secretsmile Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 It's been said that homosexual behavior is natural in the sense that it is extensively found in nature. It has been observed in: antelopes, boars, bulls, chimpanzees, cows, ducks, cats, dogs, fruit flies, geese, gorillas, gulls, horses, humans, langurs, rams, sheep, macaques, monkeys, turkeys and vervets. Homosexuality exists in proven ratios in all mammal species....It is as natural as blue eyes, left-handedness, or the genetic predisposition to walk on two legs. Whiptail lizards, (Cnemidophorus neomexicanus) found in the American southwest, are all females. They reproduce by parthenogenesis. Unfertilized eggs develop, producing an exact clone of its mother. Even though no males exist, the females still exhibit sexual mating behavior. Those that attract a partner have been found to produce more and healthier eggs. Homosexuality exists in proven ratios in all However, chemical imbalances and chromosomal disorders are ABNORMALITIES in nature. blue eyes, left-handedness, etc are neither of these things, but simply inherent traits; they are part of our genetic makeup which was originally formed due to environmental conditions, but now is just code passed down through offspring. simply because its found in nature doesnt mean its natural. nature makes mistakes, to put it bluntly. defects, mutations, and abnormalities exist all throught the animal (as well as plant) kingdom; some more apparent than others. human beings, as do most animals, have two sexes to further the species through procreation. we are predispositioned to be attracted to the opposite sex in order to mate. since two memebers of the same sex cannot procreate, there is no bilogical reason for two like sexes to have a physical or chemical attraction to each other. It's also been stated by the left that Bruce Bagemihl, a biologist from Seattle, WA, found that in zoos, at least 5% of Humboldt penguin pairs are gay. He has prepared an encyclopedic survey of homosexual or transgender behavior among more than 190 species, including butterflies and other insects. However, due to a flaw in the chemical or genetic makeup of an animal (too much estrogen in males, too much testosterone in females, or genetic defects/mutations) during the developmental stages of its life, these animals can have a dimished, or even completely lose their, gender identity. when courting (a step towards mating), the animal will either court both sexes or the like sex, depending on the severity of the mutation. as for physical differences, its been shown that differnt parts of the brain are either more or less active in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. likewise, some parts of the brain can be larger or smaller in comparison. as for the whole butterfly thing, its irrelevent. they reproduce in a totally differnt way than humans. we do not produce clones, as the genetic line will eventually fray and produce mutations (this is why incest is illegal). the fact remains that homosexuals are abnormalities in the species.
Sayonara Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Wow, you're like some kind of revolutionary genius. "Homosexuals are not the same as heterosexuals". I bet that one gets you the ladies.
timo Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Of course homosexuals are abnormal: They´re a minority. What´s your point?
Sayonara Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Also, look here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/search.php?searchid=21895
secretsmile Posted June 24, 2004 Author Posted June 24, 2004 So, basically no one here can refute my claims. Gotcha. ;-)
timo Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 So, basically no one here can refute my claims. Gotcha. ;-) Well... What´s your point?
atinymonkey Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Jesus.......what? I hear brunettes are abnormal oddities as well. Let's just stick to government controlled mating schemes; eugenics is such a nice idea. I'll just pop out to find something that'll put those abnormal idiosyncrasies correct, get us all the same.
Sayonara Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 So, basically no one here can refute my claims. Gotcha. ;-) More like nobody can be bothered, because we've all been over this so many times before, and to be quite frank saying the same things over and over to someone who is probably going to stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la I can't hear you" is pretty tiring.
secretsmile Posted June 24, 2004 Author Posted June 24, 2004 Just because homosexuality occurs in nature does not mean it is not an aberattion. I am not saying that we all have to be the same, but giving the examples I cited I am using them to demonstrate that homosexuality is the result of chemical imbalances and chromosomal disorders and as a result is a mutation porbably occuring from chemical stuff in utero.
Sayonara Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Coming from someone who says things like "blue eyes, left-handedness, etc are neither of these things, but simply inherent traits", or the instant classic that is "we do not produce clones, as the genetic line will eventually fray and produce mutations (this is why incest is illegal)", the information you provided is likely to be dismissed summarily by a lot of people as you are clearly using unresearched bluster in an attempt to justify a predetermined position, which is the very antithesis of scientific research and will be looked down on by anyone with half a brain.
timo Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 [...] I am using them to demonstrate that homosexuality is the result of chemical imbalances and chromosomal disorders and as a result is a mutation porbably occuring from chemical stuff in utero. I´m not very good at genetics so I can´t judge about your examples. But if I get you right your point was: Homosexuality is evolution. Is that correct?
blike Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 However, chemical imbalances and chromosomal disorders are ABNORMALITIES in nature. All you've said is that "homosexual tendencies can be traced to chemical and genetic origins", to which most people would agree. 'What's your point?' is what we're all asking.
secretsmile Posted June 24, 2004 Author Posted June 24, 2004 My point is that those chemical and genetic origins point to the fact that homosexuality is infact a mutation in the human race...
atinymonkey Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Ignoring the incorrect use of the word mutation*, your still just pointing out people are different. We kind of figured that out ourselves. *as in mutation is evident in evey child born, and not something to be vilified.
secretsmile Posted June 25, 2004 Author Posted June 25, 2004 Coming from someone who says things like "blue eyes, left-handedness, etc are neither of these things, but simply inherent traits", or the instant classic that is "we do not produce clones, as the genetic line will eventually fray and produce mutations (this is why incest is illegal)", the information you provided is likely to be dismissed summarily by a lot of people as you are clearly using unresearched bluster in an attempt to justify a predetermined position, which is the very antithesis of scientific research and will be looked down on by anyone with half a brain. I understand that you do not agree with my point of view but may I ask what is incorrect about any of the things I have said? ATinyMonkey - how is my use of the word 'mutation' an incorrect use? Mind you, there isnt enough scientific evidence to prove or disprove anything. however, ive based my theory on facts, theories, and observances in evidence. And no one seems to see what "abnormal" means; there isnt necessarily anything right or wrong, good or bad with abnormalities. All it means is that something is different from the norm. cancer is found all throughout nature, but a tumor is still considdered a cluster of abnormal cells
Skye Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Well you have made a statement (homosexuality = genetic defect) without any form of reference. Nothing in your post supports this, there's only random anecdotes of animals being homosexual and how certain other traits have a genetic basis. This doesn't mean that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. You might want to start by answering this simple question, Which gene is altered in homosexual individuals, and how?
secretsmile Posted June 25, 2004 Author Posted June 25, 2004 What do you think is within chromsomes? Our genes, our blueprint. Homosexuality is not an inherent trait. It's the after-effect of a process during the developmental stages of a persons life. This process may or may not be due to genetics, but it is an abnormal process. A biological variation is still abnormal... it differs from the average. The main purpose of sex is to produce children, homosexuals can't produce children so there is no biological reason for them to be together in that sense they are abnormal. I suppose I should have been more clear with my title, I apologize. What I am saying is that homosexuality is a result from a chemical imbalances and chromosomal disorders as as such it is an abnormality in nature. Thre is no biological reason for homosexuals to be attracted to one another – they cannot reproduce. I was also making the point to people who use the point that some animals in nature are homosexual that chemical or genetic makeup of an animal (too much estrogen in males, too much testosterone in females, or genetic defects/mutations) during the developmental stages of its life, these animals can have a dimished, or even completely lose their, gender identity. I hope I have made myself clear this time.
Skye Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Right, so you claim that homosexuality is a genetic defect, whilst not providing any evidence of there being a genetic defect.
secretsmile Posted June 25, 2004 Author Posted June 25, 2004 Alright, I admit that was my mistake - I should have said 'abnormality.' It is an abnormaliy in nature due to all the reasons I listed above.
Skye Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 But is non-reproductive sex really abnormal for people? Using birth control is very common in modern society, as well surgical procedures that render you infertile. People who are infertile from disease or injury often have normal libidos. There seems to me nothing abnormal in being attracted to any of these people who you wouldn't be able to produce children with. Why do you then single out homosexual sex as being abnormal when non-reproductive sex appears to be quite common, perhaps even the norm?
admiral_ju00 Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 A Genetic makeup is no where near equivalent to what a Blueprint is. Many of your info is unfound, and flawed. Your use of biological vocabulary does not make the information of your post more creditable, especially to a subject which you've already had a pre-determined conclusion.
MandrakeRoot Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Human behaviour is largely determined by the circomstances we grow up in, so there is really no way you can draw your conclusion that homosexuality is a genetic defaut. Thing is nobody knows why some people are homosexual and we probably never will. I agree that from a strictly evolutionary point of view it makes little sense, but then again it is just a theory. Human survival is largely due to our group nature and i am sure someone can come up with a nice speculation as to why the presence of homosexuals would strengthen the group in its survival ? Every "classification" of homosexuals as gentically flawed or suffering from a disease or whatever are all based on speculations, most of which do not make sense. Mandrake
J'Dona Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 I was under the impression that homosexuality was in part a natural reponse to overpopulation. The more overpopulated a species gets, the larger the ratio of homosexuals within it, or so I've heard. Hence the reason why about 10% of all humans are gay. Also, at the risk of sounding patronising, this is a science debate forum, so you should give others a chance (more than 16 minutes anyway) to respond to a large post before claiming to be the victor without hearing any major responses yet. Also, there's not much in the original post to be refuted; you've provided a lot of examples of homosexuality in nature (which nobody argues about) and proceed to claim that it is a genetic defect, without any evidence for that. Aside from saying "no" or "why?", nobody can really respond to that.
admiral_ju00 Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 I was under the impression that homosexuality was in part a natural reponse to overpopulation. Homosexuality stretches as far back as the Neolithic. Back then, overpopulation was not a problem. Plus, some animals can and do exhibit homosexual behavior, but that is generally open to debate and interpretation.
Hero Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 even more simply stated; if a creature does not reproduce, he is a biological failure. so in that sense, yes, homosexuality is a genetic deffect. it is observed in nature that the main goal in each organism is to survive and reproduce. even if an animal expresses homosexuality, they are still attempting to preform the very acts that are supposed to lead to reproduction. "love" is not a factor in the animal world (and if someone wants to argue that, that's for another time in another topic) so a reasonable deduction would be that the animal is confused. and yes, the confusion can come from abnormal amounts of hormones of the opposite gender. these are chemical deffects and are the same deffects found in humans.
Recommended Posts