@thegerg said:
@GreySeal9: At least he gave us a source, I guess. Haha.
lol. True. Baby steps.
Is homosexuality a natural thing?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
@thegerg said:
@Jacanuk said:
You really need to stop trying make up your own definitions to fit your own little home made argument.
"Homosexuality (from Ancient Greekὁμός, meaning "same", and Latinsexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."[1][2]
Along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum.[1] There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation.[1] Many scientists think that nature and nurture – a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences – factor into the cause of sexual orientation.[1][3] They favor biologically-based theories,[3] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, both, or the inclusion of genetic and social factors.[4][5] There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation;[4] when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women.[5] While some religious people hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural,[6][7] research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.[1][8] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation,[1] and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation.[9]"
Or do you suddenly want to claim that Wiki is not a reliable source.....
"is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex"
Exactly. It does not require a certain level of understanding of gender or sex. Animals do not need to understand sex or gender in the same way that humans do in order to be homosexual, they simply need to participate in "sexual behavior between members of the same sex."
Nowhere in what you posted does it say that homosexuality is unnatural or that it depends on a certain level of understanding of gender.
Thanks for providing a source that supports my claim!
So now TheGerg you also want to rewrite the definition on sexual attraction or sexual behaviour? not to mention you take out what you can use and throw the rest away like this
"homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."[1][2]"
So of course it requires there to be a understanding of gender and sex particular the last since its a known fact that some animals use "sexual behaviour" as a way of exerting its dominas over other animals, Also after all this whole thread is about if you can use nature as a justification of the homosexual behaviour humans have, so you certinally need to stop jumping between taking things literal and trying to participate in a debate where its not about the literal understanding and how only we humans perceive something.
@Jacanuk said:
So now TheGerg you also want to rewrite the definition on sexual attraction or sexual behaviour? not to mention you take out what you can use and throw the rest away like this
"homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."[1][2]"
So of course it requires there to be a understanding of gender and sex particular the last since its a known fact that some animals use "sexual behaviour" as a way of exerting its dominas over other animals, Also after all this whole thread is about if you can use nature as a justification of the homosexual behaviour humans have, so you certinally need to stop jumping between taking things literal and trying to participate in a debate where its not about the literal understanding and how only we humans perceive something.
You're confusing the phrasing here (or twisting it to suit your purposes). The excerpt from Wikipedia offers three definitions of homosexuality:
"Homosexuality (from Ancient Greekὁμός, meaning "same", and Latinsexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."[1][2]
1) romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender
2) an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex
3) relating to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions
In particular even inasmuch as you might say (2) and (3) are part of the same definition, (1) is a separate definition.
As an self-describedorientation, (2) and (3) are relevant and you are right, that it involves an understanding. But in its most basic sense, e.g. "sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender", this understanding isn't needed. But in the sense of the point you are trying to make, your source of Wikipedia disagrees with you.
@thegerg said:
@Jacanuk said:
@thegerg said:
@Jacanuk said:
You really need to stop trying make up your own definitions to fit your own little home made argument.
"Homosexuality (from Ancient Greekὁμός, meaning "same", and Latinsexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."[1][2]
Along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum.[1] There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation.[1] Many scientists think that nature and nurture – a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences – factor into the cause of sexual orientation.[1][3] They favor biologically-based theories,[3] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, both, or the inclusion of genetic and social factors.[4][5] There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation;[4] when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women.[5] While some religious people hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural,[6][7] research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.[1][8] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation,[1] and there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation.[9]"
Or do you suddenly want to claim that Wiki is not a reliable source.....
"is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex"
Exactly. It does not require a certain level of understanding of gender or sex. Animals do not need to understand sex or gender in the same way that humans do in order to be homosexual, they simply need to participate in "sexual behavior between members of the same sex."
Nowhere in what you posted does it say that homosexuality is unnatural or that it depends on a certain level of understanding of gender.
Thanks for providing a source that supports my claim!
So now TheGerg you also want to rewrite the definition on sexual attraction or sexual behaviour? not to mention you take out what you can use and throw the rest away like this
"homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."[1][2]"
So of course it requires there to be a understanding of gender and sex particular the last since its a known fact that some animals use "sexual behaviour" as a way of exerting its dominas over other animals, Also after all this whole thread is about if you can use nature as a justification of the homosexual behaviour humans have, so you certinally need to stop jumping between taking things literal and trying to participate in a debate where its not about the literal understanding and how only we humans perceive something.
A direct quote (emphasis mine) from the article you posted: ""Homosexuality (from Ancient Greekὁμός, meaning "same", and Latinsexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender."
According to what YOU posted, homosexuality is simply sexual behavior between members of the same sex.
So when your arguments fall short you start to put words in my posts?
Also again you read half of what the post says and take things out of context. its impossible to even debate with someone like that and also is so argumentative and invents their own meanings and contexts. I have noticed this a lot with you, you seem to jump into threads and tear it apart with this idea that there are only your understanding and that everything can only be taken absolute literal.
Also even if we do only take what you have wrote, it still again demands that the animals have an understanding of what gender is and what sex is and that the sole purpose of their action is to have sex. Otherwise what you are dealing with is nothing but a basic animal instinct, which could be seen as dominans, submessive or any number of other animal behavours that are recognized which is my point.
And if we just have a basic animal instinct then you cannot claim that what humans perceive as homosexuality exists in nature.
@thegerg said:
@Jacanuk: I've put no words into your posts, I've simply quoted them. See chessmaster's explanation on how you should interpret definitions that you read, you seem to be lacking a basic understanding of the article that you posted.
I know perfectly well how to understand that article. The problem is that you try to use what ever definition suits your argument and then when it fails, you start to play literal Lisa.
Again nothing in that quote from wiki goes against what i have been trying to get you to understand. Even If you take homosexuality 100% literal as sex between the same gender , you still need to prove that animals have the same understanding of gender and sex as we humans does.
Otherwise there is absolute no reason whatsoever to even begin to claim that homosexuality exists in nature and by that is natural.
It´s really that easy.
@thegerg said:
@Jacanuk: " Even If you take homosexuality 100% literal as sex between the same gender , you still need to prove that animals have the same understanding of gender and sex as we humans does."
No you don't. Where are you getting that from, Asinine Andrea?
Of course you do. especially if you wish to assert that it makes the human homosexuality natural.
This thread is pasts it's shelf life.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment