviour, the bonobo(sp?) chimp, which uses sex as tension releiver. Also as a way to releive tensions in the group. As far as I know they are also the only other species that get pleasure from the act.As to the exinction, extrapolate homosexuality out to its obvious ludicrous end. What if EVERYONE was homosexual? There was no heterosexual intercourse, what would that do the collective future of the race? Then tell me that it couldn't be argued that homosexuality cannot be seen as "bad."Personally I really could not care less, obviously that situation will never happen and thus is not really important to consider, but considering where this conversation is taking place..
Its the kind of argument that can be made and really has a hard time being defeated because of the half-logic, and proposterous situations involved =/Red
Make Love(to whomever) not War

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.

---

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?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.

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.

---

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.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

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 John:
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.

---

Right, the number that survie to reproduce to survive. So if there are 1 million eggs, and 10% of them survive.. that is 100,000 that can go on to reproduce.If the same survivability rate is applied to a human then one in 10 of her children will live, over 10 years. That has no bearing on the species?

quote:

---

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"

---

Ok that made me laugh pretty hard becuase I just imagined myself doing it...But since dogs and us do get our social status in the same way my point still stands.."Leg humping. Nearly all dogs at some time in their lives show a little too much interest in people's legs.It's an unpleasant habit that's not only confined to male dogs. Most dogs either outgrow it or give it up once they've been neutered. Some dogs, however, do it all the time. It's not about sex, it's about power. Dogs who hump people's legs are saying "I'm higher on the totem pole than you," explains Jeff Nichol, D.V.M, a veterinarian and newspaper columnist in Albuquerque, New Mexico."This is from Bbrescue.org btw.

quote:

---

Yeah, I know. I found some better stuff.

​

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

​

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm

​

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html

​

The phrase 'homosexual animals' in Google returned mountains of results.

---

Ok cool, I'll check em out, I like learning new things

quote:

---

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

---

I was pretty clear when I said I hadn't come across anything to show me I was wrong.. If you have something please share it, I am quite willing to learn new things and my opinions are not set in stone

quote:

---

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

---

When you put it that way I can't disagree. I am going to check that link, I love reading interesting arguments.. My friends tell me I should have become a lawyer rather than a Stock Broker since I love to argue.Red

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

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?

---

​

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.

---

​

Um, maybe it reduces agression precisely because it feels good???

​

---

Probably, or the act of orgasm is just so draining that all that can be done afterwords is looks for a snack and a place to take a nap.

[QUOTE] Pretty much how it works with me...I think Red has fallen under the spell of thinking that non-human animals are somehow fundamentally different than human animals.[/B][/QUOTE]Actually I think they are fundamantally the same as us. However there are some major differences between MOST humans and other animals, such as cognative thought process. However sex I think is all rooted in the same mechanism, need to procreate. How often that gets done is different from species to species. Also I am quite content with the possibility that my argument is totally off base. If I am way off just show me and I will change my thinking to take in the new facts

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
What Schraf and I have been arguing is that there is a lot of behavior and biology that does not make sense purely in the context of procreation. Or, maybe it would be better to say that the biology and behaviors associated with sex have been co-opted for other things.

---

Oh definetly, I will not disagree with you there. And I would agree with your feelings of sex and social bonding. I do think that it is all part of procreation though, and is linked to the continued survivability of the species. Since we procreate so much less than other species I am inclined to believe that sex, like you and schaf propose, does help with social bonding to keep social units together to help the groups chances of survival. I guess what I am pointing to in a really slow, drawn out, somewhat meandering manner is that unlike other animals humans have evolved to such a point that we no longer have small family units that are bonded. We are really a global community.. In that context there is no argument against homosexuality(hmm is it bad debat form to defeat your own argument?) since the individuals are so far removed from the survivability of the whole. I'm not sure if it was you and Schafs comments alone that made changed my mind or me just being confused... but alas the damage is done.(sarcasm)Thanks John and Schaf, because of your comments I've been forced to think out the entire argument and change my mind... (/sarcasm)Red
Damn html formatting won't let me be creative with my fake html tags... [This message has been edited by RedVento, 11-04-2002]

quote:

---

Drat....!!!

​

Perhaps you were trying to do this: <sarcasm>....</sarcasm>

---

Hey you cheated! I don't know the < and > codes...
well now I do.. except I will most likely foget them...Btw there is a big article about gay sheep on MSN today so I can add that to my list of homosexual animals. Link here ... MSNBC News - Breaking News and News Today | Latest NewsRedPS However I am still sure about dogs not having homosexual tendencies .

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:
Right, the number that survie to reproduce to survive. So if there are 1 million eggs, and 10% of them survive.. that is 100,000 that can go on to reproduce.

​

If the same survivability rate is applied to a human then one in 10 of her children will live, over 10 years. That has no bearing on the species?

---

I really don't understand the argument. Maybe, try again? I confused. [/quote]What I mean is that by shear numbers alone the chances are better for insects to continue. One female = millions of offspring = good chances. One female = one offspring = chances not so good.

quote:

---

I am confused again. Maybe you meant to say "... dogs and us DO NOT get our ....."

---

yea that is what I meant. I type too fast for my own good sometimes.

quote:

---

I understand that this is the party line, but I don't completely buy it, for reasons I've stated.

​

Also, all respect due, that the man is a vet does not make him an authority on animal behavior, just as being a doctor does not make one understand people. I once knew a vet who threw a fit because an injured cat-- my injured cat-- scratched him... go figure.

---

No this is true, but it prolly makes him a better authority than either of us.. this article looks do be done by someone more qualified..
http://www.petfinder.org/journalindex.cgi?path=/public/an...

[QUOTE] Back to the example i used, one female (queen bee) and no hive == 0% chance of survival. The queen depends upon the hive for food and protection, and for assistance raising the kids.One human female without a social structure is in essentially the same boat.

quote:

---

No arugment there, but what if there is one viable male for each a bee and a human female. Which has a better chance?

​

[quote] Looks like it supports my case. Sexual activity to relieve tension, due to over-- ummmm--- petting, as well as dominance.

​

[/B]

---

Look at the Why Me, Why Now section.. It gives the reason for mounting/humping for most the majority of the times.."There are several reasons why dogs engage in mounting behavior beyond the need for procreation. Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominancein other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who’s boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason"Tension release is another reason given, but that is not a homosexual trait. Perhaps the issues it that we have different definetions of homosexual. I use homosexual as two same sex people having sexual relations to fullfill both sexual and emotional desires. Not just as getting off with someone of the same sex for any particular reason.

quote:

---

Probably the human female. Humans are more versatile and a lot smarter. And after mating the male bee dies.

---

Except that the one male bee will allow the queen bee to lay thousands of eggs...

quote:

---

Would you apply that definition to humans? If a man 'get's off' with another man, but not for both sexual and emotional reasons, is that not homosexual behavior?

---

Well maybe if you can explain why a man would "get-off" for some reason other than to relieve sexual desire/tension...

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Well maybe if you can explain why a man would "get-off" for some reason other than to relieve sexual desire/tension...

---

​

Dominance.

---

That would most likely be akin to rape, and not necessarily homosexual, but definetly deviant behavior. Most men I know who wish to show dominance over another man won't force them into a sexual act, they might beat them up, or verbally degrade them, or humiliate them in some other way. So while it may not be homosexual in nature it is most probably highly unlikely, where as with dogs its quite common. Dogs humping != homosexual, men humping men == homosexual except in your very, very, very rare exception.Red

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:
That would most likely be akin to rape

---

​

Rape pretty much is about dominance.

​

quote:

---

and not necessarily homosexual, but definetly deviant behavior.

---

​

Are you taking the position that homosexual rape isn't homosexual? [/quote]

​

Yes, actually I am. Actually I already took the position that homosexual sex done for reasons other than sexual desire/need are not really "homosexual." In this case sex is an ends to a means(rape to dominate) and fullfills the need to dominate. This is the same reason I gave for dog humping not being homosexual. There is no sexual gratification from the act, humping, just as rape in this case, fullfills a different desire all together. [quote]

quote:

---

Most men I know who wish to show dominance over another man won't force them into a sexual act, they might beat them up, or verbally degrade them, or humiliate them in some other way.

---

​

On a broader scale it does happen though. Homosexual rape of defeated enemies is, or was, common in some cultures.
[/B]

---

I am sure it did, and possibly still does. However based on my definiton of what homosexuality is rape isnt included. Ofcourse this is all based on my opinion of what homosexual is really about. In case you are wondering how I came to this conclusion it is really quite simple. For homosexual sex to truly be homosexual both parties must be willing participants. They are together to satisfy their sexual desires/lusts/love, the fact that they are the same sex makes it homosexual. In the case of rape one party is definetly not willing, and the needs of only one party are being met. Plus those needs are not sexual, so the rape cannot be considered a homosexual act.Red