Homosexuality in Australia (11 Viewers)

[not.addie]

spartans encouraged homosexuality, we have the whole lesbos islans and wasn't da vinci gay?
if it has been around for so long throughout history- even before the bible- it cant be as unnatural as everyone makes it out to be.

 

[Olwen]

No. Those people are acceptable.



They do, however, choose to have sex with other gay people... no one is forcing them to do that.

They are exactly like straight couples, except they are not straight couples.

Marriage is not a basic human right.

okay. so basically a homosexual should live in constant denial of their reality and marry someone of the different sex just so they fit into the norms of society... thats a bit contradictory, that's not natural or fair on the partner

and you just prooved my point there.. they are EXACTLY THE SAME! the only difference is their sexual orientation

and the right to get married is a basic human right, as stated by the UN declaration of human rights
so therefore they are denied a human right becuase of their sexual orientation
...

 

[iamsickofyear12]

okay. so basically a homosexual should live in constant denial of their reality and marry someone of the different sex just so they fit into the norms of society... thats a bit contradictory, that's not natural or fair on the partner

and you just prooved my point there.. they are EXACTLY THE SAME! the only difference is their sexual orientation

and the right to get married is a basic human right, as stated by the UN declaration of human rights
so therefore they are denied a human right becuase of their sexual orientation
...

Yes and No. I don't really expect them to live in denial. I would find it acceptable for them to have gay relationships in secret as long as I didn't have to know about it. I certainly wouldn't encourage them to get married to a normal person because as you say its not fair on the partner. In private they could be as gay as they like, in secret they could just be single or something.

I didn't mean it that way. Pretend I said an Apple is exactly like an Orange except that it is an Apple. There are still lots of other differences. I just didn't point them out because they are obvious.

I don't care what the UN declaration of human rights says. The UN is useless and being able to get married is not a basic human right.

 

[Kwayera]

Fact: Man + Woman = Procreation. It is the reason we exist and is biological proof that being gay is unnatural.

Man + Woman does = Procreation, but sex does not necessarily mean procreation, nor is it exclusively for procreation (especially in humans). Most intelligent animals with reasonable degrees of social complexity engage in homosexual acts - canids, felids, primates and cetaceans included.

Homosexuality is not unnatural.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Man + Woman does = Procreation, but sex does not necessarily mean procreation, nor is it exclusively for procreation (especially in humans). Most intelligent animals with reasonable degrees of social complexity engage in homosexual acts - canids, felids, primates and cetaceans included.

Homosexuality is not unnatural.

Unnatural is such a scientifically dubious word. You could easily argue that evolution is unnatural.

I don't even know why you bother with this, tbh. People attempting to pull the biology card are just trying to back up their otherwise-irrational beliefs which have simply been imposed upon them by their culture.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Man + Woman does = Procreation, but sex does not necessarily mean procreation, nor is it exclusively for procreation (especially in humans). Most intelligent animals with reasonable degrees of social complexity engage in homosexual acts - canids, felids, primates and cetaceans included.

Homosexuality is not unnatural.

I know that sex is not exclusively for procreation. I also know that other animals engage in homosexual acts. Those things do not change anything.

...but I look at it this way. If everyone was homosexual there would be no procreation and we would no longer exist. Animals are designed to survive, not become extinct. Homosexuality is obvious a flaw or mistake in the design. It is unintended and unnatural.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I know that sex is not exclusively for procreation. I also know that other animals engage in homosexual acts. Those things do not change anything.

...but I look at it this way. If everyone was homosexual there would be no procreation and we would no longer exist. Animals are designed to survive, not become extinct. Homosexuality is obvious a flaw or mistake in the design. It is unintended and unnatural.

If everyone was a man, then there would be no procreation and we would no longer exist. Animals are designed to survive and not become extinct. Being a man is obviously a flaw or a mistake in the design.

Etc.

PS: Just incase you didn't know, noone designed anything.
PPS: There is nothing stopping homosexual people from procreating, we still have functioning junk, if you were wondering.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

If everyone was a man, then there would be no procreation and we would no longer exist. Animals are designed to survive and not become extinct. Being a man is obviously a flaw or a mistake in the design.

Etc.

PS: Just incase you didn't know, noone designed anything.
PPS: There is nothing stopping homosexual people from procreating, we still have functioning junk, if you were wondering.

Yes, being a man in a world without women would be.

I said design, not designed.

There is something stop a homosexual from procreating with another homosexual.

 

[Kwayera]

I know that sex is not exclusively for procreation. I also know that other animals engage in homosexual acts. Those things do not change anything.

...but I look at it this way. If everyone was homosexual there would be no procreation and we would no longer exist. Animals are designed to survive, not become extinct. Homosexuality is obvious a flaw or mistake in the design. It is unintended and unnatural.

Homosexual acts in social animals are generally bonding or dominance exercises, which increase individual and/or group fitness (and therefore your own). If it were useless or conferred an evolutionary disadvantage (i.e. a deleterious allele), it wouldn't be so prevalent.

So, again, homosexuality is not unnatural, and can in many cases be biologically benficial. Get over it.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Homosexual acts in social animals are a bonding or dominance exercise, which increases individual and/or group fitness (and therefore your own). If it were useless or conferred an evolutionary disadvantage (i.e. a deleterious allele), it wouldn't be so prevalent.

So, again, homosexuality is not unnatural, and can in many cases be biologically benficial. Get over it.

I don't think it is fair to compare humans to other social animals in this way and I don't know enough about how homosexuality progresses through generations to respond to that second point.

Since when was it biologically beneficial in humans?

 

[Enteebee]

...but I look at it this way. If everyone was homosexual there would be no procreation and we would no longer exist. Animals are designed to survive, not become extinct. Homosexuality is obvious a flaw or mistake in the design. It is unintended and unnatural.

1) We are 'designed' to do many things.

2) How many homosexuals/lesbians do you see around with kids (if they can get their hands on them?). We have sex (hopefully) thousands of times in our lives, we only need to have sex with the opposite sex a few of those times to produce offspring.

3) Our survival actually at this point in time seems to dictate having fewer children.

 

[Kwayera]

I don't think it is fair to compare humans to other social animals in this way

Why? We're social animals. In every way that matters, we're the third species of chimpanzee, and they commonly display homosexual behaviour in bonding exercises.

and I don't know enough about how homosexuality progresses through generations to respond to that second point.

Since when was it biologically beneficial in humans?

AFAWK, it's not genetically inherited.

It hasn't been strictly beneficial for a long time, not since we were living in much smaller tribe-like structures, but neither is it deleterious. Humans do many things that were once beneficial and are not not, so I don't see why this is any different.

 

[Kwayera]

2) How many homosexuals/lesbians do you see around with kids (if they can get their hands on them?). We have sex (hopefully) thousands of times in our lives, we only need to have sex with the opposite sex a few of those times to produce offspring.

Well actually, genetically, it depends on the point of view of the gender in question. For males, it's beneficial to have sex as often as possible; for females, it's exactly the opposite, to establish a pair-bond.

 

[brainwashed39]

Homosexual acts in social animals are generally bonding or dominance exercises, which increase individual and/or group fitness (and therefore your own). If it were useless or conferred an evolutionary disadvantage (i.e. a deleterious allele), it wouldn't be so prevalent.

So, again, homosexuality is not unnatural, and can in many cases be biologically benficial. Get over it.

rightly said!!
this whole "natural" and "unnatural" argument is ridiculous. if you don't want to do anything unnatural never ride in a car, watch tv, go on the computer etc.
because animals of the same gender have sex, but they don't drive cars very often.
so homosexuality is more natural that being on bos right now.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Our survival actually at this point in time seems to dictate having fewer children.

...but not none.

Why? We're social animals. In every way that matters, we're the third species of chimpanzee, and they commonly display homosexual behaviour in bonding exercises.

It hasn't been strictly beneficial for a long time, not since we were living in much smaller tribe-like structures, but neither is it deleterious. Humans do many things that were once beneficial and are not not, so I don't see why this is any different.

That doesn't mean the same idea automatically applies.

Of course it is harmful. Homosexuality = Less Offspring = Disadvantage in terms of survival of the species.

I don't think it has been beneficial recently enough, and I understand how far I am going back a fair way when I say that. If it is a left over from a long, long time ago then it is a mistake and is now unnatural.

 

[J-Smart]

Homosexuality is a sympton.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

rightly said!!
this whole "natural" and "unnatural" argument is ridiculous. if you don't want to do anything unnatural never ride in a car, watch tv, go on the computer etc.
because animals of the same gender have sex, but they don't drive cars very often.
so homosexuality is more natural that being on bos right now.

I didn't start with the unnatural. I just used it because someone else did.

Unnatural is a fairly ambiguous word. If you want to take it as just meaning abnormal then homosexuals are definitely unnatural.

 

[Kwayera]

That doesn't mean the same idea automatically applies.

Of course it is harmful. Homosexuality = Less Offspring = Disadvantage in terms of survival of the species.

I don't think it has been beneficial recently enough, and I understand how far I am going back a fair way when I say that. If it is a left over from a long, long time ago then it is a mistake and is now unnatural.

You don't really understand genetics. Less offspring != species survival disadvantage. In fact, often it's quite the opposite. And a homosexual individual does not decrease the overall fitness of their species, given such activity increases the overall fitness of the group and thus their relatives who do breed.

It wasn't a "mistake" (and please refrain from using such directive clauses when referring to a system with no intelligent basis behind it; evolution doesn't 'make mistakes'), and isn't unnatural.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Less offspring != species survival disadvantage. In fact, often it's quite the opposite.

It wasn't a "mistake" (and please refrain from using such directive clauses when referring to a system with no intelligent basis behind it; evolution doesn't 'make mistakes'), and isn't unnatural.

I wasn't suggesting that it does.

In that case replace mistake with a similar word that would appropriately describe what I have referred to as a"mistake" in evolution.

Yes it is unnatural.

 

[Kwayera]

I wasn't suggesting that it does.

In that case replace mistake with a similar word that would appropriately describe what I have referred to as a"mistake" in evolution.

Yes it is unnatural.

No.. it isn't. In every way that matters and every way that doesn't, homosexuality is not what you would term unnatural. If it was, it wouldn't persist, in our species or in any others.

And if you're using 'unnatural' in place of abnormal, well, so is being naturally blonde. What's your point?