Can anyone give me an answer?

Archer93 said:

You condemn a homosexual couple because they can't, short of medical intervention, produce a child to which they both contribute 50% of the genetic material because they can't do that, but do not condemn a heterosexual couple who could do that but choose not to.
Is that basically it?

Also- evolution has not designed the physical body to match the emotions of a homosexual- well, just looking at m/m intercourse- have you ever heard of the prostate gland? It's the male G-spot, is located in the anus, and is the main reason why many gay men like anal sex.

Click to expand...

condemn? I think you are being defensive. The biological design of the prostate gland is for procreation.

Amaryllismayfly said:

the truth is irrevelent.................wow

Click to expand...

You are twisting my words. I said "the truth is, IT IS irrelevant, I never said the truth was irrelevant. Clearly, we have two different versions of what we believe the truth is. Regardless of why homosexuality occurs, every credible mental health foundation has said that it is unchangeable. Homosexuality is not unnatural, it occurs in much of nature. Also, it is not against any design as when done correctly it is pleasureful for both parties, (as I said earlier in the thread, and someone just posted more info in regards to that).

You are debating choice and orientation by your example you gave. According to the rules of the debate I am not equating homosexuality to an emotional choice.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you are really getting why I'm debating what you are saying. An emotional choice or not, if every couple in the universe decided not to have children, the same outcome would happen as if homosexuality was what every person did. You are making a minority in to a majority and the argument doesn't work.

I am proving that evolution has not evolved the physical body to match the emotions of an homosexual.

Click to expand...

You haven't really proved that at all. Homosexual sex is enjoyed by both parties involved when done correctly. It doesn't have to involve procreation to match the emotions.

davedjy said:

You are twisting my words. I said "the truth is, IT IS irrelevant, I never said the truth was irrelevant. Clearly, we have two different versions of what we believe the truth is. Regardless of why homosexuality occurs, every credible mental health foundation has said that it is unchangeable. Homosexuality is not unnatural, it occurs in much of nature. Also, it is not against any design as when done correctly it is pleasureful for both parties, (as I said earlier in the thread, and someone just posted more info in regards to that).




I don't believe you are really getting why I'm debating what you are saying. An emotional choice or not, if every couple in the universe decided not to have children, the same outcome would happen as if homosexuality was what every person did. You are making a minority in to a majority and the argument doesn't work.




You haven't really proved that at all. Homosexual sex is enjoyed by both parties involved when done correctly. It doesn't have to involve procreation to match the emotions.

Click to expand...

emotional choices are not the same as evolutional changes.
Emotions can be controlled, altered, persuaded.

You can not persuade a third arm to grow.

If homosexuality is not an emotional choice, then it must be a evolutionary change.


Evolution does not support that change taking place.

Evolution does not support the change that you are defending by saying "if done carefully, correctly".

Amaryllismayfly said:

emotional choices are not the same as evolutional changes.
Emotions can be controlled, altered, persuaded.

Click to expand...

We aren't sure exactly why homosexuality occurs, but we do know it is unchangeable. One cannot conclude it is genetic or environmental completely, by what current day research has been done.

If homosexuality is not an emotional choice, then it must be a evolutionary change.


Evolution does not support that change taking place.

Click to expand...

Some have concluded that it is nature's own way of contraception from overpopulation. Again, I don't ever argue this, but your statement is only one theory. It occurs in much of nature, so it definitely is natural in some way.

Evolution does not support the change that you are defending by saying "if done carefully, correctly".

Click to expand...

It sure does. Heterosexual sex when done incorrectly or too harshly can cause problems for females, and does. Regardless, not all gays have anal sex, but for a vast majority of those who do, they enjoy it.

As a zoologist, can I point out that a mutation which changes an organism does not have to be an evolutionary advantage, it may be totally random and have no effect one way or another in selection. And if this were to occur with a recessive gene, it could be passed down the generations and expressed in some non-reproductive individuals without dying out.

Very simplistic model, I know, so don't jump on me. Just saying.

Criada said:

As a zoologist, can I point out that a mutation which changes an organism does not have to be an evolutionary advantage, it may be totally random and have no effect one way or another in selection. And if this were to occur with a recessive gene, it could be passed down the generations and expressed in some non-reproductive individuals without dying out.

Very simplistic model, I know, so don't jump on me. Just saying.

Click to expand...

I believe this is true, there are changes that can occur that do not have an advantage. Those nonadvantage changes present themselves in a physical way.

Criada said:

As a zoologist, can I point out that a mutation which changes an organism does not have to be an evolutionary advantage, it may be totally random and have no effect one way or another in selection. And if this were to occur with a recessive gene, it could be passed down the generations and expressed in some non-reproductive individuals without dying out.

Very simplistic model, I know, so don't jump on me. Just saying.

Click to expand...

wrong person quoted, sorry~

Amaryllismayfly said:

condemn? I think you are being defensive. The biological design of the prostate gland is for procreation.

Click to expand...

You are coming across as condemnatory.
Prostate gland (not in the anus, sorry, but massageable through it)- it relates to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] which relates to procreation, sure, but its location means that there can be an extreame sexual response through its stimulation alone. It's [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] in a non-reproductive circumstance. Evolutionarily speaking, it seems a waste of time and effort. Unless there's a deeper reason for it....
Or it's just sloppy design that hapens to make it really, really fun.
Either way, there's no valid reason from biology to object.

Once again, a minority of people in same-sex relationships will not wipe out the human race.

Amaryllismayfly said:

I believe this is true, there are changes that can occur that do not have an advantage. Those nonadvantage changes present themselves in a physical way.

Click to expand...

Actually, no, or to be more precise, not obviously. Many mental illnesses are apparently caused by subtle changes in brain or blood chemistry; I believe there is at least one with a genetic component predisposing (not precisely causing) it. In my personal case, I'm subject to occasional depression attributable to post-cardiac depression syndrome -- if you have had a heart attack, it's likely (not certain) to have caused microscarring of neural tissue leading to a form of organic depression. (This is not genetic, but an example of a mental/emotional condition with a subtle physiological cause -- and while I'm not calling homosexuality a mental illness, I'm suggesting that as an emotional condition, it may have physiological causes which may in turn be genetic in origin.)

A couple of points worth considering: "male-bonding" -- the trait that makes men, irrespective of sexual orientation, form friendship/comradeship bonds and work together for common purposes, from going hunting to running political parties -- probably has its origins in a survival characteristic. Oog the loner would go out and hunt the wild boar, coming home the hero who has enabled his tribe to feast. But if Oog misses just once, he gets gored by the boar. On the other hand, Og, Ugh, and Agg male-bond and go hunting together. None of them is the hero, but they stand a better chance of surviving a hunt, on average. Guess which gene is preferentially preserved, to the point that "I'm gonna get together with the guys and watch the Super Bowl" is a common characteristic? Now, suppose that male-bonding works like malaria resistance and sickle-cell anemia. Heterozygosity leads to a survival characteristic, which gets selected for. That homozygosity results in a trait that does not reproduce, is acceptable evolutionarily for the benefit of the heterozygous condition.

I'm not saying that is the genetic explanation of homosexuality -- but it's one that demonstrates how it could be persistent in the gene pool.

----

It is not, by the way, the prostate gland itself, but a nerve ganglion closely associated with it anatomically, which produces the erogenous sensations mentioned by earlier posters. And the fact that this exists is evident to almost any man who has had a prostate examination -- in a percentage of men far larger than the gay/bisexual population, digital stimulation of the prostate (actually of that ganglion during a prostate exam) leads to an involuntary erection.

-----

But, if I may be allowed the privilege of ranting a bit, the issue here is not gay sex and/or its morality. We are presented with the case of Lawrence King, a 15-year-old, who expressed his romantic interest in a classmate by giving said classmate a Valentine, and in consequence was shot twice in the head and killed. It appears to me that a fair number of people posting in this thread about the immorality of gay sex, instead of addressing the issue of why gay people cannot be left alone to lie their lives with equal rights under the law, are in effect saying that one boy giving another boy a Valentine constitutes grounds for justifiable homicide. Because focusing on homosexual cts and what the Bible may have to say about them is pretty clearly saying, "Well, he was one of them thar quaaars and not someone God loves, so he didn't deserve to live." It might be useful if people stopped turning this into "the Bible says being gay is bad" thread #10984, and look at the facts: one boy is dead, for being publicly gay and daring to show his attraction in a socially acceptable way; one boy is due to spend the rest of his life behind bars, for having gotten the message somewhere that it's OK to kill gay people. Guess where he probably got that idea!!!

IMO, there's some repenting of sin and incitement to sin that needs to be done. And not necessarily by gay people.

I am responding to the question listed in the title.

If we are talking about prediposition that seems to be more in the defense against homosexuality than a defense for it.

Archer93 I am being analytical, not emotional.

Amaryllismayfly said:

Archer93 I am being analytical, not emotional.

Click to expand...

I do appreciate that, really, and I'm sorry if I'm coming across as overly confrontational (I should not allow personal stress to dictate my posts, and for that I appologise). But the thing about the analytical process is that one is analysing the implications of the starting premise(s). IF homosexuality was universal then yes, the species would have died out. But it's not a supportable premise, for the reasons given above.
Homosexuality will never be universal, just as heterosexuality never will be.

Polycarp1- your hypothesis regarding male bonding as a selectable trait is very interesting. And thank you for the more detailed information regarding the prostate- I'm afraid my knowledge of the matter is rather theoretical on all counts....

Since the OP included a question to the effect of 'what are the logical and moral arguments against homosexuality?' discussing that is relevant to the thread- as long as we can keep it on that topic.
I have to say, Amaryllismayfly's argument is certainly an attempt to demonstrate its... inadvisability, say.... without a kneejerk appeal to the bible.

Amaryllismayfly said:

Biologically speaking, this is false. It may be mentally designed, but evolution has not "caught up" to physically design it for many reasons which I have gone over already.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your conclusion... but appreciate your imput.

A. mental evolution is part of physical evolution
B. If you are suggesting that being potentially harmful to the participants indicates the physical aspect of homosexuality is not caught up, I direct you to the fact that EVERY SINGLE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY is potentially harmful
C. If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that homosexual activity is not represented by physical evolution because it does not result in offspring, I would suggest that that is almost certainly the entire point of the exercise, rather than a problem with it.

EnemyPartyII said:

I disagree with your conclusion... but appreciate your imput.

A. mental evolution is part of physical evolution
B. If you are suggesting that being potentially harmful to the participants indicates the physical aspect of homosexuality is not caught up, I direct you to the fact that EVERY SINGLE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY is potentially harmful
C. If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that homosexual activity is not represented by physical evolution because it does not result in offspring, I would suggest that that is almost certainly the entire point of the exercise, rather than a problem with it.

Click to expand...

Suggestion implies giving an opinion, I am trying to debate facts. The fact is the physical body has not evolved to accept male homosexual intercourse. Gently, carefully aside, the fact is the physical structures have not evolved to prevent injury and/or resistance to bacteria and viruses.


Also, it sounds lke your defense of the homosexual practice's lack of procreation is based on a choice, rather than an evolutionary design. If that is what you mean then I think that works against your arguement.

Amaryllismayfly said:

The fact is the physical body has not evolved to accept male homosexual intercourse. Gently, carefully aside, the fact is the physical structures have not evolved to prevent injury and/or resistance to bacteria and viruses.

.

Click to expand...

You are aware that there are MANY ways in which male homosexuals can give and receive sexual satisfaction that do not involve anal penetration?

Also, ever heard of a gal getting a yeast infection? Even very little girls get them. Happily married heterosexual women that only have sex with their husband and with the lights off get them. It happens.

The human body is susceptible to a variety of fungus, bacteria, viruses.

Suggestion implies giving an opinion, I am trying to debate facts. The fact is the physical body has not evolved to accept male homosexual intercourse. Gently, carefully aside, the fact is the physical structures have not evolved to prevent injury and/or resistance to bacteria and viruses.

Click to expand...

Precisely the same thing could be said about heterosexual sex... at least in humans. You have any idea the mortality/morbidity associated with sexual intercourse in a-medical environments? Surprisingly high.

Lesbians, having a significantly less M&M rate than heterosexuals or homosexuals, by your argument, would seem to be at the evolutionary pinacle?

And don't get my started on the M&M associated with CHILDBIRTH in an a-medical environment!

Also, it sounds lke your defense of the homosexual practice's lack of procreation is based on a choice, rather than an evolutionary design. If that is what you mean then I think that works against your arguement.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Homosexuality isn't a choice, and it certainly doesn't arise as some sort of "choice" to not have offspring. From an evolutionary perspective, for some reason, in several species, it is evolutionarily advantageous to have some members of the species who are sexually active, but childless. Thus homosexuals.

EnemyPartyII said:

any animal in nature that has homosexual sex is "designed" to have homosexual sex. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Click to expand...

so animals are designed to eat their young, kill each other, and eat (use your imagination here)? get my point? Just because they can do it does not mean it is intended for them to. Could I shoot pool with a baseball bat? Sure, but should I? Not if I want to win.

Polycarp1 said:

Thanks for noting this; it's a point I've tried to make repeatedly, usually without success. The murdered boy held up in the OP as the example to start this thread, for instance -- apparently had a crush on the boy who shot and killed him. There's no evidence he was sexually active, just possessed of the desire to love (and probably have sex with, eventually) another boy.

This does not seem to have eliminated the hijack into the morality of gay sex acts, when the question related to the morality of the orientation, especially in view of the fact that it's effectively unchangeable by personal effort.

Click to expand...

When people don't make this distinction it is nearly impossible to have any form of civil dialogue since there is a misunderstanding of terminology right at the beginning.

By way of reference, the use of the term "clobber passages" with reference to the Scripture verses usually quoted in relation to discussions of homosexuality, is not intended to imply that the verses themselves "clobber" but that they are the ones used to "clobber" gay people by those who seek to condemn them or their putative sins.

Click to expand...

So then any condemnatory passages in scripture should be called "clobber" passages, since we are all sinners and I can vouch for breaking at least 10 of them myself in recent memory. The scripture itself does the clobbering, the only real viable way I can see that the pro-gay sex crowd can properly use the 'clobber' label is by first asserting that those passages are completely out of context and are not true to what is being preached.

That has yet to be proven, however.

davedjy said:

We aren't sure exactly why homosexuality occurs, but we do know it is unchangeable. One cannot conclude it is genetic or environmental completely, by what current day research has been done.

Click to expand...

sorry, but your statement contradicts itself. First you say we don't know for sure why homosexuality occurs, but then you say that you KNOW it is unchangeable. For something you don't know about for sure, you sure seem to know about what it doesn't do

Jet_A_Jockey said:

sorry, but your statement contradicts itself. First you say we don't know for sure why homosexuality occurs, but then you say that you KNOW it is unchangeable. For something you don't know about for sure, you sure seem to know about what it doesn't do

Click to expand...

One doesn't need to be Einstein to figure it out as logically as we're able to, Jet. It is certainly true that NO ONE so far has come up with a scientifically-proven explanation as to why a homosexual is a homosexual. One thing that I believe CAN be determined, however, is that there are different degrees of human sexual orientation. Even the most 'masculine' male may have had a homosexual thought at some point in his life. Getting that person to admit such a thing, of course, would be nigh impossible since the brains of many a 'masculine' male seem to be located in their crotch area.

So, as said, there ARE varying degrees of sexual orientation. This we pretty well know. Those that are - for arguments sake - FULLY homosexual would not be able to reverse this situation. Mocking someone for telling the truth as far as they know it is foolhardy.

Again, the truth is ...while no one knows WHY someone is a homosexual we CAN know from EXPERIENCE that a complete change of orientation - from homosexual to heterosexual - is HIGHLY unlikely.

So, why don't you and others simply accept that fact, sort out your own hangups if any, get on with life, and live and let live?