Jump to content

Homosexuality


Morpheus

Recommended Posts

There has to be an underlying factor that is broad enough to cover all of this diversity, and environment isn't it.

Basically, it is an evolutionary advantageous for many species to have these behaviours and it is has a genetic component. All agreeing? or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i aint no bai-all-oh-jizt but i reckon that many species have traits and behaviours that do not contribute to the well being of their young or are downright detrimental with no indication of previous environments where they would be useful. For example, wtf are earlobes for? I'm sure if I was in bio I would know about all sorts of useless organs that at no point played a vital part in survival.

Behaviours, of course, would be the more analogous functions but those have trickier origins. But every day we can see the stupid, weird, and wonderful little quirks that make absolutely no sense but make humans so amazing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, if one simply examines the sheer number of species and organisms that engage in homosexual behaviour, one realizes that homosexuality cannot be purely environment-based, simply because of the vast variety of environments in which these organisms are found. There has to be an underlying factor that is broad enough to cover all of this diversity, and environment isn't it.

What do you think the 'underlying factor' is though? Take a guess :) - I'm just interested. :blum:

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, if one simply examines the sheer number of species and organisms that engage in homosexual behaviour, one realizes that homosexuality cannot be purely environment-based, simply because of the vast variety of environments in which these organisms are found. There has to be an underlying factor that is broad enough to cover all of this diversity, and environment isn't it.

What do you think the 'underlying factor' is though? Take a guess XD - I'm just interested. :blum:

My guess is that homosexuality and heterosexuality is an entirely human construct. Even then, in Ancient Greece it was common practice for many men to be homosexual, but still have wives. In nature it's just a particular sort of behaviour that doesn't preclude you from still having offspring because in nature animals aren't exclusively homosexual, to my knowledge. Only in people have we stuck things into discrete categories and only in people do we link sex to reproduction, rather than viewing it as a behaviour which may or may not lead to offspring. There's no real underlying factor because it's just part of a general spectrum of behaviours? Dominance, convenience... or just a random behaviour. Not all behaviours have a purpose that we can divine, but they still occur. Behaviours which don't have a negative impact (and unless you have exclusive homosexuality, it's not negative) aren't selected for but equally they aren't selected against. Some behaviours perhaps are selected against (e.g. exclusive homosexuality where people don't have any offspring so they don't pass their genes on) -- who's to say that being a homosexual human isn't already selected against in this manner? Technically that's negative selection. And does that the fact we have 'homosexual genes' mean they must be significant? Probably not.

I dunno, I think it's trying to find meaning and an answer where there isn't one. I think sexuality is part of a range of behaviour. Technically sexual behaviour with both genders would lead to a tighter community :) If you want to try and think of advantages. I just don't think it's significant enough to be a selection pressure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see two chicks making out, and it's cool. When it's two guys, I'm grossed out. I am totally aware of this hypocrisy but I can't change it. Most of my friends are like this too, so I'd assume it's a general view amongst boys. So was the rally against homosexuality first driven by men who were not only grossed out but also felt the urge to barge into people's lives and stop two men from enjoying themselves?

I'm just throwing it out here, didn't read through the thread since the last time I posted. :blum:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to think that gay people shouldn't be together because I thought that love and sex was all about making babies but then I used WAY OF KNOWING: REASON and realized that old people and sterile people are allowed to be together and they don't have babies, so gay people should be able to be together too. But later, while talking to a preacher I used WAY OF KNOWING: LANGUAGE and heard him say that God doesn't like gay people so that means they're bad. However, this too was thrown into doubt when I sued WAY OF KNOWING: SENSE PERCEPTION and I saw some gay people who are very nice. Finally, I used WAY OF KNOWING: EMOTION and decided gay people are evil because one time a gay kid punched me in the stomache and I now associate homosexuality with being punched in the stomache.

Something like this got me a B+ for a ToK write.

Lol, really? you did get a B+? that's so awesome.. hahaha... what's the TOK topic you wrote for? I messed up my TOK presentation. I really need to earn as much credit as I can in the TOK essay to make it higher.. haizz.. sigh sigh..

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, if one simply examines the sheer number of species and organisms that engage in homosexual behaviour, one realizes that homosexuality cannot be purely environment-based, simply because of the vast variety of environments in which these organisms are found. There has to be an underlying factor that is broad enough to cover all of this diversity, and environment isn't it.

What do you think the 'underlying factor' is though? Take a guess :) - I'm just interested. :blum:

I agree with much of Sandwich's post above, in that the exclusively homo/heterosexual orientation is purely a human construct. For that "natural" concept of homosexuality (i.e. homosexual behaviour as opposed to selective to the same sex and avoiding all members of the other) humanity's simply invented an altogether different word: bisexuality. From this point on, it's simply a semantics argument, and not a biological, philosophical, nor even moralistic debate. Language is posing a barrier of understanding here, and it's important for us to see past that.

For the community benefits that Sandwich alluded to, one simply has to look at bonobo colonies to see them.

As for the underlying factor, I don't know if I'm able to describe the concept in my head well enough. I certainly can't prove it. To me, it seems like homosexuality would be a inseparable mixture of environmental factors and various gene sequences, that altogether form a matrix of factors that can influence homosexual behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think a biological explanation can be found at: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/pdf/samples/COSMOS_02_Whatever_Metrosexuals.pdf

Oh wait, that's a parody >>

Since I can't find the actual article from that magazine, I'll try to explain in it my own words.

Basically, evolution isn't only about passing on your own genes by breeding yourself, but by looking after kin with similar genes. LGBT people could be useful as surrogate parents, when others from the tribe passed away.

Anyway I start the IB on Monday (and TOK the following Monday), so I'm busy trying to do all my preparation now <3

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that natural depends on what we are. I believe that the world functions perfectly and that there's a reason for people to be Males and Females. I see no purpose in gay marriage as it does not serve the core purpose of marriage its self. What is the point of getting married to an individual of the same sex knowing your name will never be passed down to the next generation. Even if you adopt a child you cannot substitute the orphan with a child of your own. I honestly hold no grudge against homosexual individuals but I do not think that the word marriage to describe their relationships. Marriage should only describe heterosexual relationships and I believe that the word "union" is more appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except with IVF, gay couples are able to have children that contain at least half of their genetic make-up. Biologically then, these children would be in no different of a situation than ones with step-parents, from parental divorces or deaths.

To take your position would also be taking a position against divorce. Not to mention a position against all adoptions in general. That would be a bit rough to justify, don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that natural depends on what we are. I believe that the world functions perfectly and that there's a reason for people to be Males and Females. I see no purpose in gay marriage as it does not serve the core purpose of marriage its self. What is the point of getting married to an individual of the same sex knowing your name will never be passed down to the next generation. Even if you adopt a child you cannot substitute the orphan with a child of your own. I honestly hold no grudge against homosexual individuals but I do not think that the word marriage to describe their relationships. Marriage should only describe heterosexual relationships and I believe that the word "union" is more appropriate.

Ahhh now you see this is a thing I was interested in initially.

A person who does tok who has a closed mind and justifies their opinions incorrectly. Tok can't work! I knew it was a waste of time :(:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pro.

Ever-so strongly pro.

Taking a foreign, pessimistic view on marriage, gender shouldn't matter in a marriage, as marriage can be thought of as only a legal bind; a couple who is not married is no better off or more connected emotionally than one who is not. Thus, marriage is irrelevant, and thus, gender in a marriage is irrelevant.

On the other hand, taking a romantic view, marriage is the "union," as you say for homosexual couples, of two people in love, who have decided to commit themselves to each other before God. In which part of this definition does gender/sexuality come into play? Marriage itself does not have a purpose relating to procreating--that's a byproduct, if you will. For this reason, if two men fall in love with each other, and want to commit themselves to each other before God and witnesses, why can't they--especially if neither have any desire to procreate? I know I don't have such a desire, and I would enter into a heterosexual marriage, should I decide to wed. There are many heterosexual couples who haven't this desire; what's more, there are many heterosexual couples who can't procreate. Are infertile couples, who must adopt--since adoption has, somehow, been brought into this debate--or not involve themselves with children at all, just the same as a homosexual couple, as they miss the "point"--"What is the point of getting married to an individual of the same sex knowing your name will never be passed down to the next generation"--of getting married?

Finally, I resort to the "so what?" debate. How does it directly affect anyone other than the homosexual couple in question? Provided there are no public displays--avoid the wedding reception, if you must--I can't see how it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, whatever. People should have the freedom to love who they want to love, and do what they want to do as long as it doesn't intentionally harm anyone else or intrude their privacy. What I don't understand is, though, why they would arrest that preacher. Doesn't he, too, have the freedom to express that he believes homosexuality is wrong? As far as I know, he wasn't forcing it upon anyone; he was merely stating it. If you're going to support the freedom of homosexuals, then don't arrest those who speak against it as long as they are not physically harming or violating others' rights. If he went and burned a homosexual's house, then that's a whole other case. But merely stating it? Come on, where is your supposed freedom of speech?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the way he was doing it, it was hate speech?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want. The OP didn't mention enough details for me to elaborate further, but there's a line between sharing opinions openly and spreading hatred.

Hate crime is a serious indictment; who knows if that preacher was actually convicted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My definition of freedom of speech wasn't that one can say whatever they want, but rather that one has the freedom to express what they believe as long as it doesn't cross certain boundaries. As far as I'm concerned, and based on the little information the OP posted, he has the right to do so. Did he personally target someone? No. Did he physically attack anyone? No. Did he spread hatred by enforcing his opinion onto others? No, from what the OP provided, he was simply repeating a verse from the Bible that reasserted his beliefs. I'm also doubtful on whether he was actually convicted or not, but assuming he was, do you think prison is simple? Do you think just the idea of being arrested is simple? Far from that. And, if you had to look at it from the perspective of the homosexuals, it really doesn't do them any favor. In my opinion, they should 'let haters hate', lol. They can make it a problem when said hater is banning them from a right (marriage) or violating their own privacy. Otherwise...there really is no need for someone who just decided that one day, he was going to loudly declare his opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My definition of freedom of speech wasn't that one can say whatever they want, but rather that one has the freedom to express what they believe as long as it doesn't cross certain boundaries. As far as I'm concerned, and based on the little information the OP posted, he has the right to do so. Did he personally target someone? No. Did he physically attack anyone? No. Did he spread hatred by enforcing his opinion onto others? No, from what the OP provided, he was simply repeating a verse from the Bible that reasserted his beliefs. I'm also doubtful on whether he was actually convicted or not, but assuming he was, do you think prison is simple? Do you think just the idea of being arrested is simple? Far from that. And, if you had to look at it from the perspective of the homosexuals, it really doesn't do them any favor. In my opinion, they should 'let haters hate', lol. They can make it a problem when said hater is banning them from a right (marriage) or violating their own privacy. Otherwise...there really is no need for someone who just decided that one day, he was going to loudly declare his opinion.

If he's preaching this "in public", which is all the OP stated, then it'd probably be hate crime. Depends on if his definition is out in the streets on a soap box with inflammatory language or if "in public" means in a church.

There's no use arguing about the definition, since the premise is so vague that neither of us has evidence at all, and neither of us are going to be changing Constitutions either. The speculation isn't worthy of the debate that you're attempting to draw from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

There was a recent debate about whether homosexuality is un-african on bbc. and i wanted us to ask ourselves what we think of homosexuality

to whae xtent is it okay for two men or women to come together and enjoy themselves

can we be gay from birth

is it impossible to be straight once gay etc.

lets give our views and get different perspectives

Christianity is a part of culture. This is the perspective from which many nations were founded upon. It is not normal for a man and a man to be married and have sex because this is why man annd woman were createdd and we should stop trying to see it as normal. We need to look at different perspectives we hear that "God is the way and most importantly the TRUTH" and bible says

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)

Edited by jayrobsah
Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity is a part of culture. This is the perspective from which many nations were founded upon. It is not normal for a man and a man to be married and have sex because this is why man annd woman were createdd and we should stop trying to see it as normal. We need to look at different perspectives we hear that "God is the way and most importantly the TRUTH" how do we know the bible is true

read the news and tell me what is happening: WAR IN LIBYA AND TSUNAMI IN JAPAN

the bible says: Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.

and we know the truth

so when the bible also says that

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)

lets trust the truth. How do we know that this is thruth i have proven from issues today. Using deductive reasoning.

In my humble opinion, you are utterly wrong. The bible contains thousands of prophecies, the fact that one or a few of them seem to be true does not mean that the bible is the truth. If I wrote down 2000 prophecies today, a few of them would be fulfilled in the coming 3000 years. You claim that homosexuality is wrong because man and woman were created by God for each other. You have absolutely no proof that life was created by God, but there is plenty of evidence in support of the theory of evolution. Your reasoning is flawed.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it happens behind closed doors then it can happe. But i don't wanna hear them ranting about thier rights, or thier struggle or any of that.

I'm opposed to it and always will be. But thats my right, they seem to have acquired thiers so I sure as sure got the right to speak out about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...