Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) I was going to place this in another section of this forum, but I think it is valid for physics and science due to the nature that homosexuals and lesbians cannot have children " physically natural." And yes I am aware of the choices on adoption. I am also aware of artificial insemination and " blink banks" BUT unsure if this is considered natural and not sure if the condoning is psychological? IE, same sex attracted to same sex? And no I have no biases towards any particular groups at all. In case no one here understand the dogmas linked to Homosexuals and Lesbians here is a list of sort. On world biases Gays and Lesbians have issues with the following: Keeping a job " due to discrimination" Continue going to church Have equal pay rights, IE have no children, not married etc Legal Marriages Have their lives threatened Are made fun of And at times have the blame placed on them Depression, Anxieties and other Emotional Issues " due to discrimination" These are because Gays and Lesbians are treated " horribly by the world." I want to point out that religion states that being Gay or Lesbian is due to how " again" they cannot conceive naturally among others. With that said: It is "scientifically known and impossible" for two men or two woman to conceive a child "naturally" from what I know so far. Thus in regards to " scientific evolution" and the prolonging of people on earth, IE, Only men and women give birth to children naturally, would the above discrimination on gays and lesbians, including those from religion be valid? Edited February 3, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 ! Moderator Note This has literally nothing to do with physics. I am moving the thread somewhere more appropriate for the time being. Your question is also very vague. What do you meant by 'wrong as per science'? Even more specifically, what do you mean by wrong? You appear to be simply to be defining wrong as not being able to conceive children, but then this isn't true for some heterosexual couples either; could you please clarify what you mean? As well, your list of discriminatory acts suffered by homosexuals seems to not have much to do with your question and at least two of them appear to be fairly ridiculous. Be aware that I will be closing this thread if you can't come up with a clear question or premise for your OP and more generally, members posting here should be aware that we will not tolerate any instances of slurs or prejudice against homosexuals.
iNow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Thus in regards to " scientific evolution" and the prolonging of people on earth, IE, Only men and women give birth to children naturally, would the above discrimination on gays and lesbians, including those from religion be valid?Following your own logic here, discrimination against post-menopausal couples and also infertile couples and couples that simply choose not to procreate would also be "valid." As is probably obvious to you, that's just stupid.
EdEarl Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 One or more parents are sometimes killed, and gay parents can adopt their progeny. See: http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/same-sex-penguin-couple-allowed-adopt-egg.html Consider that gay is not unnatural.
iNow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The "it's not natural" position is even more laughable than that. See the following thread for more: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33922-homosexuality-in-the-animal-kingdom/
Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) ! Moderator Note This has literally nothing to do with physics. I am moving the thread somewhere more appropriate for the time being. Your question is also very vague. What do you meant by 'wrong as per science'? Even more specifically, what do you mean by wrong? You appear to be simply to be defining wrong as not being able to conceive children, but then this isn't true for some heterosexual couples either; could you please clarify what you mean? As well, your list of discriminatory acts suffered by homosexuals seems to not have much to do with your question and at least two of them appear to be fairly ridiculous. Be aware that I will be closing this thread if you can't come up with a clear question or premise for your OP and more generally, members posting here should be aware that we will not tolerate any instances of slurs or prejudice against homosexuals. Ok, I will be more specific here: The male penis was created to be inserted into a woman's vagina, and through ejaculation the woman may be able to conceive a child " if and only if both subjects are healthy and not sterile in any way shape and or form... Although recent styles have changes IE anal sex oral sex and masturbation and etc, I am sure this is how the male body and the female body was designed to be, and seems to be doing the job correctly till date. I used science because " without" science we would not understand" Sterile individuals Artificial Insemination Condoms Contraceptives STDs Birth Defects Cumulative Genetics And other explicit research that engage in sex with the opposite sex. Correct me if I am wrong but did scientist discover these things??? Wrong as per science? What hoped to express is that, a woman and a man are the only two species in " nature" that can create life, anywhere at any given moment on this planet " from what I know" if and only if both subjects are 100% with no deficiencies. I was under the impression that "science" studies the laws and behavior patterns of nature??? If the answer is yes, then I feel you have made a mistake by removing my post elsewhere... One or more parents are sometimes killed, and gay parents can adopt their progeny. See: http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/same-sex-penguin-couple-allowed-adopt-egg.html Consider that gay is not unnatural. Yes I had mentioned " adoption" previously in OP, thanks.. Following your own logic here, discrimination against post-menopausal couples and also infertile couples and couples that simply choose not to procreate would also be "valid." As is probably obvious to you, that's just stupid. why do " you" get away with insulting other members here??? FYI, I have already mentioned your suggestions in my OP... And this topic is about Gays and Lesbians, please stay on topic here.... The "it's not natural" position is even more laughable than that. See the following thread for more: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33922-homosexuality-in-the-animal-kingdom/ OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, I GE IT NOW, YOU SEEM MY OP COMPETES WITH YOURS... LOL HOW FUNNY! Edited February 3, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings -4
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Your argument falls down by assuming that the sole reason that humans engage in sex is for the purposes of reproduction and continuation of the species. It's not. Humans are incredibly complex (largely due to our cognitive abilities) and our reasons for engaging in sex goes beyond the need to make babies. There are sociocultural aspects to consider, as well as economic ones and of course, the fact that sex is an enjoyable pass time is not something to be ignored. You cannot simply denote the sexual behaviour of some people as right or wrong on the basis that it does not conform to biological imperatives because it almost completely ignores the psychophysiological complexity of human behaviour. You also have to consider the fact that humans are not the only species to engage in homosexual acts and so the claim that it is unnatural is ignorant of how many animals in nature behave. And what do you mean by to date? As far as I’m aware, the human population is still increasing to ever-unsustainable levels, so the statement appears to be bunk. As well, homosexuality is not unique to the 21st century. Furthermore, classifying homosexuality as right or wrong implies some sort of moral aspect. This is why I asked for clarification, because moral arguments against homosexuality are separate arguments to the one you appear to be making. Edit: The thread was moved to the Biology section, biology being a discipline of science that is way more relevant to a thread about biological imperatives and sexual behaviours than is physics.
Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) Your argument falls down by assuming that the sole reason that humans engage in sex is for the purposes of reproduction and continuation of the species. It's not. Humans are incredibly complex (largely due to our cognitive abilities) and our reasons for engaging in sex goes beyond the need to make babies. There are sociocultural aspects to consider, as well as economic ones and of course, the fact that sex is an enjoyable pass time is not something to be ignored. You cannot simply denote the sexual behaviour of some people as right or wrong on the basis that it does not conform to biological imperatives because it almost completely ignores the psychophysiological complexity of human behaviour. You also have to consider the fact that humans are not the only species to engage in homosexual acts and so the claim that it is unnatural is ignorant of how many animals in nature behave. And what do you mean by to date? As far as I’m aware, the human population is still increasing to ever-unsustainable levels, so the statement appears to be bunk. As well, homosexuality is not unique to the 21st century. Furthermore, classifying homosexuality as right or wrong implies some sort of moral aspect. This is why I asked for clarification, because moral arguments against homosexuality are separate arguments to the one you appear to be making. I read your entire reply, I think you are being a little too analytical its quite simple. If everyone on the face of this planet " turned gay over night" Would we still have humans on the face of this world in say " 150 years or so"? Or better yet, if our parents were gay, would this conversation between you and me still exist? I think the answer is quite obvious...NO Gay people within the lines of " same sex" dont have children " period " So then, as per science, focusing on sex only " please" would their one day be a machine to create babies without same sex couples? I think that if this would ever be, our perceptions on gays and straights would then be revolutionized, till that time we are left with these un-answered complexities. Edited February 3, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings -4
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I read your entire reply, I think you are being a little too analytical its quite simple. If everyone on the face of this planet " turned gay over night" Would we still have humans on the face of this world in say " 150 years or so"? Or better yet, if our parents were gay, would this conversation between you and me still exist? I think the answer is quite obvious...NO Gay people within the lines of " same sex" dont have children " period " So then, as per science, focusing on sex only " please" would their one day be a machine to create babies without same sex couples? I think that if this would ever be, our perceptions on gays and straights would then be revolutionized, till that time we are left with these un-answered complexities. This seems to be a persistant problem with you. The questions are only simple if you outline them properly before people make an attempt at answering you. You ask one thing and then go and change the question in the next post or come up with absurd straw men, claiming that the people who have already responded to your first question are wrong and that it's really very simple. Keeping up with your ever-shifting goal posts and straw men is not simple. It's frustrating at best and dishonest at worst and you should probably try and avoid it. As I have already stated, you cannot narrow the quesiton to the ability to conceive children or not. If you are not willing to accept that, then please clearly state why you think it is an incorrect way of viewing things. Waving my post off by stating that it is too analytical is not an acceptable response to a valid counter-point. Clearly not everyone or even a majority of people in the world are homosexual, so your hypothetical situation has no relevance to the argument because it has no fathomable basis in reality. Most people are not homosexual, so as far as continuation of the species is concerned on the larger scale, it really shouldn't and doesn't matter if some people are; the human population will still continue to climb. Furthermore and since you continue to ignore this point, infertile people also have no children. Neither do most elderly females. Are they also wrong / unnatural? Is a fertile man engaging in relations with an infertile woman unnatural because their union cannot possibly result in children? 1
Delta1212 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 What does science have to do with this determination exactly? Whether something is right or wrong is a value judgement. Science tells you how things work, not whether they are good or bad. You can scientifically determine what the impact of homosexuality on population growth is, but you can't scientifically determine whether that impact is a good thing or a bad thing. The only way something can be wrong "as per science" is if it is empirically counter-factual. Since homosexuality is not demonstrably untrue, it is not wrong "as per science." So I'm going to have to go with "no" as the answer to your question.
John Cuthber Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Re. "Homosexuality and Lesbians" are they wrong as per science?" No. And you might want to check what the rules say about badmouthing groups of people.
ajb Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I used science because " without" science we would not understand" Wrong by science is not what you mean. I think you mean something more like "hard to understand using science" or something closer to that. In this sense you maybe right, but I don't know what psychologists, anthropologists and so on think about this. My only caution here is the word "wrong" in the context of science. 1
Fuzzwood Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) Ok, I will be more specific here: The male penis was created to be inserted into a woman's vagina, and through ejaculation the woman may be able to conceive a child " if and only if both subjects are healthy and not sterile in any way shape and or form... Genitals weren't made but evolved as deemed to be an evolutionary advantage, such as homosexualtiy which might have arisen from the desire to mate with everything that moves to ensure reprocreation. Such habit was obviously successful and we all carry it within our genes. Don't deny you never had any homosexual thoughts, we al have. Edited February 3, 2014 by Fuzzwood
Ophiolite Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Don't deny you never had any homosexual thoughts, we all have. I know this is going off topic, but are you sure? I am fairly certain I have never had any homosexual thoughts and have no idea why I would have. I shouldn't be fussed if I had had such thoughts, but I'm puzzled as to why you would think it is something that everyone has experienced. Perhaps you are defining having such thoughts in a different way from my understanding of the phrase.
Phi for All Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The male penis was created to be inserted into a woman's vagina, and through ejaculation the woman may be able to conceive a child " if and only if both subjects are healthy and not sterile in any way shape and or form... Although recent styles have changes IE anal sex oral sex and masturbation and etc, I am sure this is how the male body and the female body was designed to be, and seems to be doing the job correctly till date. Technical point, but none of those "recent styles" you mention are recent. All have been around since we have. And you're right, they all seem to be doing the job correctly up till now. I used science because " without" science we would not understand" Sterile individuals Artificial Insemination Condoms Contraceptives STDs Birth Defects Cumulative Genetics And other explicit research that engage in sex with the opposite sex. Correct me if I am wrong but did scientist discover these things??? Well no, not really. Science discovered how to deal with the conditions, but they were already in existence. Contraceptives and condoms are inventions based on scientific research. What hoped to express is that, a woman and a man are the only two species in " nature" that can create life, anywhere at any given moment on this planet " from what I know" if and only if both subjects are 100% with no deficiencies. Sorry, even in nature there are exceptions to the male/female reproductive structure. There are species that can change gender when necessary, there are species that practice asexual reproduction and even species where the males carry the offspring. I'm not sure what you mean by "if and only if both subjects are 100% with no deficiencies". Reality shows us this isn't true, which is generally the case when you start throwing around figures like "100%". 100% what? I was under the impression that "science" studies the laws and behavior patterns of nature??? If the answer is yes, then I feel you have made a mistake by removing my post elsewhere... But homosexuality has no effect on physics, none whatsoever. It does impact biology, so I agree with the choice to move the thread here. why do " you" get away with insulting other members here??? Because he was very specific about attacking your idea, which is what science discussions are good for. He didn't attack you personally, which would have been against our rules. I read your entire reply, I think you are being a little too analytical its quite simple. If everyone on the face of this planet " turned gay over night" Would we still have humans on the face of this world in say " 150 years or so"? This is a ludicrous argument. You say it's simple, then give a scenario that is unbelievably complex and absurd as an example. You've narrowed down the situation to the point where only your argument prevails in your mind, and that's very dangerous if you think what you're doing is thinking critically.
RK the Boss Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Homosexuality is banned in India i dont know about the other countries
swansont Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 "Wrong as per science" is an interesting phrase. science is the study of nature behaves, so if the behavior is present in nature, it is something to be studied There is no right or wrong about it. If this is related to the notion that behavior can be unnatural, then one must acknowledge that humans are part of nature. So unless the behavior is exclusive to some sort of technology that we deem to be man-made/unnatural (e.g. it were true that homosexuality only arose with the invention of the steam engine, or the wheel, or some other trigger), then there might be something to the idea. Otherwise it is impossible for humans to engage in unnatural behavior. 1
john5746 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I read your entire reply, I think you are being a little too analytical its quite simple. Analytical on a science forum, imagine that. If everyone on the face of this planet " turned gay over night" You are basically saying if all humans quit conceiving would that be "bad". Yes, in terms of continuing humanity. But, while homosexual sex doesn't create life, neither does most sex. If everyone became homosexual overnight, I imagine that conception wouldn't stop. Even leaving out bisexuality and sliding scales, 100% homosexual people could agree to "go hetero" for a little to have children. That would mean they really want to have children, I would expect better parenting as a result. Population growth would take a hit, but really, do we need more people on the planet? Wouldn't quality be better than quantity? To me, seems like bisexuality would be the best. People would understand both sexes better and probably get along with both better as well. If everyone changed to 100% heterosexual overnight, would that be an improvement? I doubt it. Don't deny you never had any homosexual thoughts, we al have. I'm 100% hetero, never had any thoughts like that. My bromance with Matt Damon and Brad Pitt is just my admiration for their acting, nothing else. NOTHING ELSE!! 2
Delta1212 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Analytical on a science forum, imagine that. You are basically saying if all humans quit conceiving would that be "bad". Yes, in terms of continuing humanity. But, while homosexual sex doesn't create life, neither does most sex. If everyone became homosexual overnight, I imagine that conception wouldn't stop. Even leaving out bisexuality and sliding scales, 100% homosexual people could agree to "go hetero" for a little to have children. That would mean they really want to have children, I would expect better parenting as a result. Population growth would take a hit, but really, do we need more people on the planet? Wouldn't quality be better than quantity? To me, seems like bisexuality would be the best. People would understand both sexes better and probably get along with both better as well. If everyone changed to 100% heterosexual overnight, would that be an improvement? I doubt it. Or, another way of looking at it, if everyone turned 100% male overnight, I think that would be worse for humanity's long term survival than if everyone turned gay overnight. Does that make males bad for the long term survival of the species? Obviously not. 1
Dekan Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 "Wrong as per science" is an interesting phrase. science is the study of nature behaves, so if the behavior is present in nature, it is something to be studied There is no right or wrong about it. If this is related to the notion that behavior can be unnatural, then one must acknowledge that humans are part of nature. So unless the behavior is exclusive to some sort of technology that we deem to be man-made/unnatural (e.g. it were true that homosexuality only arose with the invention of the steam engine, or the wheel, or some other trigger), then there might be something to the idea. Otherwise it is impossible for humans to engage in unnatural behavior. Don't Americans engage in unnatural behaviour when they play baseball. I mean, they try to hit a ball with a narrow round stick. 1
Arete Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Given the OP's reason for stating that homosexuality is "unnatural" is that homosexual individuals are "unable to reproduce", I'd be interested to know how natural he feels social insects are.
swansont Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Don't Americans engage in unnatural behaviour when they play baseball. I mean, they try to hit a ball with a narrow round stick. Hitting things with sticks is not inherently unnatural, but OTOH, baseball as a whole is a human invention that might fall under "man-made". I agree that playing baseball specifically might not be viewed as natural (in that no other species does so, and humans have only done so recently), but playing games and hitting things with sticks is.
iNow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, I GE IT NOW, YOU SEEM MY OP COMPETES WITH YOURS... LOL HOW FUNNY!Yep, you're absolutely right. My linking to that thread had nothing to do with reminding people how silly the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument truly is, and everything to do with me being upset that you were competing with a thread I created more than 5 years ago, and which hasn't been posted to in over 3 years. Gosh and golly and stuff... It's hard to slip anything by you, my friend. I've clearly been bested by your enormous intellect. How embarrassing. 1
Moontanman Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Ok, I will be more specific here: The male penis was created to be inserted into a woman's vagina, and through ejaculation the woman may be able to conceive a child " if and only if both subjects are healthy and not sterile in any way shape and or form... Although recent styles have changes IE anal sex oral sex and masturbation and etc, I am sure this is how the male body and the female body was designed to be, and seems to be doing the job correctly till date. I used science because " without" science we would not understand" Sterile individuals Artificial Insemination Condoms Contraceptives STDs Birth Defects Cumulative Genetics And other explicit research that engage in sex with the opposite sex. Correct me if I am wrong but did scientist discover these things??? Wrong as per science? What hoped to express is that, a woman and a man are the only two species in " nature" that can create life, anywhere at any given moment on this planet " from what I know" if and only if both subjects are 100% with no deficiencies. I was under the impression that "science" studies the laws and behavior patterns of nature??? If the answer is yes, then I feel you have made a mistake by removing my post elsewhere... Yes I had mentioned " adoption" previously in OP, thanks.. why do " you" get away with insulting other members here??? FYI, I have already mentioned your suggestions in my OP... And this topic is about Gays and Lesbians, please stay on topic here.... OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, I GE IT NOW, YOU SEEM MY OP COMPETES WITH YOURS... LOL HOW FUNNY! The male penis was created? Come on all the rest that follows is nonsense due to that one phrase. I do suggest you read the other thread as indicated, it completely blows your initial thread out of the water and a side note lesbians are homosexuals and homosexual/heterosexual is not enough to keep people from having sex with who ever they want and then the concept of bi sexuality has to be considered...
Dekan Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Hitting things with sticks is not inherently unnatural, but OTOH, baseball as a whole is a human invention that might fall under "man-made". I agree that playing baseball specifically might not be viewed as natural (in that no other species does so, and humans have only done so recently), but playing games and hitting things with sticks is. I suppose so, but why on earth try to hit the ball with a narrow round stick? It seems unnatural. Isn't it obvious that the narrowness means there's little enough chance of actually contacting the ball. And even if you do manage to make contact, the roundness makes the ball fly off at an unpredictable angle. So there's very litte possibility of steering the ball in any judged direction. All the baseball batter can do, is take a big almighty heave-ho swing, and hope for the best. Liitle skill involved. Not like in cricket, where we sensibly use a broad flat-bladed bat. This provides directional control - enabling a skilled batsman to use delicate tickles and deflections to despatch the ball where he chooses. And still the option of a big, full-bladed, square-on , "thwack" sending the ball sailing high over the boundary for a six! Glorious stuff.... No wonder the narrow baseball stick only finds favour in America, and due to post-WWII cultural influence, in Japan. Anyway, this is all a digression - let's get back to the gay subject - far more interesting!
Recommended Posts