Nature Is Gay: Is It Natural to Be a Homosexual?


Homosexuality stirs up a lot of controversy in some social constructs and religious beliefs systems. Many of these systems come up with a bunch of reasons to question homosexuality as normal, attaching it to concepts like sin and blaming it as a cause of sexual diseases. There are many such misconceptions and at the root of them all is ignorance.


One of the biggest misconceptions is that homosexuality is not natural, and that because of this marriage and sexual relations should be between a man and a woman.

Definitions of natural:


When an individual uses the above argument that homosexuality is not natural, there are a few definitions of natural that may apply.


The first is:

1. existing in or formed by nature (as opposed to artificial); based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature

(from dictionary.com)


In this sense, nature dictates what is ordinary and from that you can determine what is abnormal or unnatural. If it occurs in nature, it’s acceptable, and if it doesn’t, it’s not acceptable.


The second and third are:

2. in accordance with human nature

3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical

(from dictionary.com)


These two definitions are well related and it’s a probable use of the word “natural”. In this sense, things that are natural are only things that are normal or expected out of human nature. If it’s a common occurrence in humans, it’s natural, and if it’s not, it’s unnatural.


It doesn’t matter which of the two definitions you use; either one makes for a flawed argument against homosexuality.

Fallacies with the argument


The first definition


If you’re using the first definition, you’re claiming that things that occur in nature are, well, natural, and anything that doesn’t occur is an abomination. Therefore, if homosexuality doesn’t occur in nature, then homosexuality is abnormal.


A major breach of logic with this argument is the assumption that humans are not part of nature. If you’re using nature as a standard for measuring things that are normal or abnormal, then naturally anything humans do must be included because we are part of nature.


We tend to think we’re a separate entity (perhaps due to a misconception that we are divine or somehow better than nature), but there is no way of proving that.


While we are growing more and more distant to the picture of nature that we tend to relate to, everything we own and use is a refined form of nature, like the desk you are using and the chair you are sitting on. Regardless, to this day there are still many indigenous tribes that live amongst nature.


Even if you were asserting that humans aren’t part of nature, by definition humans are automatically “abnormal” or “unnatural” and therefore your argument against homosexuality is pointless at best.


Let’s assume humans aren’t part of nature, just for fun. Your argument is still bogus.


Why? Because homosexuality does occur in nature.


Birds, apes, lions, elephants, giraffes, domesticated animals, lizards and even bed bugs have demonstrated homosexual or bisexual behavior.


For the sake of this (failing) argument, let’s disregard all of those observed instances and simply say that it was out of competition or dominance amongst these animals. Or maybe sin affects animals too. Yeah sure, why not?


Fair enough. Enter Cnemidophorus neomexicanus.


The New Mexico whiptail, or C. neomexicanus (middle).
The New Mexico whiptail, or C. neomexicanus (middle).


There’s not a whole lot to say about C. neomexicanus. It’s a species of lizard found in New Mexico (hence the name), Arizona and northern Mexico. They’re grow anywhere from 16.5 to 23 cm and have seven yellow stripes running down its length. Oh, and they’re all female.


You read that right. Every one of the members of C. neomexicanus is female. They reproduce by parthenogenesis, a form of asexual reproduction.


What’s curious about this species is that they still undergo a courtship, or more appropriately “mock mating”. One of the females plays the role of the male to stimulate ovulation in the (other) female.


In other words, they are lesbian.

"All of them."
"All of them."
"Suddenly your virgin birth is not looking so impressive right now"
"Suddenly your virgin birth is not looking so impressive right now"


Many types of lizards and insects do this regularly, with insects having a wide variety of mechanisms for parthenogenesis.


Some species of crustaceans and sharks are also able to vary between sexual and parthenogenetic reproduction.


Even turkeys are able to reproduce parthenogenetically.


Some animals take this one step further and undergo entire sexual changes.


The clownfish has a reproductive hierarchy of a large female, a smaller reproductive male, and many smaller non-reproductive males.


If the female dies or is removed, the reproductive male changes sex and becomes female, and the largest non-reproductive male matures and is able to reproduce.


Dude didnt you JUST have a penis like a second ago?
Dude didnt you JUST have a penis like a second ago?


Some animals go even further than that and are born with both female and male reproductive parts.


Hermaphrodites include snails, slugs and earthworms. They sometimes decide to be male, and sometimes decide to be female.


"This brings a whole new meaning to the term 'go f*** yourself'"
"This brings a whole new meaning to the term 'go f*** yourself'"

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."

Petter Bøckman, scientific advisor of Against Nature?, an exhibition of homosexual behavior in animals.

Some even practice self-fertilization, like the banana slug. Not to mention the many plants and bacteria that have asexual reproduction as their only means of reproduction.


So not only is homosexuality acceptable in nature, so is hermaphroditism.


And while I’m on this point, to supporters of the belief that life was designed by an all-powerful creator and that evolution is a lie – can you please explain why the creator decided to make homosexual animals, all-female species and hermaphrodites?


What kind of design is that from a god that doesn’t approve of homosexuals (at least in some religions)?


But anyway, moving on.




The second definition


Clearly the first definition has too many flaws to even consider. How about the second?


By using the second definition you are claiming that things that occur naturally are things that occur in human development. So if throughout human history there have been no cases of homosexuality in humans, then homosexuality is abnormal. And because of that, homosexuality is wrong (somehow).


The main flaw here is that, whenever humans do anything, just the mere occurrence of the event makes it a possible natural event. Does that make it ordinary or expected? No, but neither is being born blind or having multiple fingers (polydactyly) or being left handed, and none of those things are met with such controversy as homosexuality (at least in modern times – I remember when people weren’t allowed to write with their left hand).


In that regard, why is being unexpected or unusual a problem? It’s unreasonable to hate a person for being blind or for writing with their left hand or for having more than 20 fingers and toes. Our differences create our identity and can be used to unite us in ways we could never imagine. Being different than the norm is not a bad thing.


Of course, being different is usually met with hate. Is the scrutiny on homosexuality by the religious simply because their book says it’s evil, or is it out of fear combined with a little ignorance?


Let’s assume that being abnormal is inherently evil (somehow), so everyone that has a rare condition like cystic fibrosis or Down syndrome is evil.


There is still a flaw in the assertion that being a homosexual is not a commonly occurred event in humans, when it clearly is in modern times. Even historically when gays weren’t socially accepted there have been instances of homosexuals.


Alexander the Great fighting king Darius III.
Alexander the Great fighting king Darius III.

356 to 323 BC – One of history’s best tacticians, Alexander the Great, was known to have a sexual relationship with his close friend and general Hephaestion.


256 to 195 BC – Emperor Gaozu of Han, the first emperor of the Han Dynasty in China, was a homosexual. He was one of ten homosexual emperors of the Han Dynasty.


12 AD to 41 AD and 76 to 138 AD – Roman emperors like Hadrian and Caligula or Gaius were both homosexual.

Leonardo da Vinci.
Leonardo da Vinci.

Aside

I’m not gay, but I have a few close friends who are. One of them denies it to death and it saddens me to see him suppress it so much. It’s totally fine dude. We all accept you for who you are. You can come out of the closet now.


1452 to 1519 – Perhaps the most diversely talented man to ever have lived, Leonardo da Vinci was also a homosexual.


1840 to 1873 – Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, an extremely talented Russian composer of the Romantic era, was a homosexual. He suffered emotionally and psychologically due to its suppression.


1854 to 1900 – One of London’s most popular playwrights of the early 1890s, Oscar Wilde was involved in many homosexual relationships in a time where homosexual acts were considered illegal.


Ancient Greece, Renaissance Italy and many indigenous cultures also routinely had same sex practices.


There is evidence of homosexuality occurring in Africa and the Americas between the indigenous people, though this was often ignored by European settlers and colonists.


In China, same-sex practices have been recorded since 600 BC.

Clearly, homosexuality has been a normal occurrence in nature and throughout history in many cultures. It bothers me that we have a society that’s willing to allow such bigotry on really weak premises.


It’s not all bleak though; recently we’ve made a lot of introspection, made changes and advanced to become a better society. We’ve progressed to allow for the right to life, equality and freedom of speech for all.


Now it’s time for us to allow freedom from ignorance.

More by this Author


Comments 143 comments

Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

But, But , But, I have a friend, who has a friend, who knows someone, who read part of the bible and that proves homosexuality ain't natural since god has an abomination against it. If your hungry join me at the local BBQ joint for some chopped pork BBQ and a side of shrimp poppers. Be sure and wear that 50% cotton t shirt that you love so much. We will spend some time discussing those abominations. PS, dont shave, god says shaving is an abomination and that proves that all razor blade companies are in cahoots with the devil.

I don't believe I got thru that with a straight face.

Honestly, how do you talk to a person who when asked for proof for a statement they make utters this...I believe in god and that's all the proof I need.


Luke Ellington 5 years ago

My dogs make love and they're both males and I love them very much but they make a mess


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

Hahah, I honestly don't know Stump. It's almost like brainwashing, but if we don't try to bring awareness the ignorance will perpetuate. We can start by debunking these silly arguments. Thanks for the comment.

Lol Luke, that's nice. I would suggest a mop, or maybe Swiffer wet jet


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

Luke, I had the same problem at home on the farm. 3 male dogs and it was agonizing watching them decide which one would be the gay one that day.

I can only assume that animals are a lot smarter than humans give them credit for being. If homosexuality is a choice, this indicates that most animals have the ability to reason and don't simply act from instinct. I wonder if the scientists who study them know this? I wonder how long it will be before clown fish start making regular appearances on are you smarter than a 5th grader?


Peter Parker  5 years ago

I know this game called Terraria and it`s not gay at all. I think me and you should play it some time.


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

I have a game caslled puff, puff, pass. I am playing right now. For some strange reason I am getting the urge to do the Time Warp, again. Peace


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

I'm not sure if it's a choice, Stump. There's been a study conducted on mice where if they deactivate a FucM gene (which influences estrogen levels in the brain) made female mice act like males. So genes do have a say, but I'm sure there are many more factors.

By the way, puff, puff, pass? Sounds like a game where you smoke a joint and pass it around lol...

And Spiderman, you could have played Rise of Nations instead of that stupid game. Have you not read my "4 ways how NOT to study?". Rise of Nations is clearly pointed out there as a good game to play, and not Terraria.


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

I appologize, my sarcasm was even lost of me that time. The only choice being made in these discussions are the one's that involve shutting down the brain and turning on the tape recorder. Nothing makes something truer to the majority of christians than repeating it often enough. Nothing makes the average American more of an expert on a subject than knowing absolutely nothing about the subject being discussed. How else do you explain the arguments we continue to hear from 8th grade dropp outs. These arguments are directed at the scientists and doctors who have spent their life studying the subject in question. Never reading a science book is the best way to become an expert on science, at least here in huge parts of America.

You were correct in the game I was and am still playing. I had no clue what the game mentioned above me was. I had to google it to find out if he was hitting on me, lol. Just kiddin Mr. Parker. Honest.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

Ahah well that might have been my fault. I always hear arguments on free will so I had to address the choice issue :P

Awesome game btw. I never tried but I hear it's fun. And no Mr. Parker was not hitting on you, he is just an acquaintance that happens to like crappy games (but he most probably was also hitting on you).


Stump Parrish profile image

Stump Parrish 5 years ago from Don't have a clue, I'm lost.

Thanks for clearing that up mrpopo. lol. My game's so much more than a game. its a life saver in my case. Unfortunately corporate profits are more important than the lives of Americans to our elected officials. Truth and common sense have no place in American politics or the lives of most Americans. There is overwhemling evedience that marijuana is not harmful and has many health benefits. The drug companies have told the lies that keep it classified along with herion just as the _______ have convinced most christians that homosexuality is a choice. These people dont even want their experts to tell them the truth. This makes sense to them. Better to listen to the person who tells them what they want to hear. No chance of having any of their beliefs questioned this way. The fact that there are so many of them makes most politicians think they have to pander to them to stay in office. The only way to succeed in politics is to lie from the git go.


Joyus Crynoid profile image

Joyus Crynoid 5 years ago from Eden

Good hub mrpopo. Do you know about Bonobos? They (along with chimpanzees) are our closest cousins. They are bisexual, and use sex (and quite kinky sex at that) to foster social cohesion. Bonobos are much more peaceful than their cousins the chimpanzee. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo.

I think human beings have a similar potential for widespread bisexuality (and thus, perhaps, more peace and less war), but it is culturally suppressed from an early age. The idea that homosexual behavior is "unnatural" is utter nonsense, just like most everything else spouted by the religious right.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

Heh Stump, I'm almost intrigued now to try your game. Sadly, as I was growing up I've also heard from many sources like teachers and family members that marijuana is bad and stuff - never telling me exactly how it's bad, just "it's bad". Kind of like how being gay is a sin, supposedly.

I know a fair share of individuals that simply can't handle it and abuse the substance, but that's true of anything from beer to twinkies. I've read that there can be negative side effects, as with anything, but it's all about balance.

Maybe one day we'll outgrow this odd societal system that only cares about money and control.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

Thanks Joyus. I hadn't heard of them until I read a Hub by Baileybear on bonobos. I find it very impressive that they're such a peaceful species and on their skills with conflict resolution.

It's unfortunate that we as a society suppress this behaviour - that in itself is sure to cause conflict and a lower quality of life for everyone affected. It's all a method of control I suppose.


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Well argued out mrpopo. I voted up.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

Thanks Rod, glad you liked it :)


Spirit Whisperer profile image

Spirit Whisperer 5 years ago from Isle of Man

It is natural for a homosexual to be gay but it is unnatural for a homosexual to explain of justify his sexuality to anyone. You have made very good points but by writing this hub I feel that you are in some way trying to seek approval from a society you perceive as disapproving homosexuality. If I am wrong then I stand corrected. You never see a heterosexual explaining or justifying his sexuality. The difference is that as long as you feel marginalised then that will be the reality you experience and you will into your world everyone and every experience to affirm this reality. Change your mind and see how your reality follows suit! Voted up.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

Thanks Spirit Whisperer. I don't think all of society is disapproving of homosexuality, just some facets of it that are tied into some sort of dogma. Specifically, religious dogma.

I wrote this Hub partially because I was annoyed that people still make this appeal to nature (based on such dogma), and partially for fun because I like writing. I don't necessarily ask society for approval; I just ask for a good reason for disapproval, and frankly there isn't a good reason to disapprove of homosexuals.

You're quite right: changing your mind can change reality (maybe with some limitations, at least from my own experience; but that might just be my own mindset limiting my reality). And because of that, you can make the reality that you're being marginalized based on your mindset. However, I have a feeling that the ones that are feeling marginalized are not homosexuals, but the ones persecuting homosexuals. Their own insecurity towards difference and change might just be a side-effect of insecurity with themselves.


Spirit Whisperer profile image

Spirit Whisperer 5 years ago from Isle of Man

Yes, you are right.


PlanksandNails profile image

PlanksandNails 5 years ago from among the called out of the ekklesia of Christ

If a fish eats another fish does that make the fish a cannibal?

You said:

("Clearly, homosexuality has been a normal occurrence in nature and throughout history in many cultures. It bothers me that we have a society that’s willing to allow such bigotry on really weak premises.")

I substituted "homosexuality" above with "cannibalism" and put it in the text below.

Clearly, cannibalism has been a normal occurrence in nature and throughout history in many cultures. It bothers me that we have a society that’s willing to allow such bigotry on really weak premises.

I substituted throughout as I read through this entire hub and it actually works too!


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

Interesting observation, Plank. That only serves to prove my point though.

See, those who are arguing that "homosexuality is not natural" would not only have to accept that homosexuality IS natural (based on my evidence above), but they'd also have to accept that cannibalism is natural, that murder is natural, that polygamy is natural. All sorts of terrible things are indeed natural.

Which brings me to the underlying nature of this article. Many of my points hint at the logical fallacy of "appealing to nature" - whether that's to support an argument or to disprove one.

The irony, of course, is that the religious accusation that "homosexuality is not natural" is not only a logical fallacy, it's plain wrong (in both definitions) because nature DOES show instances of homosexuality. That was the entire point of this exercise; even if you ignore the inherent logical fallacy of the argument, it's still wrong if we follow its trail. That is the "bigotry on weak premises".

If the question were "is cannibalism natural?" then the answer would be yes. I would make an article pointing that out if enough people made the claim that "cannibalism is not natural". That says nothing of whether or not we should actually be cannibals, however.

If you were to substitute "homosexuality" for "cannibalism", it would contradict my last statement of "the right to life, equality and freedom of speech", which, let's face it, would all be forfeited if you were to get eaten. So it doesn't quite work, and should effectively discourage sane individuals from being cannibals (aside from extreme circumstances of survival).

Maybe most important of all though, is that it can be natural to be a cannibal and to NOT be a cannibal, just like it can be natural to be a homosexual and also natural to NOT be a homosexual. Yet another flaw in "appealing to nature".

To answer your first question, the definition of cannibalism is a species that eats its own kind, so yes, a fish that eats other members of its species is cannibalistic. I don't see the point of that rhetoric but there's your answer.

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not trying to argue for homosexuality simply because it is a natural event in nature. That's wrong for the clear reason you gave me. I'm simply pointing out that people arguing AGAINST homosexuality because it is not natural are even further from the truth, and I played their own game to show it.

Thanks for your comment though. I might have to make a follow up article showing that cannibalism is natural to further exemplify the fallacy of "appealing to nature".


Baileybear 5 years ago

thousands of species exhibit homosexual behaviour, but only one has a problem with it.

Something else that might be of interest - the male seahorse gets pregnant and gives birth.

My latest hub is about intersex - those born between male & female


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

You got that right Baileybear.

Some trees can be both male and female which is weird but true. There are these lizards in the USA that are gender zero until they meet to mate. Then one becomes female and the other male. Next mating season if they meet it could go the other way.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

How could I have forgotten about the male seahorse? I might include him in later - thanks Bailey for the comment.

Yep, very true Rod. I never really thought of trees as having a gender but yeah, I've heard about that. The lizard thing is quite an interesting adaptation. Thanks for the comment.


vella 4 years ago

How do we know if homosexuality isn’t a part natures or god’s way of birth control?

I know the bible or god said go forth and multiply, and it might have been needed in past,

To prevent the human race from dieing out, we’ll it worked, well done, but work too well, the human race now populates ever part of the globe, and it still growing, how many people do you think this planet will cop with,

Its now come to appoint we are throwing things out of balance, may be the in crease of homosexuality is gods or natures way of trying to restore the balance, by preventing some of us from not breeding and adding to problem, natures or gods isn’t cruel and doesn’t want us to be alone, or discriminates man does, and the bible was created by man, to control his world, but now is out of date, and some of us are just afraid of change, that is also part of nature,


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

Hi vella, you're absolutely right. Variance in sexuality can be due to many things and, as with many things, balance is inherently at the core.

It's possible that more homosexual behavior is promoted as a means to keep the population in check. As you mentioned, our population is increasing exponentially, so this would be a good thing.

Thanks for stopping by.


alian346 profile image

alian346 4 years ago from Edinburgh, Scotland

This is brilliant, mrpopo, and written with subtle humour throughout. You've explored every nook and cranny and your logic is watertight!

calpol25 and myself have been writing Hubs on LGBT People of History and we have written pieces about some of the people in your Hub.

Ian.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

Hi Ian, thanks for stopping by! I appreciate the comment. I like that you guys have written about these individuals, many of them are standouts in their fields so they deserve this sort of recognition. I'll have to check those Hubs out sometime.


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

Of course being homosexual is "natural", though I wouldn't choose that particular word. As a Christian, it makes me very angry when other Christians use the "homosexuality is an abomination" argument to say being gay is a sin. The verse they use is from Romans, if you were wondering. However, being a homosexual is not a sin. It is committing homosexual acts that is a sin. Jesus also says that people can be born gay in the Bible. Most people will deny this, but that is because they are reading a verse, not the context.

God loves every one, gay or straight. What he hates, is the sin- which is going against His will.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

Hi a49eracct,

I disagree. If God dislikes homosexual acts, then why did he make creatures that are inherently homosexual (C. neomexicanus) or hermaphroditic (worms) or that can even pick their gender (clownfish)?

I also don't see the difference in being homosexual and committing homosexual acts (or why those acts are a sin for that matter).

Thanks for the comment.


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

God did not create creatures and humans equally. They don't have "a relationship" with God the way we do. And most of your creature references are probably due to evolution, just like with us.

A homosexual cannot choose to be straight, though the reason for their being homosexual does not always start at birth(this is a whole other topic that I will stay away from for now).

However, a homosexual can choose not to engage them-self with another homosexual.

So while it is OK to be gay, it is not ok for them to "be together". It is a sin because God created mankind to "be fruitful and multiply" this is His perfect will. I'm sure your next argument is "well didn't God know what He was doing?"

Of course He did, but the things we have done as a society can easily ruin that. That is the whole reason we have the story about Noah and the flood.

I hope I have not offended anyone with my posts, as that is not the point. I have much respect for everyone.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

Hi a49eracct,

Yes, those creatures would be due to evolution, but if you believe in a God then surely he is the one that created this evolutionary factor? And thus the homosexual creatures?

Yes, a homosexual can choose to not engage in homosexual activities. A homosexual can also force himself to "be fruitful and multiply" with another woman. This strongly implies that not having intercourse with the aim of "be[ing] fruitful and multiply[ing]" is the actual sin, as you said.

Why is the focus on homosexuals then? Anyone can abstain from reproductive sex, and many if not all of us do at some point in our lives - and rightfully so. Uncontrolled multiplication would be disastrous. Many would argue that we are in an overpopulated planet and that we have multiplied beyond the resources of this planet.

I am left wondering if those that are reproductively sterile are accused of sinning for not being fruitful and multiplying.


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

Yes, God did create evolution- and thus those creatures.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the focus" being on homosexuals, I'd be happy to attempt an answer if you would clarify for me. :)

I do however have a Biblical answer for your wondering!

If you look at Matthew 19:12, Jesus is talking about this very subject. He says that some people are born a eunuch (gay or sterile). Others are forced to abstain (castration, in that time). While others choose to abstain to better serve God. That being said, those who are reproductively sterile are not sinning.

Which leaves me wondering, are those who can't reproduce sinning when they have intercourse? This is something I am curious about, and have decided I should do some research on.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

So he does not seem to have a problem creating homosexual creatures then? That would imply the sin is not on homosexuality, and if it is it seems to be in direct contradiction to his making of such creatures.

By focus on homosexuals, I mean why many Christians target them as sinful when really "anyone can abstain from reproductive sex". Should the focus not be on everyone who is not being fruitful and multiplying (which includes more than homosexuals), instead of those who are homosexual? Why is the onus solely on them to be fruitful and multiplying if there are others who are also not being fruitful and multiplying? For that matter, is it even a good thing to be fruitful and multiplying in an overpopulated planet?

If the sin is due to one not "being fruitful and multiplying", as you said, I don't see the difference in choosing to abstain from sex or having homosexual intercourse. Both are instances of not being fruitful and multiplying. Why is one considered a good thing and the other a bad?

I really don't see how you jumped to your wondering. Why would they not be allowed to have intercourse?


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

Did God create them that way, or did they evolve that way? After God made everything, we have found ways to change it. I've never done an in depth study of "where evolution began". I just know that it happens. We can thank Darwin for that one.

I think the homosexuals are targeted by the media. That is one of the biggest problems in the US and I'm sure in other places as well. The Bible targets everyone, no one is free from sin.

Intercourse is a gift from God, that's why humans love it so much. But it was created for a man and woman to share, not two people of the same sex. It was also created for a purpose, so we can reproduce.

There are plenty of people who abstain, and for many different reasons (more than what is given to us in the Bible). It's not a sin to abstain, for any reason. Intercourse is a sin when it's done for the wrong reason (rape, homosexually, ect.). That being said, I've answered my own wondering.

I personally don't care if the gays go around doing what they do, but I know what God says about it.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

Thanks a49eracct for a well rounded response - I've asked a lot of questions and ended up confusing myself numerous times, but you put in some effort to give me a good answer and definitely helped make things clearer!

As far as I can tell you're being genuinely honest and reasonable with your answers, even if I disagree with some of them. Many Christians I've seen do not have the same composure, so for that you have my thanks.

With that said, I do have a few points I would like to touch on:

Evolution is not a force that animals can control. They could not consciously "evolve that way". They are not even aware of the effect of natural selection. We are, and we can artificially select for a certain trait with selective breeding, and we do so all the time (domesticated foxes are an interesting example). However, we are all still at the mercy of the environmental pressures that we are subjected to, and over time individuals with a higher chance of success will propagate while those that cannot survive in a given environment don't.

I agree entirely, the media does target homosexuals.

I disagree with your view that intercourse was created for reproduction. If God created it for that purpose then it's odd that he gave human males an organ that produces 85 million sperm cells a day, and females an organ that only accepts one sperm cell. It doesn't seem very efficient to waste so many resources on something that should be for the propagation of the species. And why did God not set a limit on this proliferation? If everyone on the planet had sex solely for reproduction, we would be far more overpopulated than we are now. If we are supposed to follow the Bible, and it does not contain a limit on how much we should be fruitful, then we will end up like the St. Matthew Island reindeer. You can read about what happened to them here: http://qualicuminstitute.ca/tenet4.php. It just doesn't seem to make sense on giving such a one-directional rule for something that, like most things in life, requires balance and moderation.

A thought exercise regarding the sterile individuals having intercourse: what if the sterile individual had no clue that they were indeed sterile? Or what if they had a 1 in a million chance of having successful fertilization? Would those instances still constitute sin?


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

I appreciate the compliment, I too have run into people who call themselves Christian- and have been taught things that are simply incorrect. (Most of them also try to shove religion down your throat, which I hope I have not done!)

I completely agree with your statement about evolution. I have never thought the "people came from monkeys" bit, and I think that is a huge problem that Christianity on the whole need to think about a little more. Humans can control traits, while animals have no consciousness of that. I'm assuming that is where the "survival of the fittest" would come into play.

You have a valid argument about reproduction, I believe. It is something that I'm still learning about, but of what I know right now I will do my best to address what you have said.

God created intercourse for reproduction, and it was also a gift. Just as with anything else, it has more than one purpose. It was meant to make a man and woman "one flesh"- it is the closest two people can be to each other. It is meant to represent our relationship with God also, how He loves us so much. It is to continue his creation of mankind (though sometimes I think we make big mistakes with that).

I do have a problem with your sperm count statement though, but just a small one. The likelihood of a woman getting pregnant is 1 in some odd billion (without birth control). This is because the female body sees sperm as a foreign body, which it is to a female. So the female body makes tons of antibodies and kills all these sperm. The female organ doesn't want to accept even one sperm! Which seems kind of odd to us, but makes sense if you look at it from God's perspective. He knew that over-population could/would occur (He is omniscient after all). This is why he made it seemingly impossible to conceive. Thus, keeping the balance you are speaking of.

In Bible times people lived for hundreds of years, then all of a sudden you get to us and we live nothing close to that. Thanks to modern medicine we have been able to over-populate our planet. God had to allow this because we have free will (another topic that Christian people are not very good at explaining).

There is a story in the Bible about a woman who cannot conceive, her name is Sarai (later Sarah) and she is Abram's (later Abraham) wife. Her being sterile/not conceiving is not a sin. What was a sin, however, was Sarai telling Abram to take her maid and have a child by her. God cursed the son of that woman (Hagar), because it was a sin for Abram to sleep with her.

I think the bottom line comes down to the fact that sex is wrong without marriage. In Bible times homosexuals couldn't get married (same as now in most places, but we have become more tolerant because the authorities no longer kill gay people. Praise God for that!). So, it is a sin for heterosexuals to have intercourse outside of marriage, as it is for homosexuals. The difference is that to honor God homosexuals can never participate in sexual relations. It doesn't seem fair, but I can't change what the Bible says (no matter how much I would like to sometimes!).


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

Humans can control traits - to an extent. We are still subject to the environmental pressures, and we aren't consciously aiming for a specific set of traits. It just happens based on the environment.

Where did you get that statistic about a woman getting pregnant? And it's 1 in some odd billion what? Sexual encounters?

I also don't think God designed women to have an inhospitable environment for population control purposes. That seems contradictory, and still a waste of energy; why not just have one sperm per ejaculate have a certain chance of fertilization? And also not effective, given that we are currently over-populated as it is (and that's with the use of contraceptives in this day and age). I think the survival of the fittest theory is more explanatory for why there are so many sperm produced (the strongest sperm can reach the egg). If you do have a Bible verse demonstrating the thought that God made conception nearly impossible for population control... well I still wouldn't believe it, but it would help me understand how you came up with that.

You probably can't change what the Bible says, but you certainly don't need to listen to it.


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

No not sexual encounters, just the odds of one sperm of some odd million surviving. I'm not sure that there is a Bible verse about it. But you can watch all about procreation in a documentary called "The Miracle of Life". That's where I got my statistics.

God is a mysterious being, we can't explain everything He does.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

A few of points to make:

1. Over 40 years ago now, I "tried" to have a relationship with a woman. It did not work, and would never have worked out, because I am NOT heterosexual. I never had a sexual desire for that woman as I have never had sexual desire for ANY woman. I was merely trying to prove that I was "straight!" Since coming to understand and accept myself as I am, my respect for women has increased enormously.

2. Only rarely in my life have I indulged in anal sex. This is what you are referring to as "homosexual" lifestyle, right? Yet it's practised by heterosexual men with women.

3. Many homosexual men do not wish to engage in anal sex. There is lots more to having a good sexual relationship.... the entire body is a wonderfully sensual "organ" given to us to enjoy, if we get the chance.

4. If you make a law banning anal sex, how are you going to police that law? Will you peep through windows and curtains at night to make sure "it's being done correctly?" Straight men and women, watch out!

5. There is a lot of evil activity going on in the world which directly disadvantages many people.... theft, corruption, torture, discrimination..... go out and battle with the people who do these things, instead of kicking the soft underbelly of people who want to lead a loving and cooperative life together.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

@a49eracct - I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that statement. The chances vary depending on the ovulation stage of the female, and I still don't understand what you mean - one in a billion sperm survive, but for how long? Are these billion sperm healthy and not abnormal? Are they helper sperm? I just don't think generalizing it to one in a billion is accurate. And if you mean one sperm out of a billion joins the egg, well that would be a very misleading statistic as only one sperm will join the egg due to polyspermy blocks, otherwise it will lead to an inviable zygote - in other words, you could say only one in an infinity of sperm cells will join with the egg assuming the blocks to polyspermy are functional. That doesn't tell me anything, though.

A more believable scenario would be that the defenses against polyspermy are in constant balance to the evolutionary arms race of quantity of sperm, which creates a balance. This happened naturally throughout the course of species' evolution, with higher quantities of sperm having a greater chance of fertilization, thus propagating genes of high sperm quantities in ejaculation.

I dislike when Christians hide behind the "God is mysterious" argument. It's a fallacy, and I can't take you seriously when you use it. Look up the "God Wildcard Fallacy" or "special pleading", it might help you understand it. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logic...

@jonnycomelately - Congratulations on accepting yourself. Your points outline just how little of a choice some have in their sexuality and the many flaws in these homophobic arguments that exist in our society. For instance, that intercourse is meant only for heterosexuals. What kind of intercourse? Surely anal isn't the same as vaginal, and people don't even consider the possibility of sensual enjoyment of your bodies which your third point outlined so perfectly. I agree entirely that the focus is on homosexuals, almost as sort of a scapegoat. There are clearly more relevant issues to be addressing than whether or not two adults can have a consensual relationship.

And luckily, I don't think we'll ever get to such extremes like in your fourth point.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Thank you for this sensible discussion about the scientific understandings of reproductive process. The research is ongoing of course. We will never know everything there is to know. Ultimately, that energy or power or divine whatever which drives the process will never be defined by us and this is where I am happy in warming to anyone's need to believe in a Creator. This where we can marvel and admire, get an uplifting boost for our humdrum lives. But don't let's pull everything down again by insisting that Creator is in some ways a demanding Judge, who spanks us across the butt for going against biblical writings.

In making my previous comments I realise that some people will be offended by my choice of words, putting things so bluntly. I do not intend to throw the subject in your face, just for the fun of it. However, so many people discuss it from preconceptions and guesswork. They do NOT know precisely what they are talking about. Sexual matters are often taboo; don't even think about them, let alone TALK about them. How then can anyone get to know the FACTS about it? Your Pastor, your Biology teacher at school, your Mum and Dad, all have strong reasons for not wanting to answer your questions clearly and honestly. So you will remain ignorant. Add to this a preconception about what is religiously acceptable and superstitious folk-law; then you have a deep seedbed for rejection and hatred to grow in a community (of otherwise honourable, respectable, "God-Fearing" people).

I hope that by being direct and speaking from personal knowledge, instead of hearsay, I can help to bridge that gap of ignorance.

By the way, in the heading of this Hub, you will see the term "a Homosexual." There is no such thing! Please use the word as an adjective or an adverb. I despise labels. I am Human, decent, ordinary, loveable, loving, caring. Equally naughty sometimes, making mistakes, occasionally not decent, extraordinary, doing unloving and uncaring acts. Just like you. Surprised?


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

Exception: Very often we all pull out the God wildcard as a figure of speech, rather than an explanation or a conclusion to an argument. In these cases, it is not a fallacy.

I wasn't using it as a reason for the unexplainable. Like I said, watch the documentary- it explains reproduction better than I ever could.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

a49eracct, I don't see how you used it as a figure of speech. You said that God created intercourse as a means of reproduction. I asked you questions about population balance and how God addressed these issues, such as setting a limit on our fruitfulness, and you said that a woman's body does not want to accept the sperm of the male and that only 1 in a billion sperm join the egg. It obviously got a little more complicated than that. I didn't find any of those questions being answered satisfactory, or even related to any sort of thought in the Bible, after which you say "God is a mysterious being, we can't explain everything He does". If that's a figure of speech, what are you alluding to? The example in the link, "God only knows why the people voted for that guy", is a means of exaggeration, as if there is no way of knowing why people voted for him (it's a technique used to highlight the absurdity of the situation, but the situation itself can be explained). If you can't explain to me how or why he created intercourse only as a means of reproduction, and how he set balances for population control, then how can I believe you?

You'd have to demonstrate that God specifically wanted women to have an inhospitable environment balanced by large numbers of male sperm cells as a means of population control, and you'd have to demonstrate that it's actually working. Saying "God works in mysterious ways" or anything similar will not prove anything.

jonnycomelately, I used the term "a homosexual" because "homosexual" is also a noun. I'm not trying to use it like a label or anything, but that is what you are, isn't it? There's nothing wrong with saying so, and I don't see why you should be afraid of that. Also, if I were to have used the adjective it would have also included heterosexuals that exhibit or have demonstrated some homosexual behaviour or experienced homosexual thoughts, which is also perfectly natural but for the sake of simplicity I kept it just to creatures that are homosexual.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

mrpopo, sorry if I sounded a bit blunt there. My phraseology was a bit amiss. I was trying to address the reader of your Hub and my comments, not directly at yourself.

The reason I find the noun "homosexual" a problem is that the very word conjures up different connotations in different minds. How does one recognise "a homosexual?" Effeminacy? Strange behaviours in public? Strange dress? A particular body image? The way he or she speaks?

As I went on to say, the very "practices" or "lifestyle" do not define "a homosexual" either. This is why I try to deflect the noun as much as possible and, instead address the preconceptions of what a homosexual person does. Then compare that with what a heterosexual person does. Hopefully this will help to dispel false understanding.

I don't know if it will, but worth trying at least.

I am impressed by your discussion on the biblical aspects, but these are beyond my knowledge, except for a little background from when I was christian.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

jonnycomelately, there's no need to apologize. I thought your phrasing was fine, and I appreciate you addressing your points honestly.

I think, in very simple terms, that a homosexual is a man that is attracted to other men (the actual term means "same sex", so this could apply to women who are attracted to other women). Whether or not I can recognize who is a homosexual just by looking at them is not important to me. I don't even think about a person's sexuality to be honest.

Effeminacy is something that both gay and straight men can demonstrate, even though it is somewhat more commonly associated with gay men (which I don't see as anything bad). Clothing, body image and speech can also give cues to your sexuality, but all of those traits are subjective, cultural and can change over time. Pink, for example, used to be considered a colour for boys in the 1900s. The only reason we associate pink with feminine and blue with masculine is due to fashion trends that we accepted. Boys used to wear skirts just like girls and nobody seemed to really mind or judge. There's a photograph of Franklin D. Roosevelt wearing one when he was a young boy.

It just doesn't make sense to recognize a person's sexuality simply based on how they look, even though they can make it demonstrably obvious if they wanted to. Like I said, I don't really think about a person's sexuality, and if anything people shouldn't be trying to judge in such superficial terms. I would say the same about skin colour; even though a person's skin colour should be obvious with a glance, I don't even think about it when I interact with the person.

I agree that practices or lifestyle don't necessarily define a person's sexuality, but I don't see how the use of the noun in "a homosexual" invokes those preconceptions.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Thank you again for this interesting and patient discussion. Yes, I can see your point clearly. My own perceptions are not beyond changing for the better.


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

God cursed Eve in the garden after she ate from the tree of knowledge. Her curse had to do with childbearing, and that it would be painful. It is my belief that this also includes the small possibility to become pregnant in the first place. Before Eve ate the fruit she did not have a menstrual cycle- ergo the difficulties of picking just the right day at just the right time and having just the right amount of sperm and just the right one to fertilize the egg.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

jonnycomelately, I'm glad you don't limit yourself to absolute perceptions. I'm of the belief that our perceptions change all the time with new information (as well they should!).

When I was a kid, sharks used to be one of my favourite animals. I was fascinated by their size and formidable appearance. I remember making a drawing of one in elementary school and my teacher was puzzled why I would ever like a creature that is so violent and kills so many people every year. After hearing that, I remember not liking sharks as much as I used to.

Later in life I learned that shark attacks are rare and it's almost always the fault of some human influence. I know that in my home country of Brazil there are individuals who dispose of waste meat in rivers, the scent of which is carried to beaches and oceans. Sharks have a fantastic sense of smell, so they travel incredibly large distances to those beaches and oceans with the expectation of a feast only to find no meat, fish or suitable prey. Under those conditions it's no surprise why they sometimes attack humans. When I learned of the destruction of their habitat and how most don't try to attack humans I changed my perspective yet again. I realized that not liking sharks because they try to survive was a foolish viewpoint, and that the root problem was not the actual sharks. Much like the discrimination on homosexuals is something a lot of people seem to fixate on when it's actually not a root problem (or a problem at all for that matter).

a49eracct, are you suggesting that prior to eating from the tree of knowledge Eve was not able to become pregnant? Then why would God ever want humans to be fruitful if at the very beginning it wasn't even a possibility? And why would God give Adam and Eve sexual organs prior to the eating of the apple if not to reproduce?

On a side note, why would God not like people to eat from the tree of knowledge? Isn't knowledge a good thing?


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Two suggestions as to the reasons for that story of the Garden of Eden.

First, the major difference between humans and other species is that we can think constructively, make choices and difficult decisions. We don't (we think) act and react only on the basis of instinctive behaviour. With this ability to choose, we build ourselves mental problems, every day of our lives. Sometimes there is so much conflict between the choices that we get overwhelmed with responsibility. (" Father take this cup from me!")

The other species, however, don't seem to have this complexity of choice. It comes down to fright, flight or fight. Live or die. Simple life, unencumbered by other considerations.

I see that Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as representing the road of multiple choice, hence the anguish. It's where the human mind branched off and dug it's own grave with all the responsibility.

The second point of understanding, I suggest, was that "the world" up to that point in time had been a Matriarch society. Men wanted to reclaim their position of authority. By painting the picture that she (Eve) had disobeyed God and even led Adam into sin, the female could be subjugated immediately back to her proper place.

(Never let it be said that I would be taking sides in this argument. Of Course!)


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

She could reproduce, she just didn't have a menstrual cycle. God cursed Eve, Adam, and the snake all in different ways. It is up to us to do the research to figure out all that the curse entails because the Bible does not go into detail right away. The Bible is meant to be read a whole book, not in bits and pieces.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Back to the original question: "Nature Is Gay: Is It Natural to Be a Homosexual?"

My bare skin is "nature." I love to be naked in the open air. Is it natural?

In cold weather, the wind and the rain and the snow is "nature." I put on clothes to warm myself. Is it natural?

Life forms from millions of years ago were buried and compressed by layers and layers of sediment, until they became coal or oil. This was "nature" in action. I now use those hydro-carbons to warm myself. Is it "natural?"

Whether something is "natural" or not does not seem to come into question when we want a comfortable life. Why would you worry about two persons wanting the comforts of being "gay?"


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

"First, the major difference between humans and other species is that we can think constructively, make choices and difficult decisions."

I disagree. I've come across numerous examples of animals doing something that seems counter-intuitive to their instinct. Dolphins often save humans from drowning and protect them from sharks and other predators. There's a video of a dog going out on the highway to protect a dog that had been hit, all the while with cars zooming by. There's also a video of an adult lion hugging and caressing his old owners, years after they released him into the wild. Even slime molds are capable of replicating Japan's rail system (this took humans decades; the slime mold did it in one day: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/slime-mo...

All of the above seem contrary to their instinct (dolphins and dogs risking their lives, lions not attacking humans, slime mold making the most efficient design possible as opposed to random city building).

There have also been numerous tests to determine whether or not they can make choices. One example is of an experiment where a dog was given two bowls, one to the left and one to the right. The one on the left was slightly further away and both bowls had the same dry dog food. The dog always chose the closest bowl to eat from. They repeated the experiment, this time with "canned" dog food on the left bowl and dry dog food on the right bowl. The dog chose the farther bowl. They repeated this with a cat and a pig, getting the same results on both.

"To clarify, the dogs chose what they thought would taste better. To say that this choice was still instinctual impulse would be saying the same of humans who choose a similar option." - author's response from which I learned of this experiment.

And further, the very notion of "choice" seems to be flawed. Another famous experiment involved individuals being hooked to a device that measures brain response, and being told to push a button with either their left hand or their right hand. The researches found a pattern that enabled them to predict with 60% accuracy which hand would push the button, 10 seconds before the person was consciously aware of making the choice. Many other experiments echo this sentiment and put some question on the true nature of choice.

If the tree gave humans the ability to choose, then how did they choose to eat the apple in the first place?

a49eracct, menstrual cycles are necessary for reproduction. How could she reproduce without one?


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

They are necessary, now. God created perfect human beings. We are not told how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they ate of the tree. Adam and Eve did not know they were naked, they did not know what reproduction was. If they had not eaten the fruit they would both still be here today- and not us.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Mrpopo, my major point is that the stories in the first chapter of Genesis I see as primarily metaphor, analogy, etc. Trying to convey the understandings of those early people as to how the world came about. Also to explain the various personal and social mores which we all experience, yet can rarely put succinctly into words.

I don't take any of those writings literally.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

I know you don't jonny, I'm just pointing out that the stories don't make much sense even as metaphors. I am always hearing that God gave us free will to make choices, so it doesn't make sense to think that multiple roads of choice results in anguish because God already gave them that ability. Knowledge itself is also not necessarily a bad thing.

a49eracct, I am still confused. Why would God give Adam and Eve reproductive organs if they didn't even know what reproduction was? What would be the point? It would be like giving a caveman an electric guitar and expecting him to play music.

If menstruation was not necessary, you'd have to provide the original reproductive mechanism for me to even consider that proposition.


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

They didn't know what any of their organs did. Why did they have a liver, or kidneys, a brain? They didn't know what to do- so they did what God told them. Until Eve disobeyed, obviously. This is why they freaked out when they learned they were naked. Adam wasn't born from a mother, neither was Eve. God created everything with a purpose, down to the very last cell. Just because they didn't know at the time what reproduction was doesn't mean God wouldn't have told them eventually. Their free will took away that opportunity.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

But that brings another question. Why would they need any of their organs and systems?

For instance, as far as I'm aware everything was perfect prior to their sin. Why would they need an immune system? There would be no infections in the Garden of Eden, right?

Would they need any sort of metabolism? Your metabolism is a constant balance of anabolic (building) and catabolic (breaking) reactions. It has to constantly adapt and change to conditions. Since their condition would not have changed prior to their sinning (they were perfect and immortal, right?) it would not make sense for them to have a metabolism. Therefore anything that ultimately governs your metabolism, including your digestive system, your urinary system, your endocrine system, your circulatory system etc. would not be necessary. Eating and breathing would not be necessary either if they were immortal (even though the Bible says that they did eat the other fruits).

Pain did not exist at the time either, which also negates the many adaptations for cold/hot temperatures, reflexes, instincts etc.

I'm being very generic with these systems, because if you even had any idea how complex each system is you too would wonder why God went to such great lengths to make them when in reality they were not needed at all.

Have you found a reason as to why menstruation was not necessary for reproduction prior to sin? As far as I know it is needed due to the hormonal changes for ovulation as well as to provide nutrients for a fertilized egg, or to shed the egg in the event of no fertilization. When we use hormonal pills to suppress menstruation we get an effective form of birth control, prior to their first period girls are not fertile and menopause also indicates infertility. These facts lead me to believe that reproduction would be impossible without menstrual cycles.


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

Like I said, God created these complex beings- He gave them everything they needed to survive. He told them what to do to survive. One of those things is eating- therefore they do need all these things. They don't feel pain until they sin. God gave man free will, so He had to create systems to prepare for their choices. Just because they didn't feel it doesn't mean it wasn't there. That being said, say there was menstruation. Fine, but menstruation is painful- just like childbirth. This is what leads me to believe it didn't exist. And girls who have not had their period can get pregnant. Let it be known that more than likely the fetus won't make term- but it is possible. Menopause in its final stage means there is no ovulation, pregnancy by medical induction (artificial/invitro) can still happen.

God created man because we are His greatest creation. God is selfish and proud, He wanted to prove His greatness. Hence, here we are. No, we were not needed- we were WANTED. And that sounds like a much better deal to me.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

a49eracct, would you agree that the whole of your argument relies upon there existing such a "god?" If there was no such god, then would your arguments still stand as you want them too?


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

jonny-

Some of them would, some of them wouldn't. However, there is archeological evidence all the way back to the 10th century that backs up the happenings in the Bible. The only thing that hasn't been traced is the time of Adam and Eve (but who know how long they were alive before they sinned). Although, there is evidence as to the location of the garden. So, while endocrinology/biology may not back me up the archeology does.


Spiderman 4 years ago

mrpopo i think your hubpage on gays is completely ignorant and you are just a gay lover trying to hide your love of gays. sorry to expose your true psyche but im just trying to spread the gospel of the lord. you are a homosexual


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

And does that "gospel of the lord" allow you to be an anonymous judge, Spiderman? If you have the courage of your convictions, and if you really have a love in you which is based upon that gospel, then maybe you could become a bona fide member of HubPages. Write your profile, so we can know a bit more about you, and what makes you tick.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Whenever we hear someone throwing up the threat of retribution for individuals who are homosexual, it can be caused by that person's inner secret knowledge that they have "gay" interests and desires as well. That person is afraid to "come out" and admit it. He (usually, but she as well) probably has a collection of friends and acquaintances who are, as a group, anti-gay. This person doing the hiding, i.e., being dishonest with him or her self, puts up this anti-gay stance in the hope that it will keep him safe and secure in his peer-group.

He will be absolutely adamant that he is not "queer." Yet the depths of dishonest are so engrained that he cannot see his truth.

Not always, of course, but in a large number of cases this will be true.


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

Spiderman,

If you want to spread the gospel you might want to read it. In no way does it say for you to degrade and judge people. In fact, it says quite the opposite.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Ok, a49eracct, can you live by what you have just said to Spiderman? In terms of the Title of this Hub by mrpopo, can you personally apply absolutely no judgment to me as a homosexual person? Can you personally allow me total freedom to decide what is right for me in my life? And can you refrain from applying any of your christian beliefs in order to make judgment on me?

Because for me, personally, the notion of whether homosexuality is "natural" does not come into the argument. I AM homosexual. There is no way I can be,or wish to be, heterosexual. For me to be the latter would be against my nature, if you like to call it that.

Now, on this basis, if you believe that "God" made everything in this world, and that "He" is in charge, can you accept that "He" made me, just as I am and in no way for you to question?


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

Of course jonny! Jesus even says that it is ok to be gay. It is not my place to say how you should live your life.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

That's a beautiful comment from someone so young. Thank you.


Kemi 4 years ago


mindandmatter 4 years ago

An appeal to nature is a form of argument or rhetorical tactic in which a phenomenon is described as desirable because it is natural, or undesirable because it is unnatural, it is considered a naturalistic fallacy.

Homosexuality does occur among animals so does cannibalism, rape, murder, vandalism and thuggery. So I think its better not to base your arguments on nature.

There are so many human behaviors that are natural but we do not legitimize them. Adultery is natural but it is wrong. Homosexuality is not natural but there is nothing wrong with it.

There are no homosexual animals. Homosexuality is a label constructed by society. Its something two beings do. It is not something permanent. It can change. There are no HS animals. Animals may look like they are HS because their senses are very limited to smell and taste. So a male might misunderstand a male for a female. HS can occur as a result of lack of females as well. There was a report about "gay" penguins but the zoo keeper admitted that they are just being good friends.

Nature does everything with a purpose. Those lizards sexual activity helps them to grow their kind. But humans have sex not just for the sake of reproduction. Homosexual activity has no that kind of purpose other than pleasure. But there is nothing wrong with it.

Ah the slippery slope. You are in vain trying to prove that people are born gay like people are born blind and with too many fingers. The gene theory, brain theory, hormone theory has failed to produce a credible case for innate homosexuality. There is a very small % who were born homo. But the vast majority is not born so. There may be biological underlying components but they are not decisive.

_______

Appeal to tradition (also known as proof from tradition,[1] appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way." wikipedia

There were people who had sex with the same sex, but neither them or others identified themselves as homosexual let alone gay. The term homosexual is not older than 100 years. The term gay is even more modern.

Quote -- Alexander's sexuality has been the subject of speculation and controversy.[188] No ancient sources stated that Alexander had homosexual relationships, or that Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion was sexual. Aelian, however, writes of Alexander's visit to Troy where "Alexander garlanded the tomb of Achilles and Hephaestion that of Patroclus, the latter riddling that he was a beloved of Alexander, in just the same way as Patroclus was of Achilles".[189] Noting that the word eromenos (ancient Greek for beloved) does not necessarily bear sexual meaning,"

Those famous historic figures are celebrated today not because of their "homosexuality". They never moralized their sexuality. And most of the figures from Greece were not actually homosexuals but pederasts. So should we justify that. Even these are very controversial stories that is hardly proven. I can produce a list of pedophiles who are being celebrated to day.

One should not accept something just because its seen in the nature or seen in the history. That's very unwise and dangerous. Gay activism doesn't have to degrade themselves on this kind of poor logic.

FYI : I don't give a darn about God.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

mindandmatter, thank you... interesting points, whether I agree with them or not, and you are welcome to state you point of view without judgment from me.

I also don't give a darn about god. My interests sexually are all about guys, none at all about women. Yet I can respect women and want the best for them in terms of fairness, honour, enjoyment of life.

I can only hope that other guys who are not at all interested sexually in guys, will also accord me the same respect and work towards my welfare.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

@mindandmatter, I feel like you agree on many of the issues I brought up, but for some reason felt like attacking my article with straw men and poor reading skills. I hope I will adequately respond to your comment and clear up any misconceptions you may have.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"An appeal to nature is a form of argument or rhetorical tactic in which a phenomenon is described as desirable because it is natural, or undesirable because it is unnatural, it is considered a naturalistic fallacy.

Homosexuality does occur among animals so does cannibalism, rape, murder, vandalism and thuggery. So I think its better not to base your arguments on nature.

There are so many human behaviors that are natural but we do not legitimize them. Adultery is natural but it is wrong. Homosexuality is not natural but there is nothing wrong with it."

I should have made it clearer in the article, but this was not an attempt to justify homosexuality based on it being natural - I don't think I ever attempted to do so in the article anyway (if I did, please point it out and I will correct this immediately). What this article was meant to do was provide evidence on homosexuality being natural based on animal behaviour and historical evidence. Why? Because one of the main arguments against homosexuality is that it is unnatural. It is indeed a logical fallacy to appeal to nature, as you've pointed out yourself, but the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is so poor that, ignoring the inherent logical fallacy, the argument fails to provide the basic evidence for its premise; namely, that there is plenty of evidence of homosexual behaviour occurring both historically and in nature. I do a better job of explaining this with my response to the comment by "PlanksandNails".

It might interest you to know that this sort of argument has been used in court cases to invalidate previous laws prohibiting sodomy in several states.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There are no homosexual animals. Homosexuality is a label constructed by society. Its something two beings do. It is not something permanent. It can change. There are no HS animals. Animals may look like they are HS because their senses are very limited to smell and taste. So a male might misunderstand a male for a female. HS can occur as a result of lack of females as well. There was a report about "gay" penguins but the zoo keeper admitted that they are just being good friends."

In the article I may have substituted "homosexual behaviour" for "a homosexual". It's simply my lazy writing, but in this instance they were basically interchangeable. It's a good distinction to make, however. This quote by Simon Levay says it better than I can: "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

I sincerely doubt the implication that most animals "look like" they are homosexual based on them mistaking the other gender. I think it's more likely that it's genuine homosexual behaviour. Simon Levay actually pointed out that with domesticated sheep, about 10% of the rams refuse to mate with the females and readily mate with other rams (one of the rarities for exclusive homosexual orientation in animals, so yes there is at least one animal that displays exclusive homosexual orientation).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nature does everything with a purpose. Those lizards sexual activity helps them to grow their kind. But humans have sex not just for the sake of reproduction. Homosexual activity has no that kind of purpose other than pleasure. But there is nothing wrong with it."

Okay. I don't think I said anything related to that, although I can imagine homosexual behaviour helping maintain population levels so I would be cautious to claim it's solely about pleasure.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ah the slippery slope. You are in vain trying to prove that people are born gay like people are born blind and with too many fingers. The gene theory, brain theory, hormone theory has failed to produce a credible case for innate homosexuality. There is a very small % who were born homo. But the vast majority is not born so. There may be biological underlying components but they are not decisive."

Why the straw man? I don't think I ever made those claims in the article. If you read it carefully, I actually said: "In that regard, why is being unexpected or unusual a problem? It’s unreasonable to hate a person for being blind or for writing with their left hand or for having more than 20 fingers and toes." My argument is that being different, being "unnatural" is not a bad thing in and of itself. I didn't even mention the role of genetics in your sexuality/reproducibility (although there are factors). It doesn't really matter to me whether the underlying cause is biological or environmental or a combination of both. The main point that should be noted in regards to the causes of sexuality is that there is very little choice in your sexuality (and I don't think I made this point in this specific article).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Appeal to tradition (also known as proof from tradition,[1] appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way." wikipedia

There were people who had sex with the same sex, but neither them or others identified themselves as homosexual let alone gay. The term homosexual is not older than 100 years. The term gay is even more modern."

Are you suggesting that, because the term is modern, the act the term describes has never existed? (by the way, the term has been recorded as early as 1869 in a Prussian pamphlet, so it is older than 100 years)

Again, I was not appealing to tradition. I was merely citing the many instances of homosexual behaviour in human history, effectively disproving the argument that homosexuality is unnatural.

I may have used homosexual instead of homosexual behaviour, so again I apologize for my laziness. But frankly I think it's safe to say most of them were more homosexual than heterosexual in the spectrum of sexuality, and since humans can display exclusive homosexual orientation I don't think my assumption is that far-fetched. In any case, those individuals demonstrate the occurrence of homosexual behaviour in human history.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

"Quote -- Alexander's sexuality has been the subject of speculation and controversy.[188] No ancient sources stated that Alexander had homosexual relationships, or that Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion was sexual. Aelian, however, writes of Alexander's visit to Troy where "Alexander garlanded the tomb of Achilles and Hephaestion that of Patroclus, the latter riddling that he was a beloved of Alexander, in just the same way as Patroclus was of Achilles".[189] Noting that the word eromenos (ancient Greek for beloved) does not necessarily bear sexual meaning,"

I would say it's most probable that he was bisexual, but that's just my humble guess. It doesn't really matter to me. In the article I mentioned that he had a sexual relationship with Hephaestion - this is still a contested issue by historians. As I am no historian it would be pointless to contest it with someone else. Apparently there is more evidence of him having sexual relations with a eunuch by the name of Bagoas. Whether or not he had homosexual relations seems like a trivial issue, as there are plenty more historical instances of homosexuality.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those famous historic figures are celebrated today not because of their "homosexuality". They never moralized their sexuality. And most of the figures from Greece were not actually homosexuals but pederasts. So should we justify that. Even these are very controversial stories that is hardly proven. I can produce a list of pedophiles who are being celebrated to day."

No, they were not celebrated for their sexuality. I never claimed they were. I don't know what you mean by moralizing their sexuality, but I never made that claim either. As I've already mentioned, I simply compiled a small list of historical figures that had homosexual tendencies to prove that homosexuality is not an unnatural event.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"One should not accept something just because its seen in the nature or seen in the history. That's very unwise and dangerous. Gay activism doesn't have to degrade themselves on this kind of poor logic."

As I've already mentioned, I never stated that homosexuality can be justified just because it is evidenced historically or in nature. It is a fallacy. The exercise was just to point out the many examples of homosexuality occurring both in nature and historically, debunking the claim based on facts (although, like I mentioned, it's fundamentally wrong based on the argument's fallacy).

I probably wouldn't classify this as gay activism or poor logic, but to each his own.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"FYI : I don't give a darn about God."

That's nice.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

mrpopo, it's good that this discussion can continue intelligently, without too much simplistic rancor. It's helpful to hear from at least two sides of the argument. I can see that you are very much more knowledgeable in the historical matters than I, even though you say you are not a historian.

A couple of questions, if I may, just to broaden the discussion a bit:

First, in any discussion on this topic of homosexuality, do you detect a reticence on the part of some commentators, whereby they are reluctant to "speak the words" boldly and honestly? I wonder if, as in "mindandmatter's" case possibly, there is embarrassment about even discussing the subject. I say this because the latter contributor has still not declared anything about him- or her- self, as though it's important to remain anonymous..... the peer group might be watching, for example. There could even be real danger in commenting as he/she has done. There are communities/cultures in the world who will inflict extreme punishment on fellows who step outside their morality. So I don't blame anyone for being extremely discreet. Just that it's sad we cannot be more open about it.

Second question: Is it essential that anything "sexual" must be directed at ultimately reproducing our kind? Is there anything inherently wrong in "just doing it for fun?" The sheer enjoyment of bodily contact and intimacy can be a very strong factor in bonding. (And I have mentioned in other hubs that sexual penetration is not practised by every person who is "gay." Some people live together in a homosexual relationship which is founded primarily on the friendship, comradeship, love and sharing of resources. Whether or what they do in their "spare time" is no one else's business anyway.)

Third and final question for now: Is part of the objection from the anti-homo brigade based upon the Puritan sect's anti-enjoyment philosophy? Straight lace; stiff upper lip; no lipstick; little colour or adornment; etc. Does this epitomize much of the religious attitude in the USA? I don't know the answer, just asking.


mcleodgi profile image

mcleodgi 4 years ago

Some people don't even think that we humans are animals. The reality is that we are, at least partly and as long as we remain so, there are certain urges that will just not go away and sexuality is the most major one.

I used to be against homosexuality myself but I realized that it was because I was angry at my uncle who transitioned due to AIDS at the age of 32 (which from what I heard, he contracted due to his own recklessness). I was barely seven years old at the time and felt like he'd been taken away before I had a chance to get to know him myself. To say that the whole thing caused a BIG havoc in my family is an understatement. Now, especially after more personal exposure to them, I know that they are just as human as everyone else, they're just simply attracted to those of the same gender as them.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Wisdom through conscious experience.


mindandmatter 4 years ago

Hi Jonny, I agree with you. I agree that homosexuality is a natural development. Hoever, that doesn't mean that it is a normal development. Penis fits vagina, no linguistic game-playing can deny that.

Nature should not be taken as a measure to judge (as good or bad) human activities. What may be normal, natural for you may not be normal to someone else. Arguments based on history/nature are so weak that they can extended to justify any kind of human behavior.

If homosexual activity brings happiness, harmony to someone, thats good. If not, he/she can get some help. That's how we should judge anything. I support homosexuals not because it is seen in the nature or it has been practiced in the history.

It is always good to stick to the reality and truth rather than trying to sweep it under the rug.

PS: I come from a society that has been/that is very tolerant to homosexuality. Unfortunately the Europeans came, conquered, and introduced laws against homosexuality. Anyways, I'm used to this kind of comments since I know people tend to label anybody who has an opposing view as a homophobic. BTW, I have a brother who is gay.


a49eracct profile image

a49eracct 4 years ago

Jonny-

On your question of the religious attitude in the US, you are both right and wrong. The media portrays that any religion, not just Christianity, is very "anti-gay". I cannot deny that there are what I call "radical" Christians who are very hateful towards anything that seems wrong. Here is the problem: those who are decent, accepting, genuine, loving people (of any religion) aren't going to get on TV or in the news. These radicals make a very bad name for those of us who live out our faith by not judging and loving everyone.


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 4 years ago

Excellent hub, but if homosexuality among animals can be considered a good reason to accept it; animals also have sex with relations like mothers/daughters/sisters-- I don't know if you like us to accept even that side of animal behavior considering it as natural. Some animals like Pigs eat shit etc., but that is natural for them.


KoiHdez profile image

KoiHdez 4 years ago from New Jersey

I wrote a small report of the C. neomexicanus for my 10th grade Biology class. My teacher did not believe me...

I enjoyed reading your hub by the way.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

So, Arshad Majid, is it logical in your terms, for humans to sit in judgment of fellow humans simply because your fellows enjoy some intimacy and love and commitment? Where there is no harm done to anyone else in such a relationship, is it "naturally human" to condemn such relationship as "against God's law," when humans are the only species to even contemplate the existence of such a being as "God"?

I agree with you that to compare human activity with "other" animals simply so the activity can be declared "natural" or "unnatural" is not logical or conducive to mutual understanding and acceptance.

If you think we humans, as a species of animal, have an intelligence superior to other species, then let's start using that intelligence and drop the convenient concept of a "god" directing our morals.

Condemn the cruel and barbaric punishments imposed on homosexual individuals. Don't condemn their love for each other.


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 4 years ago

jonn ycomelately-- Did I mention God or religion? By the way thanks for appreciating the fact that; what is natural for animals may not be taken as natural for humans. This hub is purely based on logic so, kindly keep the religion out of it.

I was thinking what else is natural for animals and remembered a few more things that might interest you. Cats eat back what they vomit, male goats drink their urine, male cats eat their own off-spring, dogs and cats like to smell each other's asses to find out what the other had for dinner last night. I think a biologist can create a more exciting list of such natural activities as I am just a layman when it comes to biology.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

@ Arshad,

I've addressed this in previous comments, but I was not trying to justify homosexuality based on its natural occurrence; I was just providing evidence of it being natural both in human history and in nature itself. It's purely a moot point, because arguments appealing to nature are inherently fallacious. I made this Hub both as an intellectual exercise and as evidence that the argument against homosexuality is so absurd that it defeats itself on every premise, even if you ignore the fallacy.

I should probably address the fallacy though, I made the Hub too subtle for its exclusion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@KoiHdhez

It's a very interesting animal and a good choice for a report. I find it shocking that your teacher didn't believe you or at least did some research. Thanks for reading the Hub.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Arshad, thank you for your clarification, and I apologize for confusing the good discussion. As you can see I feel strongly about these things.

I will try to "cool" my reactions. Keep the good discussion going.


Spiderman 4 years ago

I am back and I would just like to rebuttal Jonny and all those who misinterpreted my comment all those months ago. I meant to say that MrPopo is factually known by his peers and myself to be involved in homogenital acts which is clearly a sin in the eyes of God as in it no way promotes conception, and only serves to promote lust and pleasure. This disgusting and sickening desire is what plagues the non-heterosexual community, and this hubpage. There is a warm place in hell reserved for those who commit homogenital acts and by my power I will ensure all of you sickos will be sent there for being such degrading vile creatures.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

Lol. I'll leave the above comment up as he is just trolling, but it is telling that his comments are almost indistinguishable from someone who genuinely hates homosexuals.

Homogenital made me laugh though


Spiderman 4 years ago

My comment is as genuine as is your heterosexual orientation.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Spiderman, if you think your "god" upholds your hatred and vitriol, I for one would never give ANY of my allegiance to such a god.

If, as mrpopo says, you are a troll, go somewhere else and play around with your sick logic.

But really you are a huge joke, so thanks for the laugh anyway.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

And a poem for you Spiderman:

Open your eyes

Draw the veil of lies aside

Step into your heart at home.

Clean with great care

All that you find there

Only then may you cast the first stone.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

Don't worry jonny, he is a troll. He's not even religious, he's just having some fun.


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 4 years ago

mrpopo-- you have written that homosexuality is natural in history and in itself. I have already given my point of view about comparing it with animal behavior, I just want to address to your other claim of it being natural in history. I guess murder, torture, rape etc., also are found in the history of mankind, but this cannot be considered as an argument to make them permissible.

But I feel that it does not require religion in order to justify your dislike for homosexuality. I think it is dirty and before the invention of condom, was much more dirty and certainly a cause of Urinary Tract Infection. However the condom made it less risky and played a big part in its recognition as natural, otherwise the fear of getting an infection was enough to prevent men from going towards it. I was reading that even HIV infection is more likely in case of having sex with an infected male, rather then female.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Arshad, I trust you are not going to leave it at that, without studying and learning much more about homosexual people. Please keep an open mind as you explore the subject and try not to be judgmental yourself or listen to others who are judgmental either.

I understand from your Profile that you are open minded.... hopefully you will be prepared to learn new ways of looking at this subject.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

Arshad, as I've already stated, I was not trying to justify homosexuality based on its occurrence in nature and in history. Arguments appealing to nature are fallacious. The best way to put it is as Julian Baggini says, "[E]ven if we can agree that some things are natural and some are not, what follows from this? The answer is: nothing. There is no factual reason to suppose that what is natural is good (or at least better) and what is unnatural is bad (or at least worse)." The opposite is true as well, i.e. there is no reason to assume that what is natural is bad and what is unnatural is good.

With that in mind, it becomes obvious that anything that has occurred historically or naturally is just that; an occurrence. It doesn't say anything about the morality of the occurrence. That is up to us to justify its morality. Homosexuality is not immoral by any means but one of the ways people attempt to classify it as immoral is with the appeal to nature fallacy.

I am quite certain that any sexual activity before the invention of condoms was carrying some sort of risk for infection or disease, and would be considered dirty (aren't all sexual activities dirty in some fashion?). It's possible that HIV infections are easier to contract anally but as long as both partners are open about their sexual conditions it really shouldn't matter.


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 4 years ago

mrpopo-- I did not mean dirty in terms of fashion, I meant dirty in terms of micro-organisms; the pathology of each hole-- and scope of infections. Which is where the invention of condom comes into action, contributing to homosexuality being considered as natural.

Regarding 'being open about their sexual conditions', you can read the following article which says; half the people are unaware about being HIV positive so, how can they be open, when they don't even know about it themselves?

Following are some of the findings of the report, by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was released on Tuesday (Nov 2012). I hope that would be helpful in understanding the dangers associated with homosexuality (no offense).

1) More than half of people infected with HIV, are unaware.

2) Young people ages 13 to 24 account for 26 percent of all new HIV infections, according to the report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

3) In 2010, 72 percent of the estimated 12,000 new HIV infections in young people occurred in young men who have sex with men

4) because many of the newly infected gay or bisexual males are just beginning to explore their sexuality

5) Only 13 percent of all high school students and only 22 percent of sexually active high school students have ever been tested for HIV, the CDC found.

http://news.yahoo.com/infected-unaware-hiv-hitting...

Note: My apologies to homosexuals, if I may have hurt anyone's feelings while presenting my arguments against it. This discussing is off-course only meant to improve our understanding of the topic.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Arshad, a couple of points which I hope will enlighten you....and I am not trying to persuade you into accepting homosexuality....just asking for you to be non-judgmental of homosexual people.

First, the condom was initiated by heterosexual people, so they could have sex without a) producing a child, b) and at the same time protecting them from syphilis, gonorrhea and other nasty conditions, all occurring in the female, not the male!

Secondly, the majority of people suffering from HIV and AIDS in Africa are heterosexual.

Thirdly, just because two men live together, or even meet frequently together on a casual basis, does not mean they engage in anal sex. Homosexuality involves a lot of loving, giving of love, receiving it, enjoying friendship and companionship. In many relationships sex is not often practised. Your presumptions could lead us to suppose that all heterosexual people are always "at it." I am sure you would not imply that, but one could draw that conclusion, if you want to be impartial and fair to us all.

Most of your writing to date shows me that you are misinformed or simply biased.


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 4 years ago

jonnycomelately-- I am sorry if you feel that way but I was only giving my side of the evidence and arguments. I respect your right to chose regarding your life-style but we both have a mutual responsibility towards the upcoming generation. This I say because I read in the CDC report, that many young men acquire the HIV from homosexual activity while exploring their sexuality, which is very sad.

Regarding condom; I agree it was not initiated by the homosexual people but consequently helped homosexual activity to be hygienic and acceptable. I was just imagining the health risks of such activity in the absence of this useful invention.

Regarding HIV; I hope you remember that it was first discovered among homosexual males in the eighties and the trend still persists as evident by the report of the CDC.

Regarding Sexually Transmitted Diseases; heterosexual activity carries no risks if carried out between two virgins like in a conservative society. The life-style in many parts of the world has made it risky infect, otherwise sex is good for mental, physical and emotional health.

Regarding homosexual relationship without the sex part; I think nobody would have any reservations against such a relationship.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Ok Arshad, but I would counter those points and simply say that right now, as I speak, there are approximately 46000 at least men online, around the world, interested in communicating with other men of a gay disposition.

At various times of the day that number fluctuates. But it shows you that a very considerable number of people are involved in homosexuality, yet the numbers of individuals actually contracting HIV / AIDS is proportionately very low.

Yes, the syndrome did become noticed first in the homosexual community, and various demographic, as well as habitual, explanations, were put forward as possible reasons.

Gay communities themselves were the first to become very responsible in countering the problem. The heterosexual, judgmental sections of society were very prominent is forestalling any big effort to slow the spread. The religious, self-righteous, were very prominent in this latter group.


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 4 years ago

jonnycomelately-- there are bigger number of people searching for cocaine, but that does not mean that taking cocaine should be considered as natural or permissible.

Regarding Gay communities being responsible; I think you did not read the CDC report which says that more than half the HIV infected people don't even know that they are infected and 70% of them are homosexual males. How do you expect them to be responsible when they don't even know that they have it. And only 22% of sexually active high school students were infect tested for it. At least we could agree to one thing-- that homosexuality after all is a risky lifestyle, as portrayed by the CDC report.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Yes, ok, without addressing any other part of that Report, I notice the disproportionate number of Afro-American and Latino men who have been newly infected in 2009.

I would guess that they receive the least attention, care and concern from the health authorities. Also, what is the general level of education and understanding in that section of the community?

If a disease was more prevalent in the white, heterosexual part of the community, you would throw a lot of funds in that direction to get it cured or prevented. You would not tell heterosexual people to stop being heterosexual. You would also work to promote their education.

Do the right thing by the Afro-American and Latino communities. Educate them. Provide them with basic schooling and extended opportunities which allow them to get good jobs and be gainfully active. Treat them as equal citizens, instead of a second-class nuisance.

Do try to drop your prejudice against homosexual people. Be equally fair to all.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

Arshad, I really don't understand your argument. I think you seem genuine in your feelings towards it but it just doesn't make sense. Your entire argument is that homosexuals have a greater risk of getting infected with HIV than heterosexuals. A more correct way of putting it is that HIV is more easily transmitted via anal sex than other types of intercourse - if it is unprotected. The entire issue is that people have unprotected sex, which can be done by both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Your argument should be targeting unprotected sex, not homosexuals.

"mrpopo-- I did not mean dirty in terms of fashion, I meant dirty in terms of micro-organisms; the pathology of each hole-- and scope of infections. Which is where the invention of condom comes into action, contributing to homosexuality being considered as natural."

Like I mentioned, I think it's safe to say every sexual act can be considered dirty both in terms of "fashion" and in terms of disease (it was a pun). When done properly it can be perfectly healthy to carry out either heterosexual or homosexual activities.

"Regarding 'being open about their sexual conditions', you can read the following article which says; half the people are unaware about being HIV positive so, how can they be open, when they don't even know about it themselves?"

Because they never got tested for it. Negligence is not a homosexual trait, or a heterosexual one, and neither is being diagnosed with HIV. Being unaware of your sexual condition is not being open with your partner, that should be obvious.

"1) More than half of people infected with HIV, are unaware."

Refer to my previous comment.

"2) Young people ages 13 to 24 account for 26 percent of all new HIV infections, according to the report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"

This links to lack of awareness, education and lack of protection. Has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

"3) In 2010, 72 percent of the estimated 12,000 new HIV infections in young people occurred in young men who have sex with men"

I assume these were all unprotected sexual activities? If so, the entire issue is just unsafe sex. Sex without a condom is much more dangerous than sex with a condom. It's possible that the demographic of homosexuals is less likely to use protection, for whatever reason. They're also more likely to engage in anal intercourse, for obvious reasons.

"4) because many of the newly infected gay or bisexual males are just beginning to explore their sexuality"

???

"5) Only 13 percent of all high school students and only 22 percent of sexually active high school students have ever been tested for HIV, the CDC found."

Again, this links to lack of awareness, education and - shockingly - lack of protection. Has nothing to do with sexual orientation.


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 4 years ago

mrpopo-- your whole emphasis is on "unprotected" if you notice and even you accept that homosexual activity does carry more risk than heterosexual one, even with a condom. What I was trying to explain is that if the condom was not invented, homosexuality would not have become as acceptable as it is today-- because of the risk of HIV and Urinary Track Infections. Therefore; its contribution cannot be denied-- just a thought.

Secondly; if after 30 years of efforts, we still fail to teach people to protect themselves specially while having homosexual sex, than its time to ask ourselves, will it ever happen. And regarding young men acquiring HIV, the CDC report says that many of them not even gays but young boys trying out homosexual sex, only to explore their sexual inclination. Now, here is where my concern arises that in a society where homosexuality is considered natural, any young 13 year old boy will certainly try it out, to find if he is naturally gay or straight and might pick up HIV during this process. Moreover; in 30 years of imparting sex education, I feel that our understanding of the 13 year old has not developed and we still believe, we can teach that kid how to have safe sex. I feel we are more stubborn than the kid and not understanding the mental maturity level of a kid and even expecting him, to go and get tested for HIV at one of the testing center. We have a society where a 13 year old is mature enough to have sex-- acquire or impart HIV, but cannot drive a car or enter into a legal contract or cast his vote for the presidency-- just thinking, as thinking should never be prohibited.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

How much sexual education does any parent give to his/her 13-year old child? What is it in us adults that says we find it too uncomfortable to talk about sexual matters with children? Who "leaves the job to school teachers," because you don't want to teach the child yourself? What school teacher will feel comfortable about talking to children about sexual matters, because the teacher is afraid of legal issues?

It seems to me that this reticence in talking about such matters is the real reason children are having sex at all, "just to find out what it's like."

They can access all manner of porn on the Internet, despite careful blocking of sites by parents, I suspect. And there is just as much debased heterosexual depravity there as homosexual. In fact it's even worse in the heterosexual area because it actually insults women to a huge degree. Women in turn use (abuse) men as their play things... . and so it goes on.

So what I am saying is, adults look at your own hang ups first, get those sorted, learn to impart healthy, sensitive, caring knowledge to your children. Teach each boy and girl how to stick up for them selves in the face of unwanted sexual advances from anyone of any age. And be ready to give counseling which does not increase the psychological harm to a child who comes to you with a confession and asks for support.

How can you expect a child to learn a "healthy" attitude to sex and intimacy if you cannot teach him or her without embarrasment? Regardless of that child's ultimate preferences.


RichusFridum profile image

RichusFridum 4 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Only a homosexual man would even care to publish something like this.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Thanks RichusFridum, from reading your Profile I will take your post as a compliment. Is that right?


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

"mrpopo-- your whole emphasis is on "unprotected" if you notice and even you accept that homosexual activity does carry more risk than heterosexual one, even with a condom."

No, I specifically said the risk only occurred with anal sex (not homosexual activity) and when it's unprotected. Yes, my emphasis is on unprotected anal sex because that's the main problem - not homosexual activity. In fact, homosexuals do not even have to engage in this behavior necessarily because there are many other ways to share your love for one another (jonny, if you're willing to provide some insight into this it would be much appreciated).

"What I was trying to explain is that if the condom was not invented, homosexuality would not have become as acceptable as it is today-- because of the risk of HIV and Urinary Track Infections. Therefore; its contribution cannot be denied-- just a thought."

A really far-fetched "hypothesis" and it most certainly can be denied if you just think about it for a few seconds. If you could provide any sort of evidence for that it might even be considered.

Here are the problems with that "hypothesis": homosexuality has occurred throughout history, long before HIV was even first transmitted to humans. That means your entire argument against the acceptance of homosexuality relies on urinary tract infections being so prominent in anal sex as to discourage people from doing it. You might be interested to know that urinary tract infections occur mostly in women (not specifically due to anal sex, but rather because in women the urethra is shorter and closer to the anus). Of course, that also ignores the fact that homosexuals do not have to have anal sex to celebrate their love.

To sum up:

1) Unprotected anal sex can be done by both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

2) Not all homosexuals engage in anal sex.

3) Homosexuality existed before HIV was first transmitted to humans.

4) Urinary tract infections occur most commonly in women.

I hope that clears up any misconceptions.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

@RichusFridum - I don't understand what you mean, but in a way it's insulting (and not because of your insinuation). Philosophical/logical arguments for homosexuals can only be done by homosexuals? Defending the rights of homosexuals is something only homosexuals would care about?

If you read the Hub, you'd know I'm not gay. Not that it really matters.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

"...homosexuals do not even have to engage in this behavior necessarily because there are many other ways to share your love for one another. "

Thanks for this moral support. I can only take as an example the heterosexual couple who have a beautiful, loving, supportive companionship which sustains them in their life together. Whether they ever indulge in "sexual" activity at all is really not the concern of anyone else.

If they do anything at all it might be caressing; massage; prolonged kissing; mutual masturbation; perhaps the occasional actual penetration; watching porn (no, let's call it erotica, because "porn" to my way of thinking involves some kind of one-sidedness and abject control, whereas erotica is simply some fun stuff, helping to get you excited).

What people do or don't do in the privacy of their own lives is not something you and I will ever know for sure. Fortunately we don't allow peeping through windows, snooping, whatever you like to call it. Most of us respect privacy. If you don't then your moral standing is worse than anything you like to throw at "homosexuals." (By the way, I prefer reference to a homosexual person, not a "homosexual." There is no way you would recognize me in the street as A Homosexual, a noun. Only the descriptive word applies, and it only refers to my orientation, sexually.)

Most people who are against homosexuality are so because of their presumptions put forward by Arshad Majid here in this Hub. Mrpopo, you are absolutely right in your replies to him, and it is so refreshing to have such a loving and understanding attitude coming from someone who is heterosexual. You have shown that no one needs to be afraid of homosexuality, outside of the requirement that we ALL need to respect each other as equal members of society.

I do promote morality across the board when it comes to being considerate of other people's needs and concerns. No sexuality should be shoved in the face of others in a selfish or threatening way.

Each of us is entitled to feel safe and free from coercion.

Sorry if this has gone on for too long.


khmohsin profile image

khmohsin 4 years ago from London,UK

mrpopo,

Thanks for the post but your comments and your arguments are not too much enough to prove that Homo-sexuality is natural. You arose a quite contradictory topic. I hope you will put answer to each post. Good thinking too choose such topic.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

khmohsin, I have a question for you if you would care to give an answer:

Base upon the conclusion of whether or not homosexuality can be proven, or not proven to be natural, or un-natural, how would that make a difference in your attitude to homosexuality?

Following on from any such conclusion, would you act differently towards homosexual individuals?

Please note, at this stage I am not offering a forgone conclusion about the "natural" or "un-natural." My questions are hypothetical for the time being, not judgmental.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

"(By the way, I prefer reference to a homosexual person, not a "homosexual." There is no way you would recognize me in the street as A Homosexual, a noun. Only the descriptive word applies, and it only refers to my orientation, sexually.)"

Jonny may I ask why you don't like the term "homosexual", as opposed to "homosexual person"?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"mrpopo,

Thanks for the post but your comments and your arguments are not too much enough to prove that Homo-sexuality is natural. You arose a quite contradictory topic. I hope you will put answer to each post. Good thinking too choose such topic."

Hi khmohsin,

I think the evidence for natural acts of homosexuality is present (feel free to read the Hub), but it is besides the point. Even if it is unnatural that hardly makes it a bad thing.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

"Jonny may I ask why you don't like the term "homosexual", as opposed to "homosexual person"?"

Sure, Mrpopo, it is simply that I find labeling can be used derogatorily by some people. My emphasizing the adjective or adverb shows that we are fellow human beings, with equal feelings and needs, and that the noun or label demonstrates the user's bias.

It used to be assumed that "a homosexual" could be recognized by the way he walked, or dressed, or his mannerisms. It still is presumed by some that "a homosexual" is a pervert, or a danger to children or is out to "convert" others to his "lifestyle." All of these descriptions are of course false. Some people might be effeminate in their mannerisms, yet there is high probability they are heterosexual.

So there really is no stereotypical homosexual person. "He" might be the most butch footballer you can imagine, yet be totally gay. "She" might dress with a beautiful frock and be the definitive lady, yet be totally lesbian.

We like to think of people as being this, or that, to keep recognition orderly in our minds. It also helps us point the finger of accusation too, as a way of hurting someone.

Labeling was directed in a similar way at Jewish people; Afro-Americans; people of Arabian descent; Asians. All designed to label and "tar with the same brush." Cruel, ignorant, hurtful, anti-social, divisive.

So, if we want describe someone accurately that's usually ok.... but to label indiscriminately, I say no.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

I think I kind of see where you're coming from Jonny, but I still don't get how it's a label (although I do see the controversy behind it).

For instance, I am Canadian. I am an atheist. I am a heterosexual. These are all nouns but I don't see any inherent offensiveness to them. Would it be more correct to say "Canadian person"? Possibly, but if we recognize that these are just nouns depicting a person's traits then it really shouldn't matter that I am Canadian, or atheist or heterosexual. The fact that we can't recognize a Canadian, atheist or heterosexual is besides the point.

To me, labeling would be like calling someone who broke a law a criminal, even if the law is a minor traffic violation. Wikipedia offers a distinction in the form of reference groups:

"The labelling of people can be related to a reference group. For example, the labels black and white are related to black people and white people; the labels young and old are related to young people and old people.

A reference group is a concept referring to a group to which an individual or another group is compared."

I would say that sexual orientation can fall under this category as well. The problem is, some people have presumptions like the example you gave. That's not a problem with the noun, it's a problem with the person who has these presumptions.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Ok, yes, I see your point, no problems. Yes then, it is with the person who makes the presumption.

I only hope that my ranting on has opened up the minds of a few people to see that we are a diverse group, with many a variation in interests and activities.

Thanks for the discussion.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

On further thought, I still stick to my opinion that there is no such thing as "a" homosexual or for that matter "a" heterosexual. The words are definitely not nouns. They are descriptive of something, i.e., a preference for something to do with the same gender. But no one can say exactly what that something is. None of the presumptions about a homosexual person's behaviour define that sexuality beyond what I have just said above.

It's just about as bad talking of a "black" when we are referring to a person of African descent. It debases that person to simply the colour of his/her skin. It does not speak of feelings, skills, character, personality, aspirations, etc.

If a person thinks the only interesting thing about me is that I am homosexual, and that limits me in that person's mind, then I am insulted. I am worth much more than that.... I can contribute to society and "pay my way," or I can be the most detestable character in the community.... regardless of my sexuality.

If you say "I am a Canadian," that is a very easily defined person.... you were born there or you are a naturalized citizen of that country.

The very word is, in the English language, a noun. Yet I would be looking for much more about you than just that label.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

I don't know. I think words are only as powerful as we make them to be.

I am wondering if, when saying "I am a Canadian" you are able to speak of my feelings, skills, character, personality and aspirations. I don't think a word is capable of summing up your entire human psyche.

Since this article was about the natural occurrences of homosexuality, I think it's fair to say that referring to people as "homosexuals" is not offensive as we are only focusing on the particular sexual orientation. If we were talking about what makes a person special, I think facets like skin colour and sexual orientation would take a backseat to traits that truly make you who you are.

I apologize further if the use of the word was insulting to you, but this was not an attempt to analyze homosexuals based on their merit.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 4 years ago from Tasmania

Mrpopo, I was not intending my comments to cause you any discomfort, as I could see the Hub was very much an enlightened one, and there I was not being critical of yourself. Sorry if that was how my words came over.

It has only been a statement of my opinion, and should not take to strong a position.

Your Hub is important, and I hope my comments have not spoiled the flow.


Electro 3 years ago

A big load of crock, spiderman. Kind get out and let the adults talk


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 3 years ago

http://news.yahoo.com/science-homosexuality-isnt-g...

Now the Science says that Homosexuality is not Genetic as assumed earlier, but Biological.

Lets hope the Scientists soon find a cure for this Biological Condition, like they have found cures for other biological conditions.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 3 years ago from Tasmania

Arshad, are you trying to tell us that two guys, who love each other, serve the community well, support the less fortunate around them, share in the education and bringing to healthy adulthood one or more children, in a loving, supportive, responsible family life, are suffering from a "biological condition," that needs to be changed by bigoted individuals?

How about spending your time attending to the less fortunate in YOUR area, especially those who are members of a minority who get bullied, abused, denied the basics of life?


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 3 years ago

Jonnycomelately-- I just posted the latest Scientific discovery which calls homosexuality as biological and not genetic. I don't know how both sides are going to interpret this discovery, but the term 'biological' refers to a disorder usually, in the medical sector.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 3 years ago from Tasmania

Rubbish Sir. The only judgment here is what you want to apply within your mind.

It does not matter how you choose to twist your ideas about homosexuality, it is here to stay! No one is going to convince you about it, for sure, until you have an open mind, an open heart for others, and possibly search your own inner person for what your "problem" is.

If you continue to see "problems" with homosexuality, it is an exaggeration beyond good common sense.

The scenario I posted previous to this you did not even consider. So what is the block with you?

There are so many crimes and injustices going on in this world that demand you address them: Corruption; torture; abuse of women; abuse of children; false imprisonment; stealing of individuals away from their families and loved ones, never to be see by them again, without closure for the remainder of their lives; corporate bullying.

Any and every one of these are crimes with victims involved; they should be gaining your attention and efforts to get them sorted. Yet you seem to be hooked on to peoples lives where there is NO victim simply by virtue of their sexuality.

Maybe, as I hinted above, there is something deeper within you which has not been addressed.

Is there?

Because rest assured, there is no "god" "out there" who is making a judgment of me and others like me.


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 3 years ago

jonnycomelatly-- I would again refrain from bringing religion or some other issues, as this hub is purely a literary effort to evaluate arguments for and against homosexuality.

As I said-- I found this latest scientific claim as a huge twist in their stand regarding homosexuality. I think this will cause more confusion, as this creates room for a possible cure for this acclaimed biological disorder. May be a pill that would turn a gay into straight. Don't forget that Science is also undergoing evolution.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 3 years ago from Tasmania

If it were that simple, yes, I would agree with you. But surely there is a lot of need amongst homosexual people to defend any suggestion that it's "unnatural." Because if we allow prejudice to have too much leeway, we stand to lose much of our hard-gained freedom. Also, much of that "anti-" will come from the religious front.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

Arshad, in your very article it is talking about "genetic switches". If you look at the reference Yahoo! uses, the article claims that homosexuality is not genetic, it is epigenetic (http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-confirm-that-hom... Which, to me, is very much related to genetics, the only difference being that it is the gene expression that is modified, not the actual genetic sequence. Being "biological" does not mean it is a disease.

In other words, it's likely that we all have the nucleotide sequences for various sexual orientations, but the expression of these sequences is modified in the womb. This isn't news either, many studies have found similar effects from the womb.

The fact that it is a biological event does not mean it is a disease. That's an absurd statement, even for you.

In your same article, I also found this: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/stud...


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 3 years ago

jonnycomelately-- Well; I am also surprised to see such a claim coming from Scientific front, instead of the religious one.


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 3 years ago

mrpopo-- I am not claiming anything as its not my place. The article that I referred, called it biological-- not me. I am glad you enlightened me with your opinion on the term 'epigenetic'. I did some research and found the following definition in the Wikipedia.

"Epigenetic theory is an emergent theory of development that includes both the genetic origins of behavior and the direct influence that environmental forces have, over time, on the expression of those genes."

So, its an emergent theory which has to attain the status of a theory and if lucky, find enough scientific evidence, to be declared a principle-- as the Science stands today.

By the way I still don't understand how environmental forces may over time interfere with the expression of genes-- specially when no particular genes has been identified to be associated with homosexuality.

As I said; we both have to wait and see how the whole thing unfolds.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

You are claiming it is a "biological disorder". That has nothing to do with what the article says. Additionally, you should be wary of using headlines as a basis for proof. News sites often try to get you to click their article with a provocative title, even if the title is misleading.

Again, you take things completely out of context. Emergent theory does not have to attain to the status of a theory, it is already a theory that has recently emerged. Over the last decade to be precise. And at the very top of the Wiki, it says "Not to be confused with Epigenetics".

Environmental forces can induce methylation in DNA, causing differential expression of genes. Feel free to read more: http://www.ronsblogworld.com/?p=1274

I don't have to wait for anything. My entire point is that there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual, and you're consistently trying to find a flaw with it to justify your position, using anything from the development of condoms to the use of the word "biological". And every one of your claims is bogus.


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 3 years ago

mrpopo-- Thanks for you cooperation in understanding the subject. You mention "Environmental forces can* induce methylation in DNA, causing differential expression of genes." Now there is a big CAN in the above statement.

What I understood; is that identical genes which cannot be differentiated through any Scientific manner, can behave differently in different people.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

Yeah, it's a "big" can. It's like the can in the statement "fire can burn you", or "drinking poison can kill you".

Almost every one of your posts have been strawmen arguments, it's really impressive.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 3 years ago from Tasmania

Arshad, in an earlier post you said these words: "...as this hub is purely a literary effort to evaluate arguments for and against homosexuality."

Did you really mean that? The Hub does not convey that sense to me at all. I saw it as an honest, fair attempt to give more weight to acceptance of homosexuality as a bona fide aspect of our humanity.

Would like to tell me if there is any background "ulterior" motive for you being here? Are you totally objective in this discussion, or have you a particular bias against homosexuality? If you have, you are entitled to put your case clearly here. However, if we don't know whether or not a bias exists, how can we reply to you with any sort of objectivity in return?


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 3 years ago

jonnycomelately-- I am sorry, I thought it was open for comments-- pro and against.

And mrpopo-- I don't know which side the Science is on while keeping the position "that identical genes which cannot be differentiated through any Scientific manner, can behave differently in different people".


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 3 years ago from Tasmania

Ok, maybe I was mistaken... sorry.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 3 years ago from Tasmania

On a very much lighter note, mrpopo, I have been reading back over the posts to this hub from 14 months ago, great that it's still going.

But I noticed something about sea horses.... and in relation to another hub which is going right now, there has arisen a question about species cross-fertilising....

My question is, if you crossed a sea horse with a sea donkey, would you get a sea mule? Maybe you instead of a hee-haw, you would get a sea saw.

Hope this does not mess up your day......


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

Arshad, I've already stated that environmental forces can induce changes in genetic expression and I even sent you a detailed link outlining several prominent examples. If you choose to ignore that evidence it's clear you're not attempting to learn and adapt a new stance on homosexuality, but rather instigate with poor strawmen arguments simply because you so strongly believe homosexuality is a disease and should not be accepted (and if you didn't outright state that, you more than implied it).


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

Jonny, that made my day. I actually Googled sea donkey in the hopes of finding one but there was only an Urban Dictionary definition. That would be quite funny to see.

Speaking of species cross-fertilizing reminds me of the platypus. It just looks like God was bored and combined 10 different animals into one. Did you know it lays eggs and can detect electromagnetic fields?


ARSHAD MAJID profile image

ARSHAD MAJID 3 years ago

mrpopo-- Thank you for sending that link and I read that link by the way. But my question is simple; "Is there any Scientific way that with the help of Epigentics, the genes of a homosexual can be differentiated from that of a straight person?".

The blog you sent me says; "Epigenetic mechanisms actually modify gene expression by altering chromatin, the materia composing our chromosomes and genes, without changing the DNA sequence. In other words, the same gene with a different chromatin “status” will be associated with different phenotypes."

That means, we do have other factors in addition to DNA sequence now, which should have made it easy to differentiate between a gay and a straight through Science. But why it did not happen? is a question that my come to the mind of many others including me. And also why the Wikipedia still considers Epigenetics, an emergent theory and not a Scientific Principle.


jonnycomelately profile image

jonnycomelately 3 years ago from Tasmania

Indeed yes, mrpopo, the platypus lives around my area in southern Tasmania. It's a remarkable animal. And how the "knowledgable" people of the 19th Century were quick to give their expert opinion -- they really believed that someone was spinning a big yarn, and that they had sown parts together, to fool everyone!

Where I am staying right now, in Haiti, it is wonderful to see, in real life, the tiny humming birds, with wings going at 20 megahertz, their tiny tongues entering a flower's trumpet, just to gather a tiny drop of nectar. At first you think they are a bee, they are so small.

This is important stuff in life for me.... while there is time, view the sublime!


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

Arshad, to answer your question, read the very article you sent me in the first place. It's right here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1086/668167...

In the actual journal article they predict that future genome-wide epigenetic profiles will find differences between homosexuals and non-homosexuals. Why it didn't happen is because this is a review paper, and is not actually conducting a genome-wide epigenetic case study.

As I've already explained to you and you chose to ignore (again), an emergent theory is still a theory. According to Wikipedia: "In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science... Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge." Just because it is a recently developed theory does not mean it is not a "scientific principle". And while we're on that, scientific principles may have their own limitations. Newton's law of gravity is only applicable in weak gravitational fields, for example.

To sum up:

- Genome-wide epigenetic profiles can potentially find differences between homosexuals and non-homosexuals

- An emergent theory is still a theory despite the adjective

- Please stop using strawmen arguments

(I would also point out that this study's model does account for most cases of homosexuality, but not all. Different androgen levels during trimesters and certain genetic mutations can also cause homosexuality, according to the study. In those cases I would imagine they would not find any differences from an epigenetic profile.)


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

Honestly jonny, if I were to see that animal with 19th century knowledge I too would think someone was playing a prank. If one were to trust creationist views they would think God got drunk when making the platypus.

Hummingbirds are truly remarkable creatures to be able to generate that much speed in their wings to hover, even though they have such small frames. Apparently they're the only birds that can fly backwards. They also display fantastic colours in their plumage.

I hope you enjoy seeing them and the rest of the wildlife in Haiti, and that you make the most of your stay!


James Guentner 3 years ago

This is so true! My wife and I have many gays friends. Homosexuality is a biologicical variable. You can find a good scientific reason for homosexuality and other variables on a National Geographic research documentary.


Kukata Kali profile image

Kukata Kali 2 years ago

Great expression! Voted up~


bradmaster 2 years ago

cyanide is organic, and natural, but if you take it, you will die, or at the very least get very sick.

same sex cannot procreate, and without procreation the world cannot survive.


Snakesmum profile image

Snakesmum 2 years ago from Victoria, Australia

Very interesting hub and discussion. My personal belief is that people are born homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual, and they don't have a choice about it. Whatever a person's orientation is, they should be free to follow it.


nostringspodcast profile image

nostringspodcast 19 months ago from Nigeria

I totally agree with everything you have said, it was indeed well crafted and beautifully delivered. I discuss and run a podcast on similar topics too. You are free to download and listen at anytime.

Than you.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working