Science/Environment Homosexuality vs Natural Selection

[DarwinRoo]

It has nothing to do with what's normal but what is legal.

 

[ManInTheArena]

So if it's legal then it's okay?

 

[placebo]

What about other sexual desires? say bestiality or necrophilia. You're saying that pedophilia is an issue and homosexuality is not.

What is normal and what is not, where is the line?

Can you think of a logical argument as to why homosexuality is an 'issue'.
I'm thinking you can't.

 

[ManInTheArena]

Can you think of a logical argument as to why homosexuality is an 'issue'. I'm thinking you can't.

I didn't say I could. I'm asking where is the line between normal and abnormal. People have all sorts of sexual desires, homosexuality is one of them. If homosexuality is a normal desire for people to have then is bestiality?

 

[placebo]

I didn't say I could. I'm asking where is the line between normal and abnormal. People have all sorts of sexual desires, homosexuality is one of them. If homosexuality is a normal desire for people to have then is bestiality?

The same question then applies to heterosexuals as that argument is about sexual attraction to humans vs sexual attraction to animals.

 

[bunsen burner]

I didn't say I could. I'm asking where is the line between normal and abnormal. People have all sorts of sexual desires, homosexuality is one of them. If homosexuality is a normal desire for people to have then is bestiality?

Define bnormal. Normal can be interpreted as

1. Unusual or not typical, meaning anything that is rare is abnormal. But that doesn't necessarily mean abnormal is wrong.

2. Wrong or defective.


The issue is not one of common vs rare, nor is it one necessarily of legality, nor is it one of percieved palate tolerance. It's about right and wrong

right
hetrosex
homosex
orgies
a2m
scat

wrong
pedophilia
rape
bestiality


The difference is the second group have victims (or perceived victims through lack of ability to consent).

As disgusting as I find scat, that floats some people's boats and is victimless. Rare, but in the second definition of normal, it's normal.

 

[Coolangatta]

From what I've read on homosexuality, my take on it is that no one is set in stone born as gay or straight, but when they hit about 3 or 4 (maybe a bit older or younger, not exactly sure when), their sexuality becomes fixed, based on a combination of what they've been eating and what their hormones naturally were.

 

[DarwinRoo]

So if it's legal then it's okay?

When it comes to sex between two consenting adults whether that be a man and a woman or two gay men or two lesbian women then yes it is ok.

 

[HahnPremium]

What about other sexual desires? say bestiality or necrophilia. You're saying that pedophilia is an issue and homosexuality is not.

What is normal and what is not, where is the line?

I admire you trying to gain further knowledge. But advice son- move outta the burbs.
Necrophilia- the silence of your necrophillic partner's desire is tacit. Its an understanding on behalf of both parties. Its consentual- just non-verbal.
A dreamworld when words such as "Yes" "No" and "dont violate me" have no effect.
Its almost religious in a way.
Like this thread!

 

[cancat]

wrong
pedophilia
rape
bestiality

The difference is the second group have victims (or perceived victims through lack of ability to consent).

Animals can't give consent so the argument doesn't hold up in this case. A sheep puts up a struggle but we still sheer it. An animal getting its throat cut is more of a victim than one being used for sex. Bestiality is not legal because of our human sensibilities to each other (yuk factor) not because of our regard for animals.

 

[cancat]

From what I've read on homosexuality, my take on it is that no one is set in stone born as gay or straight, but when they hit about 3 or 4 (maybe a bit older or younger, not exactly sure when), their sexuality becomes fixed, based on a combination of what they've been eating and what their hormones naturally were.

Can you expand on this. What food makes you gay and what food makes you hetero? Marketing groups all over the world are waiting on your reply.

 

[Pie eyed]

Can you expand on this. What food makes you gay and what food makes you hetero? Marketing groups all over the world are waiting on your reply.

It's obvious isn't it?
Croissants make you gay and Steak Sanga's make you hetero.

Cremfresh on your Croissant is high end screaming homo and Tomato Sauce or even HP on your Steak Sanga is testosterone soaked hairy chested full on Hetero.

This has been proven thousands of times at cafes and restaurants.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Oh hai guyth.

This cremfresh croissant is thimply thcrumptious.

*minces away*

 

[Coolangatta]

Can you expand on this. What food makes you gay and what food makes you hetero? Marketing groups all over the world are waiting on your reply.

Foods high in estrogen. Chicken, chickpeas (no pun intended), rice, cherries, alfalfa, pumpkin, eggplant, carrot.

You can laugh if you want but consider this - there is NO evidence of a "gay gene", but clearly homosexuality is NOT a choice for the vast majority of the gay community, so your sexuality has to become fixed at some point, and if it's purely brain chemistry and hormone levels that rules out "environment" as the determining factor, so the food + natural testosterone/estrogen levels theory sounds plausible to me.

 

[ballanFYNE]

That all wrong, (op) You have a choice. Its like arracking for an afl team. You choose one but you cant choose another because you love which team you picked.

I.e People chose to be gay, They might sometimes want to be straight but they are just the way they are. Its also like being religious. You aren't born Christian you chose which religion you want. I am Christian so im not gay but it doesn't really matter if a friend of mine is gay. idc as long as they know im not gay and i can be more than friends.

 

[placebo]

Foods high in estrogen. Chicken, chickpeas (no pun intended), rice, cherries, alfalfa, pumpkin, eggplant, carrot.

You can laugh if you want but consider this - there is NO evidence of a "gay gene", but clearly homosexuality is NOT a choice for the vast majority of the gay community, so your sexuality has to become fixed at some point, and if it's purely brain chemistry and hormone levels that rules out "environment" as the determining factor, so the food + natural testosterone/estrogen levels theory sounds plausible to me.

..but you have no evidence at all to back that up. Hm.

 

[DarwinRoo]

That all wrong, (op) You have a choice. Its like arracking for an afl team. You choose one but you cant choose another because you love which team you picked.

I.e People chose to be gay, They might sometimes want to be straight but they are just the way they are. Its also like being religious. You aren't born Christian you chose which religion you want. I am Christian so im not gay but it doesn't really matter if a friend of mine is gay. idc as long as they know im not gay and i can be more than friends.

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

 

[Cap]

I'm not sure if this belong here, but this kind of thing really doesn't help the homosexual community
I speaking of the following quote

"He overreacted because I think maybe he has issues with his own sexuality."

If you have an issue with a gay person apparently you have your own sexual confusion.
Why is that? Can't you dislike a gay person for being gay but still be confident in your sexuality?

 

[Pie eyed]

Foods high in estrogen. Chicken, chickpeas (no pun intended), rice, cherries, alfalfa, pumpkin, eggplant, carrot.

You can laugh if you want but consider this - there is NO evidence of a "gay gene", but clearly homosexuality is NOT a choice for the vast majority of the gay community, so your sexuality has to become fixed at some point, and if it's purely brain chemistry and hormone levels that rules out "environment" as the determining factor, so the food + natural testosterone/estrogen levels theory sounds plausible to me.

Let's just look at that.

What is it which makes a hetero man prefer certain female traits.
Big boobs. little boobs, puffy nipples or not. bums, legs etc etc ?
Are these preferences genetic, nature or nurture. Are they the influence of social preference at the time or are they simply preference?

Foods high in oestrogen. Chicken, chickpeas (no pun intended), rice, cherries, alfalfa, pumpkin, eggplant, carrot.

Are these foods naturally high in oestrogen or are they being tainted by oestrogen based fertilisers?

Were there these high oestrogen foods around 100+ years ago?

It seems to me that homosexuality has certainly become more overtly prevalent since it's particpants have been more accepted and their choices protected by civil rights law and anti-discrimination law. This is not to say there is a hgher percenatge of homosexuality just that it is more obvious in society.

If you consider Heterosexuality ranging from exclusively having sex with the stereo-typical absolute representation of the opposite sex at one end of the scale and Homosexuality as exact opposite then there will be the full gamut of preference between these two extremes with I suppose the true
Bi-sexual right in the middle.
How does the food/oestrogen theory explain them?

I'm not having a dig just looking at the assumptions.

I really do believe it is a preference.
There is no need to find a casual link unless you are either treating it as a handicap or trying to "cure" it.

No-one tries to cure or justify men who don't prefer blondes.

 

[BomberGal]

Foods high in estrogen. Chicken, chickpeas (no pun intended), rice, cherries, alfalfa, pumpkin, eggplant, carrot.

You can laugh if you want but consider this - there is NO evidence of a "gay gene", but clearly homosexuality is NOT a choice for the vast majority of the gay community, so your sexuality has to become fixed at some point, and if it's purely brain chemistry and hormone levels that rules out "environment" as the determining factor, so the food + natural testosterone/estrogen levels theory sounds plausible to me.

Hmmm.

There'll never be one 'gay gene'. To suggest so is oversimplifying biology.

Combinations of multiple gene products - probably combined with environment - is the 'theory' that makes sense in my head, though it's not so much a theory as just common sense if you've studied biology. 'Brain chemistry' and 'hormone levels' are dictated by genetics.

I also wouldn't argue that sexuality is 'fixed'.

 

[Chief]

Animals can't give consent so the argument doesn't hold up in this case. A sheep puts up a struggle but we still sheer it. An animal getting its throat cut is more of a victim than one being used for sex. Bestiality is not legal because of our human sensibilities to each other (yuk factor) not because of our regard for animals.

Using an animal for meat and materials has some purpose. Using it for sex is abuse though I am sure you could torture the definitions of these words to come up with a way to get out of this. Some things are reasonably black and white.

 

[ManInTheArena]

Define bnormal. Normal can be interpreted as

1. Unusual or not typical, meaning anything that is rare is abnormal. But that doesn't necessarily mean abnormal is wrong.

I didn't say it was wrong, I questioned what was normal and abnormal.

The issue is not one of common vs rare, nor is it one necessarily of legality, nor is it one of percieved palate tolerance. It's about right and wrong

right
hetrosex
homosex
orgies
a2m
scat

wrong
pedophilia
rape
bestiality


The difference is the second group have victims (or perceived victims through lack of ability to consent).

As disgusting as I find scat, that floats some people's boats and is victimless. Rare, but in the second definition of normal, it's normal.

So your definition of normal in a sexual context is that if there is consent, then it's normal?

What if a 10 year old consents to sex with a 50 year old? what if a dog likes being rooted by humans?

 

[cancat]

Using an animal for meat and materials has some purpose. Using it for sex is abuse though I am sure you could torture the definitions of these words to come up with a way to get out of this. Some things are reasonably black and white.

How is using an animal for sex abusing it when killing it is not? Or riding a horse round a race track? Or keeping a bird in a small cage?

I'm not making an argument for bestiality, I'm just saying the arguments made, so far, for it being illegal are not convincing.

 

[P.A.F.C]

I didn't say it was wrong, I questioned what was normal and abnormal.



So your definition of normal in a sexual context is that if there is consent, then it's normal?

What if a 10 year old consents to sex with a 50 year old? what if a dog likes being rooted by humans?

A 10 year old cannot consent.

You cannot know if a dog consents.

 

[bunsen burner]

I didn't say it was wrong,

And I didn't say that you said it was wrong. I simply asked you to define what you mean by normal as it can be interpreted in different ways.