Science/Environment homosexuality

[raskolnikov]

He is unaware of the existence of a clitoris. Doubt he'd be very popular.

Well after just finishing 50 Shades of Grey I am well aware of the existence of a clitoris.

 

[Whodoithinkiam]

Is there really any urgency to find the clitoris, I've never seen the need, after all it's just a penis that didn't develop

 

[Paradigm]

Is there really any urgency to find the clitoris, I've never seen the need, after all it's just a penis that didn't develop

I think you should also be a homosexual.

 

[Whodoithinkiam]

I think you should also be a homosexual.

Oh I'm sure I'll get to it if the Sushi ever runs out

 

[Pie eyed]

That is one scenario. People's sexuality can change over time. And people can have different needs fulfilled by men or women, not just sexually.

A couple of examples.

Freddie Mercury - a gay icon - had a long term female partner. Wrote the song "Love of my life" about her, left her most of his money.

The singer Tom Robinson of the self named band, used to kiss his boyfrend onstage and sang "Sing if you're glad to be gay". Then later, got married to a woman and had a couple of kids. When pressed in interviews, he insisted he was still gay. But it was clearly a statement of lifestyle and political persuasion rather than sexual orientation.

And on the other side of it you get married men visiting gay brothels, or people being married for many years then having a relationship with some of their own sex.

I'm wondering if the push for gay rights has emphasised a difference in identities based on an invalid or incomplete notion of sexuality and human needs.

All good points CC.
You could add Reggie Dwight tot hat list too.
Clearly some people are quite capable of being bi-sexual, even just your average everyday work-a-day plebs.

Rocks stars are though notoriously drug addled and this could well add to their over-representation in odd sexual relationships just as it does their early deaths.

 

[cancat]

All good points CC.
You could add Reggie Dwight tot hat list too.
Clearly some people are quite capable of being bi-sexual, even just your average everyday work-a-day plebs.

Rocks stars are though notoriously drug addled and this could well add to their over-representation in odd sexual relationships just as it does their early deaths.

Cheers PE.

Bowie and Jagger in the news this week. Old news mind you. I would not describe their sexual relationship as odd (if it happened at all), it's as normal as other sexual relationships. But if those two can't be upfront about their sexual habits no wonder the everyday plebs might not be open about it.

Maybe I should have left that last sentence out. It wasn't my main emphasis. But it is part of how we have ended up where we are.

 

[raskolnikov]

The nature argument is difficult to refute, evolution did not provide a means for homosexuals to have sex or procreate, yeah there is a little arse play but it wasn't designed for that purpose

And lets face it, in most homosexual relationships there is a masculine partner and a feminine partner, even they can't escape mother natures obsession with opposites

Again, the idea of "designed". By who? The fact is that anal sex is possible between two males.

 

[skilts]

Again, the idea of "designed". By who? The fact is that anal sex is possible between two males.

Quite so. Robbo takes no account of the versatility of humans. 'Butch' and 'bitch' are eminently interchangeable as well. The mechanics of homosexual sex seems to provide endless titillation to those who profess nil interest. That such people are disgusted by what they imagine happens is a cause of immense amusement.

 

[R00StaR]

Well it appears if we stop the devils popping a finger in your anus at birth and then if we could somehow get that semen hungry little worm out of their arses homosexuality will be cured!

 

[blackcat]

file this one as "better the Kylie Minogue" or a gay cure sans electroshock thereapy

@no_pedobear_pls

 

[bombermick]

450 different species; including higher order animals, like Dolphins engage in homosexuality. To claim it's against nature is plainly wrong.

Besides, I don't get why a lot of us blokes don't like the idea of it. More girls for us straight ones!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Those arguing on the God/nature side AGAINST the 'naturalness' of homosexuality - why did God put/nature evolve the prostate gland where it is, which is up a man's arse?

 

[blackcat]

Those arguing on the God/nature side AGAINST the 'naturalness' of homosexuality - why did God put/nature evolve the prostate gland where it is, which is up a man's arse?

is that an erogenous zone GS?

blackcat research:

"erogenous" + "prostate" google search
http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sour....2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1108&bih=902

indeed it is.

 

[DarwinRoo]

We do ? I don't - I never mix up scrotum with penis! The Royal "We"? WTF?
You seriously ...and I mean SERIOUSLY need to remain homosexual. All the piping and plumbing on women seems to have you mightily confused.
And no - you post something as disgraceful as that, and you should be brought to account. Especially when it is 100% incorrect.

It offended me, not necessarily that your knowledge anatomy was so lacking, but that you used your obvious lack of knowledge to try - and fail, but try - to score a win .... massive fail... MASSIVE!

Get over it FFS.

 

[kaysee]

450 different species; including higher order animals, like Dolphins engage in homosexuality. To claim it's against nature is plainly wrong.
...

^ Hate this line of "defence" from supporters.

Certain female species naturally kill their male mates... does this mean it is "natural" for humans to do likewise?

 

[Niximus]

^ Hate this line of "defence" from supporters.

Certain female species naturally kill their male mates... does this mean it is acceptable for humans to do likewise?

It is simply a counter to the false claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural' it makes no comment on whether or not it is acceptable.

Even if no other animal practiced homosexuality it would be of zero relevance to the acceptance of it.
No other animal uses thin pieces of glass or plastic to enhance their vision....is this unacceptable?

 

[kaysee]

It is simply a counter to the false claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural' it makes no comment on whether or not it is acceptable...

That is not a counter.

* have edited my reply to use "natural" instead of acceptance, so the social "measure" is consistent across the topic.

 

[J_Moore]

Some people spend an awful lot of time thinking about homosexuals.

 

[Niximus]

That is not a counter.

* have edited my reply to use "natural" instead of acceptance, so the social "measure" is consistent across the topic.

When homophobes claim it is 'unnatural' it is always qualified with some comment about male and female being the way that nature is 'meant' to operate. They try to claim some kind of rule, existing in nature, that opposites are supposed to pair, and that homosexuals make a choice to go 'against nature'. Highlighting all of the non-human species that practice homosexuality is just to show that there is no such rule. Nature does not care.

 

[Monniehawk]

Homosexuality is wrong period. It’s a mental disease which can be cured; males were created to procreate with a female and shouldn’t find another man attractive. It doesn’t make sense period

450 different species; including higher order animals, like Dolphins engage in homosexuality. To claim it's against nature is plainly wrong.

It is simply a counter to the false claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural' it makes no comment on whether or not it is acceptable.
Even if no other animal practiced homosexuality it would be of zero relevance to the acceptance of it.
No other animal uses thin pieces of glass or plastic to enhance their vision....is this unacceptable?

Coupla points..
The statements are not quite as benign as supposed. The mere posit of them is sufficient to suspect that they have an ideological imperative.
There seems to be equation of 'natural' as a value statement when insinuating certain events into the argument i.e. implying a degree of acceptability/unacceptability.
So it follows that the debate swings to defining what behaviour is 'natural' - as a tactical manoeuvre.
....that blandly skips over the problems of definition: is natural synonymous with common practice? (Things that are uncommon are unnatural?)
And by implication, not common is not good?
Kaysee has a point: it is irrelevant whether homosexuality is common or not. It just IS; so the issue is whether it is 'right' or 'acceptable' or 'moral'.
The OP just reckons it is a 'mental disease' - no support evidence. The use of such language betrays a deep-seated abhorrence. Leads to all sorts of implications. Homosexuality is aberrant = bad = wrong = homosexuals are bad = aberrant = wrong. End of story! Another thread please...

 

[blackcat]

what about jailhouse activity. Does this sit outside the bounds of hetero v homo? Gay sex but not homo, gay sex yet homophobe (violently so outside clink), and gay sex as power act

 

[Niximus]

what about jailhouse activity. Does this sit outside the bounds of hetero v homo? Gay sex but not homo, gay sex yet homophobe (violently so outside clink), and gay sex as power act

IMO, very very few people are 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual (in respect to what arouses them, something they have no control over, not their actions).

If 1 if straight and 10 is gay, I'd say most 'straight' guys are around a 2 or 3. If you're a 4-6 you'd probably identify as bisexual. I know a few gay guys who I'd say are probably a 7.

Anyone 2-9 though, would be somewhat bisexual. In the prison example, in the absence of females, the only sexual gratification they can get is homosexual.

 

[kaysee]

When homophobes claim it is 'unnatural' it is always qualified with some comment about male and female being the way that nature is 'meant' to operate. They try to claim some kind of rule, existing in nature, that opposites are supposed to pair, and that homosexuals make a choice to go 'against nature'. Highlighting all of the non-human species that practice homosexuality is just to show that there is no such rule. Nature does not care.

1st) typecasting people as "homophobes" and continuing to refer to opponents as such doesn't help your cause when trying to offer a serious opinion on the topic. It’s an extremely aggressive defensive response.

2nd) You right, nature doesn’t care and have rules about homosexuality. It does about procreation, but not about relationships and sexual preference. Society has established and governed over those rules in an attempt to create a “better” society be it for physical and mental health of the population over the millennia. Acceptable sexuality boundaries have been one of those rules and at one point popularly declared as being between a male and female, as generally required by nature for procreation. Homosexuality, bestiality and necrophilia amongst other practices were declared to cross those acceptable boundaries.

So again, you are right, in regards to sexual practices nature doesn’t care nor create the rules. It is our society that creates them and to do so we must ask ourselves “where” should these boundaries lie? Is HS acceptable, is bestiality, is necrophilia, are public lewd acts acceptable?? Some might argue “well if it doesn’t hurt or offend others it should be acceptable”, but then a dead body wouldn’t be hurt/offended if someone cared for it and sexually engaged with it… however, other people might be. A public lewd act might offend others, as might bestiality, and people might find homosexuality offensive. So where does society place that acceptable threshold?

IMO (and it is just my opinion) I am comfortable with the male/female boundary as established for natural procreation. As a member of society that is my opinion, and you don’t have to agree with it, but like many in pro-same-sex camp are seeking themselves… I can ask that you respect it.

 

[Niximus]

1st) typecasting people as "homophobes" and continuing to refer to opponents as such doesn't help your cause when trying to offer a serious opinion on the topic. It’s an extremely aggressive defensive response.

Quite frankly, the only people that use the 'unnatural' argument are homophobes and don't deserve a respectful response.

2nd) You right, nature doesn’t care and have rules about homosexuality. It does about procreation, but not about relationships and sexual preference. Society has established and governed over those rules in an attempt to create a “better” society be it for physical and mental health of the population over the millennia. Acceptable sexuality boundaries have been one of those rules and at one point popularly declared as being between a male and female, as generally required by nature for procreation. Homosexuality, bestiality and necrophilia amongst other practices were declared to cross those acceptable boundaries.

[/quote]
You make it sound like 'society' has come up with a set of rules which are static and can never change. The fact is that these 'rules' are in constant flux and we've figured out that some of them were based on faulty logic and even plain bigotry.

Have a think about why each of the three things you listed above could be taboo. Instantly you should see some major differences.

Bestiality - One of the 'rules' society has established is that sex must be consensual. As it is impossible to obtain any form of consent from an animal, all bestiality is rape. Now, IMHO there is a little hypocrisy there as there is no problem with killing many animals, I'm sure I know which the animal would prefer...

Necrophilia - Again, this falls down to consent. Your rights to your body don't end when you die. If there was a system where people could register to donate their bodies to necrophiliacs upon death I would have no ethical issues with it. Entirely consensual.

Homosexuality - ............

So again, you are right, in regards to sexual practices nature doesn’t care nor create the rules. It is our society that creates them and to do so we must ask ourselves “where” should these boundaries lie? Is HS acceptable, is bestiality, is necrophilia, are public lewd acts acceptable?? Some might argue “well if it doesn’t hurt or offend others it should be acceptable”, but then a dead body wouldn’t be hurt/offended if someone cared for it and sexually engaged with it… however, other people might be. A public lewd act might offend others, as might bestiality, and people might find homosexuality offensive.So where does society place that acceptable threshold?

Being 'offensive' is never enough reason to ban anything, as offense is entirely, 100% subjective. You must be able to make a objective case for forbidding something. There is no valid objective reason for banning homosexuality.

IMO (and it is just my opinion) I am comfortable with the male/female boundary as established for natural procreation. As a member of society that is my opinion, and you don’t have to agree with it, but like many in pro-same-sex camp are seeking themselves… I can ask that you respect it.

Comfortable with it? What do you mean?

For yourself? Fine! Completely respect that, you should definitely not be forced to have homosexual sex..

Comfortable with it in the sense that you don't like it, and therefore nobody should be doing it and/or that it should be frowned upon by society? Then no, I absolutely do not respect that position. I will tolerate your right to hold that position but also exercise my right to tell you that it is an ignorant and bigoted position to take.

 

[Monniehawk]

I'm not 'comfortable' with HS. Nor am I comfortable with Islam, Hillsong, News Limited or the H.R. Nichols Society.
I don't advocate that any of those listed be marginalised, legislated against or discriminated against just because they are what they are.
If they decide to impose themselves, then that becomes a different matter.

Else, live and let live...