Homosexuality

[sunspot]

I have nothing against gays, live and let live. Culture in an attempt to protect groups from bigoted intolerance makes certain areas of discussion taboo, less it feeds into the narrow minded thinking. But I also believe the data and truth gives everyone the only real perspective.

 

One thing that everyone loses track of is that STD's in any population group appears to be a natural way to discourage unnatural behavior. Even if one knew nothing about science, symptoms of STD, gets one's attention and helps one pull in the reins. It may even take them out of the breeding population. Or it makes potential partners look elsewhere. It's nature's way of funnelling people down a better path.

 

With science and medicine, we can create counter measures to undermine this cause and affect relationship of nature. This helps perpetuate the myth that all behavior is relative because there are no real permanent consequences that science can not cure. AIDS is different in that counter measures have yet to be developed. Maybe the cure to help satisfy the cultural illusion of the relativity of sexual behavior will lead to even worse diseases due to the orginal cause and affect of nature once again trying to restore a natural order to human sexual behavior.

 

Whether gay or straight, monogamy or limited diversity contatc seems lto be the natural fail safe approach that does not create disasterous natural counter measures.

 

As a parallel example, if one wanted to eat broken glass and had a built in zipper in their abdomen so doctors could clean one out daily to prevent any ill affects, glass eating could eventually become a part of our daily life and would eventually be considered a part of the food pyramid, especially since it would create jobs and wealth.

[Steph]

Whether gay or straight' date=' monogamy or limited diversity contatc seems lto be the natural fail safe approach that does not create disasterous natural counter measures.

[/quote']

 

 

you know that monogamy is FAR from natural right? if you look anywhere, truly monogamous people, or monogamous animals are the minority.

 

That is not true. Differences in sexual behaviour can make a huge difference. Men who have sex with men are considered to be a high risk group for sexually transmitted diseases. There are plenty of studies that support this.

 

why would they be more at risk? what factor in their lives would make them more at risk? The only thing I can think of is that bisexual men can spread the disease both ways while bisexual women are less at risk to do so. However, all that says, is that men are at a higher risk of getting the disease (which is not true)

[ashennell]

why would they be more at risk? what factor in their lives would make them more at risk? The only thing I can think of is that bisexual men can spread the disease both ways while bisexual women are less at risk to do so. However, all that says, is that men are at a higher risk of getting the disease (which is not true)

 

Here is a pretty good page from the cdc website:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm

 

There is also this information from a UK AIDS/HIV charity website:

http://www.avert.org/aidsyounggaymen.htm

 

I'm sure there's a lot more if you look.

[mr d]

hello

 

 

thought i'd add this in here for people since this topic has taken a turn to the subject of aids.

 

http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/Tcell.html

 

though about ms it helps explain the function of t-cells and how they relate to the auto immune system. 'aids' stands for aquired immune diffiency syndrome, this is one the main systems that are affected by the virus.

basically (far more complex than this, and based on current information) t-cells are small factories that collect data about invading bodies, decodes the data,and manufactures antigens that destroy those bodies. the threat from aids is that the virus can mimic the bodies used to collect data, and instead can cause a t-cell to produce not antigens but incubate aids virus's. They then go out and attack more t-cells shutting them down as well.

this means that if you then catch a cold or other viral infection your body no longer has the t-cells necessary to produce antigens to fight off the infection. and something like a simple cold can now easily turn into a life threatening pneumonia.

The loss of a few dozen t-cells would not be harmful, or even a few hundred, but unfortunately with the virus taking over the cells for reproduction of more and more virus's infecting others till your immune system shuts down. Resault, infection and death from other diseases. Reason people go so many years before finding out they are infected. Until loss of enough cells so you are unable to fight invading bodies can take years, and mean while you'll feel perfectly fine. However during that time you are infected with the virus and can pass it to others.

 

2 main reasons belived responcible for rapid spread of the disease around the world.

1) modern transportation. a person infected with a disease can board a plane and reach the other side of the planet in 10-12 hrs. Cars, trains and boats aid in the transportaion of infected indiviuals with in an area.

 

2) wide availability and usage of injected drugs, leading to spreading use in the sharing of needles. remember the aids virus want access to your blood system.

 

is it a gay disease? no, equal opportunity. is it so wide amoung gays because of their deviant sexual behavior? firstly we'd have to define what is deviant. i'll leave that up to you out there to decide. when people always talk about deviant gay sex, what they are hinting at is anal sex (damn, never thought i'd be writting that).

believe it or not hetrosexuals participate in this activity as well.

however is this activity more prone to the spread of aids, research does believe it may provide added risk. why? semen deposited in the lower intestine containing the aids virus, may have access to the blood system by the fact the the main purpose of the intestines is in the absorbtion of nutriants and water into the blood though the lining of the intesinal wall. your stomach does not absorb the nutrition from the food you eat, it digests the food into a form whereby this nutrition can be absorbed into the body while passing through the intestinal track. the reason you have so many coiled feet of guts, to make sure as much can be taken out and absorbed as possible.

'well if i have a bowel movement that would get rid of it.'

science says you still have bits of that burger you had ten years ago hanging out down there, so no this won't happen. as with hetreosexual sex most of it will dry up and rot away.

 

enough of this

think some time i'll have to write up my thoughts on homosexual genes garnered from contemplating everything that's been said over the years by scientists.

 

strange thoughts

mr d

[pink_trike]

 

One thing that everyone loses track of is that STD's in any population group appears to be a natural way to discourage unnatural behavior.

 

The sole function/mission of an STD organism is to reproduce, not to define or discourage behavior.

 

Would the presence of a disease-causing microorganism in a meat product also be a natural way to discourage meat-eating and define the act as unnatural?

 

Are waterborne diseases a natural way to discourage water-drinking and define it as unnatural?

 

Are hookworms a natural way to discourage walking barefoot and define it as unnatural?

 

Is genital herpes a natural way to define heterosexual vaginal intercourse as unnatural and discourage it ?

 

No, no, no, and no.

[Steph]

Here is a pretty good page from the cdc website:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm

 

There is also this information from a UK AIDS/HIV charity website:

http://www.avert.org/aidsyounggaymen.htm

 

I'm sure there's a lot more if you look.

 

thanks for the info. It still doesn't say why' date=' but is consistent with the data I have found. however, this is not representative of the worldwide population...

 

the threat from aids is that the virus can mimic the bodies used to collect data, and instead can cause a t-cell to produce not antigens but incubate aids virus's.

 

Very nice way to explain T cell action. I'm just nitpicking here but you made a mistake in the above sentence. HIV proteins bind to the receptors on the T-cells, not by mimicking them, but by being similar to a protein that usually binds to them. otherwise, its a pretty cool way to describe T cells. I'll use it next time i have to explain things to children (if you let me)!

[mr d]

hello

 

no problem feel free, also your correction is fine. subject matter i think calls for best info possible.

 

mr d

[pink_trike]

indeed. theres plenty of evidence to support the claim that HIV initially spread through the gay population (in developed contries' date=' that is).

)[/quote']

 

I'm glad that you added "(in developed countries, that is)". Since we don't know how HIV entered the gay population, we can't know whether HIV "initially" spread through the gay population, or if it initially spread through the heterosexual community in "predevelopled" countries and then made a leap to the gay community in developed countries.

[Dak]

i believe that the current model is that SIV jumped to humans on atleast 5 seperate occasions to make HIV, 'cos of people eating monkeys.

 

the HIV then spread through the heterosexual community, before jumping to the (at the time) promiscuouse and sexually unsafe gay communities in developed contries, then crossing over into the heterosexual community.

[pink_trike]

i believe that the current model is that SIV jumped to humans on atleast 5 seperate occasions to make HIV' date=' 'cos of people eating monkeys.

 

the HIV then spread through the heterosexual community, before jumping to the (at the time) promiscuouse and sexually unsafe gay communities in developed contries, then crossing over into the heterosexual community.[/quote']

 

We are generally in agreement.

 

Although the term _promiscious_ has more than one meaning, and also tends to be a culturally-loaded word, so I don't know if we're in agreement there.

 

And we're not in agreement that the gay community was "sexually unsafe" at that time. There was a very small amount of gay men in the community that were experimenting at the extreme. Most gay men were like most straight men...wondering how to get a date...no more "sexually unsafe" at that time than young hetero people were...sexual experimentation during the sexual revolution was not confined to gay men. Heteros were pushing the envelope also. I know...I was on both sides of that fence. And anal sex among heterosexual people is/was much, much more common that is believed.

[sunspot]

Here is a good link about AIDS progression in the US. http://www.thebody.com/asp/june01/lazarus.html

[Realitycheck]

I decided to revive this thread so that some people who think they know what they are talking about can get some apparently much-needed insight.

[Sayonara]

I decided to revive this thread so that some people who think they know what they are talking about can get some apparently much-needed insight.

 

Based on your performance in the thread about Proposition 8, I for one don't expect anything you say to be accurate, objective, or rationally founded.

 

I would strongly advise against continuing your rant against homosexuality if your motive is purely a personal vendetta. I have no problem at all with outright banning people who won't be told on the difference between stating an opinion and making a hate speech.

[Moontanman]

I decided to revive this thread so that some people who think they know what they are talking about can get some apparently much-needed insight.

 

You are the one who needs some insight, see this thread if you really want to discuss this.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=449541#post449541

[pioneer]

One aspect of homosexuality that is not considered is connected to a hidden paradox associated with evolution. By the very nature of gay, genes are not passed forward as part of evolution, with any reliability, unless it is forced. In the short term, the gay can express their nature, but if they have good genes, that could help the group, these genes are not always made part of group evolution. The ancient way kept gays as part of evolution. The new way allows short term advantage but can also remove their genes from the future. The old way worked under the assumption the gays had something good to add to evolution. The new way indirectly creates the situation; enjoy now, for tomorrow your genes will be gone.

 

Let me give an analogy. Say we had a group of herd animals doing their mating olympics. The dominate male wins, but he is gay. Relative to evolution, the old way would say you need to breed for the group. But the new way says be true to your nature, you don't have to breed. This will cause the group to lose out. Many gays are nice looking, intelligent, good natured, etc., which are the type of genes useful to the human gene pool. But the new way indirectly excludes these genes. The old way would not allow this exclusion since they had too much to offer and should be part of the gene pool. It was long term planning versus short term planning.

 

It is possible natural gay will someday become extinct, with only cultural gay or learn gay behavior the final affect. How can you pass gay genes without breeding? The irony is both political groups are getting the opposite affect they think they are getting in terms of long term genetics and evolution. I am working under the assumption that evolutionary theory is valid and can be used to predict the future.

[iNow]

A better explanation, Pioneer, is that this follows a similar path as the grandmother effect.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6979/full/428128a.html

 

There is no need for unfounded analogies. There is an existing explanation that works much better.

 

 

Also, there are other aspects of the evolution of homosexuality that you are missing. Evolution is about much more than passing on just your own seed, and you've been reminded of this numerous times before at this site and others.

[Sayonara]

Pioneer, your understanding of genetics and evolutionary processes must be lamentable for you to come up with the above post and believe it to be realistic. Please stop posting on such matters with any kind of air of authority or insight, because it is in no way deserved.

[Ophiolite]

Thank you Pioneer. I have been much engaged in my work of late and needed a good laugh. Your last post provided this.

[carol]

I realize this is a touchy subject but I would like to get other people's opinion whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural behavior.

 

Then again, there are numerous occaisions in which there's homosexuality in nature. From personal experience i've had lesbian hamsters.

 

What do you think of the bonobos? They sometimes engage in male-male or female-female intercourse. I'd consider that homo. So, I think it's natural. But maybe i'm wrong in my definition of homosexuality.

Edited December 3, 2008 by carol
typo

[DrP]

OK - I wont get drawn into this too much at this late stage as I tend to agree with letting people get on with whatever floats their boat. But I do want to question the philosophy of "animals do it so it must be natural". Animals do alot of things - like rape, kill and eat each other. Some will eat their own excriment even. So then, can we say that to rape, kill, canibalise and to eat our own poo is just natural because animals do it? The animal argument means nothing to me.

[Sayonara]

I do want to question the philosophy of "animals do it so it must be natural". Animals do alot of things - like rape, kill and eat each other. Some will eat their own excriment even. So then, can we say that to rape, kill, canibalise and to eat our own poo is just natural because animals do it?

"Natural" means something which occurs in nature, i.e. as a matter of course, so yes - those things are "natural".

 

But nobody is making the claim that everything natural must be good or desirable. Always keep in mind that human value judgements don't translate to animal acts.

 

Rather than simply saying "gayness is natural so it must be a good thing"; they are showing that homosexuality occurs in nature without the influence of human social structures.

 

The reason for doing this is that it contradicts the vile claim that discrimination against homosexuals can be tolerated because they are "unnatural", or that they are just being 'difficult' and choosing to be gay.

[throng]

"Natural" means something which occurs in nature, i.e. as a matter of course, so yes - those things are "natural".

 

But nobody is making the claim that everything natural must be good or desirable. Always keep in mind that human value judgements don't translate to animal acts.

 

Rather than simply saying "gayness is natural so it must be a good thing"; they are showing that homosexuality occurs in nature without the influence of human social structures.

 

The reason for doing this is that it contradicts the vile claim that discrimination against homosexuals can be tolerated because they are "unnatural", or that they are just being 'difficult' and choosing to be gay.

 

Furthurmore animals mate with thier own children or siblings. Ready to bleed ready to breed is the only criteria for animal morality.

 

I don't think that is natural for humans and anybody who does is totally incredible.

 

What is natural for humans? We have a moral yardstick, so any harmless activity is acceptable.

 

So the question really is; how is gay love harmful, hence unnatural?

[Sayonara]

"Harmful = unnatural" and "unnatural = harmful" are both complete fallacies. I thought my last post conveyed that adequately

[Dak]

I don't think that is natural for humans and anybody who does is totally incredible.

 

No, that's the point -- those things are natural (even for humans), it's just that natural != good.

 

I'd personally say that the question really is: how is gay love harmful, hence something that should be stopped, and/or how does it's naturalness matter?

[ennui]

I don't know what the appeal is of discussing homosexuality as a "hot topic"; my straight friends are very uninterested in whether someone is gay or not. It doesn't seem to be any more interesting than whether a person has blonde or brunette hair.

 

The guy who started the thread has a very, very flawed argument. He's saying "Gay is unnatural and wrong, because if the whole world was gay, the species would die out."

 

Couldn't we use that exact same argument elsewhere? Ignoring scientific fertility treatments, we could say, "Being a woman is unnatural and wrong, because if the whole world was a woman, the species would die out."

 

It's annoying when people try to attack homosexuality through evolutionary theory. I don't know why every aspect of human existence has to be related to passing on genes. I'm a scientist, but I don't try to analyse every single aspect of my life to try to see if it measures up to evolutionary principles!