Homosexual behaviours are not rare love. It has been a constant in human behaviours since the beginning of time. If it were a new phenomenon brought on by the advent of socialist/Marxist idealism then such behaviours would not figure so prominently in biblical texts. <br />
Statistics say that nearly 10% of the population is homosexual or bisexual which I believe is the same thing. Statistics also point out the 10% of those homosexuals are transgendered. Prehistoric and primitive cultures also had words to describe such behaviours. This is not something that YOU just discovered for the world love. <br />
The reason why humanity has continued to thrive is because the numbers and percentages work. It is a function of math, not natural selection. Additionally, society has rejected such behaviours throughout history so millions of homosexual and transgendered persons every year are fearful to be rejected and thus continue to procreate, to appear normal, just as millions of homosexuals before them have. Perhaps your pappa was just such a person. Had he been brave, you may not have been borne. <br />
I hope I have cleared this up for you love.
That is ignorant: a percentage is brunette; percent is blonde; percent is gay; percent is straight; percent is diabetes; percent is deformed at birth; percent is retarded; percent is genius!
We are not all same! We are not all intended to be same! This is pure logic. If it were not natural for people to be born different then people are not born different. That is only proof you need.
Lapiudolce is very right.
You are wasting your brain cells on these juvenile homophobes lapiudolce. I know you love to teach but this is public school, not ivy league. He hasn't even got it that you called his dad queer yet. I love you and your always right but these dudes are a waste of time.
Also, when you suggest something is not natural, then suggest it is instead maybe an anomaly, those are two distinct arguments. Of course homosexuality is an anomaly. That doesn't make it unnatural.
There is no need to argue, no need to call names. I love you too Yuki but logic is logic. Everyone must learn in their life that we are all vulnerable to the extent that we do not even know the extent of which we do not know.
It is impossible for someone who is not borne retarded to know the experience of being retarded. The same with homosexuality or with Transsessualism. They are limited in knowledge to their own experiences just as we are. If the read it, it is so. So forgive them for they know not what they do...
I think you confuse that which is most common or less common with natural or un-natural. The less common behaviours do not default as un-natural which I think is what you are alleging, although I would agree that it is an anomale of humanity.
Perhaps it is your articulation which is causing others to percieve your inexperience and not your experience itself. I have no problem with you having an opinion which differs from my own, but you should not be offended that my quote has more likes than your quote when you are the one who asked for the opinions of others.
Since I myself was borne with a condition where my brain thought itself a woman and my penis thought itself a man, I think I can speak with some authority on the issue.
Since you only know the life of a young male who lusts for lumps on the chest of a woman, that is the perspective from which you form your own opinions. We are both entitled but only one of us has lived in both roles.
You must come to some understanding that I cannot change what is "natural" for me anymore than you can. When you see a curvy well-proportioned female, you naturally look and admire her, maybe lust for her. You do not know why, it was a gift from heaven.
It is the same for me only I feel those same feelings when I see a hit guy. Only, the complicated issue is that I was borne with this stupid appendage between my legs which you and others say prohibits me from having those natural tendencies that dominate my thoughts without effort or choice.
You say it is choice, but you really have no idea. You read a book and it says an effeminate male is doomed to hell but that is the suit I was wearing as I exited the birth canal. So how could I have escaped this hell? If it is true, the God I myself worship has given me no chance at birth.
If you are borne with something special or different, it gives you a different perspective which others can learn from if they are willing. You do not have to sacrifice your beliefs to be learned of things not known by you naturally.
By the way, I was not accusing your pappa of being queer. I only wanted you to think that the possibility could exist without your knowledge. Look around, 10 of every one hundred people you know are homosexual and most will never admit it. That was my meaning, I hope you were not offended.
I am happy to share with you.
The best answer is No, I was raised in Turkey to a Muslim family so my pappa was very strict. I was only beaten for being effeminate which I had no control over. Not real abuse like I think you ask of but certainly on-going physical and mental tactics to force masculinity on me. I was an embarrassment to him of course.
But my struggles began at age 4. This was before a child can know of sexuality or gender as we adults know of it. I was very naturally convinced I was a girl. I could not understand how they could not see it because a child of that age cannot comprehend that the penis is the determining factor.
My life was incredibly difficult because in my home country the fear of death was very real. I would not choose such a life if the choice was otherwise my own. In fact, I was sent to America by my mama who feared my mandatory military service would be my death sentence. My effeminacy was not a feature I could conceal.
I later settled in Italia and there are of course many stories in between but that is my experience. I know that it is easier to put us in a box where abuse and dispare are the culprits but the reality is much more complex. I hope you are engaged to learn more. I would feel fortunate to provide you with any answer you are willing to seek.
Thank you for your kind expression although I must say that I no longer suffer as I made the difficult choice to transition while very young. Now my life is lived in a more peaceful appreciation for who and what I am and how I choose to live. It is a life which can be useless and shameful for some...liberating for others who are either brave enough or supported enough to make the only journey which can truly heal our souls.
I am also sorry for your dear brother. But, although he may say and you may believe that his homosexual behavior is tied to his abuse, you should be open to the idea that he could have matured into the same man even without the abuse.
You may be right about he imbalance as well. My papa was 30 years senior to my mamma. Their age could have created the imbalance. But in the end, it is not the imbalance or the condition that defines us. It is the person we mature into. We are humans, each of us, who have minds and souls and we too must be able to live and love as our minds direct us. Otherwise we are living to please others and not ourselves which will eventually lead to mental illness or anxieties.
I am so happy we now better understand each other. I think a bridge has been erected, no?
No, honestly I have not dwelled on such a thing. In my case, I think the imbalance was more likely in my mamma during pregnancy than in me. That created a biological anomale in my body which was most unlikely for me to overcome. At least my endocrinologists could not figure it out. I am happy as I am.
Yes, many times. My first love, first attraction was a male - a classmate. It was a very natural love for both he and I which developed over time as each of us were developing from child to adult. Our parents, tuned in to what was apening, interrupted our love by sending him to school in New York.
My parents sent me to London to school. His sister soon after killed herself and the family was forever destroyed. A few years later, I moved to California for 3 years, I attempted to find him in New York but his life was thereafter arranged for him and a wife picked out. We spent a weekend together to cry and catch up but he was trapped without an honorable method of escape. I understood and I left him knowing it would not be fair to him that I ever see him again. In 16 years, I have still not attempted to see him.
I have loved women in my life but I have never been "excited" sexually by a woman. I do not know if you can understand that. My last long-term relationship was with a woman. We dated for 3 years. Although I loved her very much, and I still feel the same, I have never been sexually drawn to her. We were just perfect friends. She herself has been bisexual so her attraction to me was perhaps a physical attraction to my femininity and the sexual chemistry of the part of me which is still male.
Sexuality is a complex science. We know that the hormone responsible for sexual excitement in females is testosterone. I also know that some testosterone in males is metabolized as estrogen and the opposite is true of estrogen to androgens for females.
In my early twenties, I had a surgery called orchiectomy where my testes were removed. When I tell others that I still get erections they think I am crazy. But it is true not only of me but the majority of men who by reason of accident or disease are forced to undergo the same surgery.
Some think a child as I was would be deplete of natural production of testosterone but actually my numbers were normal. And honestly, "normal" is a highly variable scale. While sexual vigor may be a product of high levels of testosterone production, sexual dysfunction a result of the opposite - sexual attraction is wholely different and a bio-physiological response derived in the base of the brain.
As much as it is an incredibly easy to assign it to something as simple as choice, it is much more complex. Because choice is a factor for all of us, most stop there and call it a day. My choices are to either act according to social laws and rules of the majority, pretending to be happy so others can be comfortable, or, act according to what is felt naturally, bending the rules to match my own reality, so I myself can be comfortable and happy.
Sadly, most who are similarly afflicted as I do as I first described, never finding happiness for themselves. It is such a difficult pursuit, most are much too fearful to endure it.
But, to finish your question, I think sex is great, all sex. No matter how a person defines their sexuality, mankind has figured out how to get the greatest pleasure from the act, regardless if it is two women, man and woman, two men, or whatever combination can be invented.
If I have sex with a female, rest assured that I will enjoy it. But it is not something that I ever think about. The only time I personally am sexually aroused is when a see a male figure which happens to meet the qualities which I myself are most attracted to. This is how I have been since the days where I discovered the mystery of sexuality.
I began my life thinking I was a girl. I became confused as a Pre-teen thinking I was just gay. As a teen, I understood that my specific personna was more complex; that of a transessuale, my body male by sex but female by stature. My mind pure feminine. Once I knew why I was different, I embraced it although I understood the danger. I refused to allow others to ruin my life for me in efforts to fix wat could not be fixed.
If you can imagine that your parents would make efforts to convince you that you are supposed to be with boys. How can you do it? Your brain only appreciates the shape of a woman's ***. How can you socialize yourself to admire that which you find no appreciation for? When a pretty woman passes your chair, you instinctively look up to admire. You cannot help it and your own lady is perhaps upset about it.
That natural inclination you feel is what I feel when a handsome man is presented to me. Is it a choice or is it natural? For you, is it a choice - your heterosexuality? You say no because you are among the majority but you have the same choice, no? You have a choice to be as you are not comfortable to be just as I have a choice to live similarly. If you think for a minute, you will see that neither of us have a choice. You just happen to be the more fortunate one. You were fortunate not to be born with this "choice" to be happy or unhappy. You are happy as you are, no big "choice" to make.
I think the bisexual among us, those who are just happy to *** no matter the receptacle, are the responsible party for the confusion by persons not familiar with the minds of gay or TS people. They obviously enjoy "choice" like no others. You can place those abused demographics in the same category. They are confused, not necessarily confined by a female brain. They have a "choice" although their logic is scrambled by evil acts against them while in developmental stages.
I hope you are slightly more enlightened.
This question to me is perhaps the same thing if I ask you of the opposite. I cannot know because that is not my experience. What if things change for you? You suddenly and profoundly begin to believe you are a woman.
As a 35 year old, I would fear the change more than I did as a young person. Perhaps you would too. I know personally the anguish associated with such a feeling so I can imagine that the rest of my life I would be living in a hell, partly of my given psychological gender dysphoria and partially of my own making; ever fearful to change again to something in between, never fully male or female.
That is why only our young volunteer for war. They know not the danger or the sacrifice as adults understand it. My guess is at my age, I would fear such a change.
It really is not difficult to know this feeling. 95% of Transsessuals never transition. The majority who do, start late in life after many failed marriages, children and career choices have been made.
Most lose their families and their careers in the process. It is a huge choice they make - content within and destitute or a life of misery and unhappiness with their family and retirement firmly in place. Most divorce in multiples.
Just read a few from this site and you can learn of the pain and suffering they endure and the complex nature of a late life transition to more fully answer your question.
I was lucky to be as ignorant and stubborn as I was when I was young to jump off of the cliff of sexuality while my body was immature enough to nicely respond to medical transition. If the choice were before me today, I am not certain if I would take it as I know that I would never achieve the level of beauty that I posess today. I would be the person you make fun of in a caffe who passes for neither male or female. I would likely have taken my life honestly.
Many can live with the stress and sadness but the sliding scale of severity is so great...who knows where we are on this scale? I think I must be on the very edge as my conviction was too strong.
Your intellect always impresses me. You should write a book on the subject. No one explains it as you do.
Most people are right handed. Does that mean that mean left handed people are "unnatural"? Redheads are also in the minority, so are they too "innatural"? You're conflating "in the minority" with "unnatural," which is where your "logic" falls apart.
I know they're not mutually exclusive, but that's beside the point.
If all people were male, that would also lead to extinction of our race, so is being male therefore also unnatural?
Neither is labelling sexuality, nor is monogamy...nor is celibacy. Thus all your religious sexual practices are at least equally as unnecessary for human survival.
Because it's a naturally ocurring behavior. In fact it's been theorized that it's an evolutionary response to too many males. For every boy you have the chances he will be gay rises 50% or so with each child. It's a scientific conclusion of one study but it had a larger pool of data, so I'd believe them.<br />
Also the behavior isn't rare, it occurs at about the same 10% rate as humans.
It's not normal, but then an actual normal person doesn't exactly exist, as the norm is discovered ba<x>sed on the averages. Wearing abercrombie as a teenager is normal. Listening to pop is normal. Teen pregnancy is abnormal. Doing weed is normal. Being gay is not normal as the majority is not gay. However it is natural. Those two words are very different
The majority are also Asian. Thus you necessarily must believe anyone who isn't Asian is abnormal to continue this logic.
Asking stupid questions is perfectly natural - but comparatively rare. As evidenced the above stupid question.<br />
Whether something is common or rare has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is natural or unnatural. iPhones are very common indeed - but they are not natural things, they are man made. Tigers are very rare but that does not mean they are unnatural.<br />
I advise getting a dictionary and learning the meaning of basic english words. I mean, honestly, I learnt all this when I was 8.
There is no argument to be had. Homsexuality is a natural phenomena that has been widely observed in the animal kingdom in general.
LGBT people have no more need to justify how they live their lives than anyone else. Since homosexuality in and of itself is not a perversion - it is simply a natural variation in human behaviour.
Not everything that is natural, is also common. Red hair is natural and rare too.
If birds have wings and can fly is natural why don't we all have wings and can fly? The problem with your question is that it is an illogical assumption ba<x>sed on an illogical conclusion. If you mean common instead of natural that is a more logical question. Also, although 10% hardly makes it "uncommon" when you realize that it represents millions and millions of people...your assumption is absurd. Turn it around- let's say that 90% of the world was gay and 10% was straight. The impossibility of that is obvious- who would have the babies for the next generation? A few million men and women would need to be producing billions of babies to sustain the species. I like sex a lot but I don't think I can do my share of producing 10 million children or so a year to prevent us from being extinct. Dumb question
Actually that was my point since your premise is absurd. You think you are being logical when in fact what you are saying doesn't even make sense- Hence the similar bird flying/man flying comment.
Why do penguins have wings and are classed as birds if they can't fly? Guess, they're not natural either. *Shrugs*
Or the velociraptor? ;)
you really don't get it- you are illogical and just have an issues with homosexuals- my "points" are meant to provide an illustration of your illogical argument- they are equally illogical- maybe you don't understand the reason your question makes no sense: I is a false premise, which is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships.
A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly or incompletely defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian.'"
The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female, therefore he is not a lesbian.
It's natural for people to be over 7 feet tall. It's rare too.
So you accept that rare conditions naturally occur. What is your argument then?
Homosexuality is genetic. Go read up on the peer reviewed studies and learn something.
So you are suggesting that genetic defects naturally occur, yet the result us somehow unnatural? Also ironic, considering genetic defects cause evolution, which you also deny.
Homosexuality is natural because it is seen with more than 1500 species... However it is not normal since there are more heterosexual humans and animals than homosexuals. Just like it's not normal to have red hair... We're born different from eachother. Being different is natural and normal.<br />
I have a question for you. If were only supposed to be with the opposite sex why do men get such pleasure from being stimulated at the prostate? Women have 8000 nerve endings in their clitoris. Men only have 4000 in their penis. The last 4000 nerve endings can be found in their prostate area. For some reason their bodies are build to give them pleasure from anal stimulation that can't be achieved from being with a woman.<br />
Our bodies are build to give us a choice...
So you're saying that women - who doesn't have a prostate or 4000 nerveendings in that area - feels more pain during bathroom visits?
So would it if we all kept to ************... But we don't. And not all prefer to have sex with their own gender. I am personally straight but have chosen not to have children. Luckily so many others wants more than 2 kids... We're one specie and we'll keep reproducing together...
Of course they can... They're not incapable of having sex with women and have children. They choose not to. Just like I choose not to have children. And with so many out there having children without wanting them I don't see the problem.
We all have to choose the life that makes us happy and for some people that involves not having children. There are a lot of asexual people out there. If we all lived like them the human race would soon be extinct too - but we don't and we're not. We're all different and together we make sure that we'll survive.
Being a JW is unnatural because it's such a small minority. Does that make it wrong?
In other words...children cannot be religious, and religion is a man made construct...that is, according to your statement anyways.
Nope, you just aren't getting it. The misuse of Latin phrasing isn't helping you. It makes you look arrogant to those who don't understand it, and poorly educated to those who do. Be honest, I challenge you once more to do so.
Your failed Latin attempts of noting fallacies inky shows you know as little about Logics and fallacies as you do Latin.
Try again without Latin. Or study Latin or reasoning, or anything. I know you want to seem educated so you talk about things above your pay grade so to speak, but I challenge you to use your own words instead of copying and pasting from zealous websites.
Changing the subject again. Replacing Latin with another phrase you don't understand the meaning of. Answer, I dare you. Are you honestly questioning whether homosexuality, like dwarfism, is natural albeit rare? Or is this a backhanded attempt to denounce homosexuality?
It's meant to be, just as yours is. You won't answer will you? You just ask a new question in response. It's always, always, always a dodge.
It's natural, but people just don't want to believe it. In ancient times, it was more likely to be homosexual or bisexual than to be heterosexual. It's not rare at all. Maybe you should pay attention. There's lots of homosexuals in this world.
Umm..asexual reproduction is reproducing on your own, without sex, hence asexual. Homosexuals aren't asexual either.
Homosexuality is natural, it is not at all rare. It occurs in a small part of all mammalian species. Many who are born homosexual are naturally different because they do not produce the same pheremes as the heterosexual members of their gender. Being natural is not the same as being the majority or more of anything. We are populating the world faster than it can support the human race. Possibly the occurrence of homosexuality is a small part of population management?
Humans happen rarely within the mammalia FAMILY. I guess you think we are unnatural. Religion happened even less than homosexuality, thus religion is unnatural.
Reductio ad absurdum. ;) I know Latin fallacies much better than you.
Reductio ad Absurdum - Latin for Reduction to Absurdity. It is the act of trying to demonstrate a point is true by claiming that a false or absurd result follows from its denial, or that a statement is false by claiming said untrue absurdity results from its acceptance. Examples of this are:
Homosexuality is unnatural because it leads to perversion.
Religion is natural because nature isn't atheist.
Atheism= no belief in god.
Name me one non human animal that believes in god. If you cannot, it means nature is in fact, atheist. ;)
FYI, reductio ad absurdum fallacies are NEVER legitimate. That's what makes them a fallacy. ;) back to grade one for you.
Congratulations, you've learned the difference between the Reductio ad Absurdum argument, and the Reductio ad Absurdum fallacy. The argument is legitimate, as the absurdity or false state IS the outcome, take Shroedinger's Cat for example. The Reductio ad Absurdum fallacy however, is stretching an argument into an untrue absurdity, or false state, such as homosexuality leading to immoral thoughts the same as **********. This makes your argument a form of an etymological fallacy. ;)
An occurrence that occurs in one in ten of a population is not rare, when compared to an occurrence that appears in one in ten thousand of the same population such as born with the equipment of both genders. This is a natural mutation of reproduction, but appears fairly rarely.
By contrast, if we take human beings, and group them in comparison to all life on Earth, it would be even more rare than homosexuality. Thus, by your twisted and illogical thinking, human beings are unnatural.
We can take this one step further and show that of the 9 planets in the solar system (and one planetoid), there is only trees and our nature on one of them. Thus, by your demented logic, nature itself, is unnatural.
No it isn't, as the absurdity IS the true outcome. Thus you could only claim it is a reductio ad absurdum argument, which you have done the liberty of demonstrating IS a legitimate argument. Qualifying something as unnatural has no relation to popularity.
Your utilizing only the same gender oriented people of the U.S. as comparison against the whole world population both skews the results and displays a total lack of rational in statistical review. The Kinsey report of 1948 has passed peer review and has been replicated by McGrath in 1958, as well as by Johnson in 1981, in different population groups. All of these studies have passed peer review and the source data is available to identify the criteria used.
The Gates report that you have cited is pending peer review and actually cites up to 11% of the population as same gender attracted. It used a small sampling of the population, and has opened more questions than answers as you probably read in the full report at the Williams Institute, UCLA.
The city in which I reside has included sexual orientation on the annual census twice. The response was 86% both times. Even given that the 14 % that did not answer the census are heterosexual in orientation, the city is 16.5 % LGBTQ. Not really rare at all.
WOW--b4 I get a headache with all these different viewpoints..Ill put my $5 worth in.<br />
1st go here-----> http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hhscale.html<br />
and then decide where your getting this so called 10%. I would love to know where you get that from.<br />
After looking at the scale you'll see that their is a whole "range" between totally "homo" and totally "hetro" Hence, it would seem to me that the majority is between the 2. Therefore a tiny % is totally straight.<br />
Logically more people are "in between" or "bi" since I know there are a lot of people out there that have had certain "curiosity". and therefore are in the "range". If you can see my point.<br />
Also, there is a HUGE difference, lapiuldose, between homo and bi! Homo means they only like their "own" gender, and bi of course means "both". I know "men" out there that hate women and would not even think of them for pleasure, whereas there are those people, like me, who are capable of love either way in varying degrees.
It's quite simple, since homosexuality has nothing to do with murder, thus your point does not follow the premise=non-sequitur - does not follow.
And it's funny how all my statements defining the Latin logical ffallaciesyou misused have been erased. Strange huh?
not until they pull trigger
Although with all these"intent" laws it seems you dont even have to do anything but "intend" and your guilty, fig that 1 out!
Who says it is rare? Nature promotes those indulging in their desires. It is what causes us to reproduce and evolve, while disdainment and avoidance of what is undesirable leads to survival. Animals engage in homosexual acts all the time, from dogs, cattle, dolphins, etc. Humans are no different. In fact, until recent history, and the construction of Abrahamic religions, it was normal. Achilles was said to have a male lover, as did Alexander the Great, which we know.The Spartans encouraged homosexual love among soldiers, as it was believed you would fight harder for your lover. Even the samurai had homosexual relationships with their mentors. It wasn't until the bible became popular that we began labelling sexuality. Prior to then, men and women had sex with both genders openly. So if it weren't natural, why has it been part of our nature longer than heterosexual monogamy? <br />
That being said, would you like to discuss the peer-reviewed scientific reports on homosexuality and genetics?