Homosexuality is a choice

[Belz...]

All other species have been using sex in the last millions of years mainly (99%) to reproduce.

That's an odd thing to say, combining absolute statements with a 1% wiggle-room...

 

[Belz...]

And mammals don't use photosynthesis and chlorophyll.

I didn't realize that evolution was a democracy......

Putting aside the fact that great apes DO have homosexual behaviour, who CARES if animals have it ? If there's a gay gene, it could be a mostly-human adaptation, like lactose tolerance.

SnakeTongue: If homosexuality is a choice, is heterosexuality a choice as well ? No ? Why not ? What differenciates the two ? Why is one genetic and the other not ? Could you choose to be homosexual ? I know I couldn't.

 

[Belz...]

Now, please, provide examples of the another 2,999,999 (or more) species where sex is used to other purposes rather than procreation.

Why ? What will that prove ? Why that specific number ?

You said none, then someone showed one, now you want 3 million. Then you'll move the goalposts again, I suppose, so why bother ?

 

[JFrankA]

You are not addressing any post I made for you.

Wow. I didn't realize I had to specifically answer things posted to me. Is that in the JREF forum rules?

I'm going to answer 602, but I did answer 600.

....which you promptly ignored. As you do with a lot of the questions (not only mine) put to you.

How sophist of you.

 

[SnakeTongue]

You changed the goalposts, but:
An abstract:

http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(09)00154-2

A write-up of it, with quotes from one of the researchers:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/090616-same-sex-animals.html
Examples of sex for purposes other than procreation.

The first link is a review of reviews of many reviews.

Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Evolution

Here we review the contexts in which it has been studied, focusing on case studies that have tested both adaptive and non-adaptive explanations for the persistence of same-sex sexual behavior.

All reference cited in the review do not present any recent research made to verify the methodology used in the observations. Many references are from old observations which were not replicated in laboratory or in the wild to confirm the hypothesis.

It is bad science...

I will address this document later due the great number of references.

The second link:

Same-Sex Behavior Found in Nearly All Animals
By LiveScience Staff

Examples of same-sex behavior can be found in almost all species in the animal kingdom — from worms to frogs to birds — making the practice nearly universal among animals, according to a new review of research on the topic.

The article begins with a false statement. Same-sex behavior is not found in nearly all 1,000,000 (or more) animals.

No name to identify who wrote the article and no references provided to confirm the claims made.

 

[JFrankA]

Funny how you dismiss all evidence that you don't agree with - even when you present the evidence yourself, and then claim your opinion is completely true.

...there's a word for that....hmmmm......

 

[Alan]

The first link is a review of reviews of many reviews.



All reference cited in the review do not present any recent research made to verify the methodology used in the observations. Many references are from old observations which were not replicated in laboratory or in the wild to confirm the hypothesis.

It is bad science...

I will address this document later due the great number of references.

The second link:



The article begins with a false statement. Same-sex behavior is not found in nearly all 1,000,000 (or more) animals.

No name to identify who wrote the article and no references provided to confirm the claims made.

The peer-reviewed article I linked to is what the news article I linked to is about.

I don't know why I bother, considering your goalpost shifting and uninformed criticisms.

 

[SnakeTongue]

So what about homosexual behaviour in animals ?

And yet they fit into other places, as well.

Besides, you're assuming they're used only for reproduction.

I am assuming that its were designed to reproduction and I have evidence which supports my claim.

That's an odd thing to say, combining absolute statements with a 1% wiggle-room...

Users in this thread are using examples of few species to affirm that homosexual behavior is a norm in the whole nature.

It is a great difference between few and whole.

Putting aside the fact that great apes DO have homosexual behaviour, who CARES if animals have it ? If there's a gay gene, it could be a mostly-human adaptation, like lactose tolerance.

SnakeTongue: If homosexuality is a choice, is heterosexuality a choice as well ? No ? Why not ? What differenciates the two ? Why is one genetic and the other not ? Could you choose to be homosexual ? I know I couldn't.

It is no "gay gene", so it could be do not exist.

Why one is genetic and another not?

If you do not know, homosexuality is a social behavior, not a gender.

Why ? What will that prove ? Why that specific number ?

You said none, then someone showed one, now you want 3 million. Then you'll move the goalposts again, I suppose, so why bother ?

That will prove that homosexual behavior is a norm in the ordinary course of nature's evolutionary process.

In no moment I made a claim that homosexual behavior do not exist among few animals. I am holding the argument that homosexual behavior is not natural.

 

[SnakeTongue]

The peer-reviewed article I linked to is what the news article I linked to is about.

I don't know why I bother, considering your goalpost shifting and uninformed criticisms.

I told you that I will address the review later.

Did you verified few references in the review to confirm my criticism?

Did you know which methodology was used to classify "homosexuality"?

Did you verified how the data was interpreted?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Many user in this thread are confused about what I am arguing.

I will put in short sentences:

- Homosexuality is not a genetic in-born inheritable trait.

- Homosexual behavior is not natural and is not part of any ordinary mechanism defined by theory of evolution.

- The concept of homosexuality in human behavior is completely different from the concept of homosexuality observed in animal behavior.

 

[JFrankA]

Many user in this thread are confused about what I am arguing.

I will put in short sentences:

- Homosexuality is not a genetic in-born inheritable trait.

- Homosexual behavior is not natural and is not part of any ordinary mechanism defined by theory of evolution.

- The concept of homosexuality in human behavior is completely different from the concept of homosexuality observed in animal behavior.

So?

You don't get it, do you? The problem with your argument is the idea that it isn't natural because evolution depends on procreation.

Look, we will all agree that procreation must happen in order for a species to survive and pass on genes, however, WHAT gets passed on is of vital impotance too.

For example, your own posted "evidence":

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6560270&postcount=573

Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]

Which you emphasised with:

I will put again:

"When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."

Ignoring the fact that mating IS sex, the fact, using your own "evidence" that a homosexual act will affect what male mates with a female - therefore affects the evolution of the species, which is called "NATURAL selection".

Your own evidence disputes your own argument for the middle sentence. The first and third are still being investigated. The third is a theory: your argument for saying that homosexuality doesn't mean the same thing for humans as it does for animals can't be determined either. No one can read the mind of an animal or being.

But the second one is a biggie. You need to prove that nature = morals. Nature is not moralistic. Nature is neutral. Morals are human invention. Show me, with scientific evidence, how nature and evolution makes moralistic decisions.

Further, that still doesn't address the OP. You briefly answered that you think that sexual attraction to the same gender is a decision. Yet, you have not backed it up. Not one shred of "evidence", not even a rebuttal.

You have proven nothing. Your own "evidence" shows that homosexuality occurs in nature, it is used to naturally select which genes gets passed in a species and therefore is part of the procreation process.

Now I know your response is going to be "bla bla bla", but it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that you didn't prove your point and I didn't even need evidence to post to dispute it. You did the work for me.

 

[bikerdruid]

I am try to prove that sexual deviation is an unnatural, queer and freaking part of the human nature...

well, at least that is a direct statement.....a rarity for you.
unnatural?...i disagree...i am what i am. i did not choose this path.
queer?...yes, that is a word i use.
a freaking part of the human nature?....i am not a freak...i am just queer.

so, what do you wish to happen?
atre all queers to be imprisoned?
perhaps we should be killled as 'freaks'.
what do you suggest be done to the queers of the world?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Ignoring the fact that mating IS sex, the fact, using your own "evidence" that a homosexual act will affect what male mates with a female - therefore affects the evolution of the species, which is called "NATURAL selection".

Interesting... I read my evidence again and I did not find one single phrase confirming your claim.

If you think homosexual behavior is part of a mechanism of natural selection, would you explain how this works?

Your own evidence disputes your own argument for the middle sentence. The first and third are still being investigated. The third is a theory: your argument for saying that homosexuality doesn't mean the same thing for humans as it does for animals can't be determined either. No one can read the mind of an animal or being.

No, do not dispute anything at all in my argument.

But the second one is a biggie. You need to prove that nature = morals. Nature is not moralistic. Nature is neutral. Morals are human invention. Show me, with scientific evidence, how nature and evolution makes moralistic decisions.

Further, that still doesn't address the OP. You briefly answered that you think that sexual attraction to the same gender is a decision. Yet, you have not backed it up. Not one shred of "evidence", not even a rebuttal.

So?

You have proven nothing. Your own "evidence" shows that homosexuality occurs in nature, it is used to naturally select which genes gets passed in a species and therefore is part of the procreation process.

My evidence did not support any of your claims.

Homosexual behavior do not fit in any mechanism of theory of evolution.

Now I know your response is going to be "bla bla bla", but it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that you didn't prove your point and I didn't even need evidence to post to dispute it. You did the work for me.

You do not know anything about me.

 

[SnakeTongue]

so, what do you wish to happen?
atre all queers to be imprisoned?
perhaps we should be killled as 'freaks'.
what do you suggest be done to the queers of the world?

I do suggest nothing to be done.

Being a freak, unnatural and queer part of the human nature is not a crime and do not represent any threat to the ordinary life.

I really wish that all the queers in the world accept the fact they are unnatural.

Once they understand they true nature, they will be accepted by what they are (unnatural), not what they are trying to be (natural).

Did you like to be respected by what you are or by what you pretend to be?

 

[Belz...]

What part of my question don't you understand ? What do you make of homosexual behaviour in animals ?

I am assuming that its were designed to reproduction and I have evidence which supports my claim.

Design is irrelevant to use. The fact is they ARE USED to something else than reproduction, and not just by humans.

Users in this thread are using examples of few species to affirm that homosexual behavior is a norm in the whole nature.

That is certainly a lie by you: nobody is claiming that it is a norm. They are simply countering your claim that it is not found in nature or that it is an unnatural choice.

It is no "gay gene"

How do you know ?

Why one is genetic and another not?

If you do not know, homosexuality is a social behavior, not a gender.

Who said anything about genre ? Heterosexuality is ALSO a behaviour. You are yet to answer my questions.

That will prove that homosexual behavior is a norm in the ordinary course of nature's evolutionary process.

And who cares whether it is ?

In no moment I made a claim that homosexual behavior do not exist among few animals. I am holding the argument that homosexual behavior is not natural.

Those are mutually exclusive claims. If homosexual behaviour is present IN ANY WAY in nature, then it is, by definition, natural.

 

[Dani]

I am try to prove that sexual deviation is an unnatural, queer and freaking part of the human nature...

What do you mean by unnatural?

 

[Emet]

I do suggest nothing to be done.

Being a freak, unnatural and queer part of the human nature is not a crime and do not represent any threat to the ordinary life.

I really wish that all the queers in the world accept the fact they are unnatural.

Once they understand they true nature, they will be accepted by what they are (unnatural), not what they are trying to be (natural).

Did you like to be respected by what you are or by what you pretend to be?

Okay. In an attempt to prevent a two page derail of the posting of definitions, I'm going to simply posit a question, and not try to attempt to guess your answers. According to you (if I understand correctly):

1. Homosexuality is unnatural.
2. They should accept that.

Let's say they do.

Now what?

 

[SnakeTongue]

What part of my question don't you understand ? What do you make of homosexual behaviour in animals ?

It is not natural.

Design is irrelevant to use. The fact is they ARE USED to something else than reproduction, and not just by humans.

Design is relevant to use.

If sex was only for fun, sperm could contain just proteins. About the female body: Why is the clitoris situated at the only place of the female body that enables sperm to reach eggs? (15). This makes sense from the point of view of reproduction. If sex was only for fun and had nothing to do with reproduction, then the clitoris could be anywhere on the female body (mouth, ears, nose, armpit, anus, navel). But it is not.

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof62.htm

-

That is certainly a lie by you: nobody is claiming that it is a norm. They are simply countering your claim that it is not found in nature or that it is an unnatural choice.

Who relates that as a norm, relate that as a natural.

How do you know ?

How do you not know?

http://www.genome.gov/DNADay/q.cfm?aid=436&year=2009

Q: Geoffrey Toyes and Jefry Cohen in NJ (Higher Education grade other): Hi, My friend and I are gay. With all the current controversy about homosexuality, has there been any research linking sexual orientation to genes?

A: Barry H. Thompson, M.D., M.S.:
In a very general sense, some studies indicate that there may be a considerable genetic component to sexual orientation. However, there is no known gene for "homosexuality." Sexual orientation, no matter the genetic make-up of an individual, likely is a very complex matter.

-

Who said anything about genre ? Heterosexuality is ALSO a behaviour. You are yet to answer my questions.

Too many subjective questions...

Read the whole thread and I guarantee you will find good insights to answer your questions.

And who cares whether it is ?

Few users in this thread...

Those are mutually exclusive claims. If homosexual behaviour is present IN ANY WAY in nature, then it is, by definition, natural.

Interesting...

Do you agree with the following sentences?

If paedophile behaviour is present IN ANY WAY in nature, then it is, by definition, natural.

If cannibalism behaviour is present IN ANY WAY in nature, then it is, by definition, natural.

If infanticide behaviour is present IN ANY WAY in nature, then it is, by definition, natural.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Okay. In an attempt to prevent a two page derail of the posting of definitions, I'm going to simply posit a question, and not try to attempt to guess your answers. According to you (if I understand correctly):

1. Homosexuality is unnatural.
2. They should accept that.

Let's say they do.

Now what?

Now the queers will have strong and well based arguments to reclaim they rights in the community where they live.

By accepting they are true "unnatural", the social and biological devices in life will provide a natural way to accept them.

Then, Heaven meets Earth, opposed polarities disappear and antagonisms are transformed into complements merged within the primeval Unit. Opposites such as doubt and credo are overcome by trust. Similarly, the resolution of the antagonisms like sadness and anger is accomplished by compassion. As for the dilemma between fear and aggressiveness, it can only be solved by love and sharing. Restoring the primeval state is the matter, for instance, of the “Yoga” which means union (of opposites).

 

[SnakeTongue]

What do you mean by unnatural?

Post #530