[Kaiserschmarrn]

- Men now fuck men because it's cool.

In case that's directed at me, it's not what I said.

- Men fuck other men because they're too lazy to pursue women.

Opportunity could well matter in terms of homosexual behaviour. Feel free to show evidence or explain why it can't be true.

- Men pretend to fuck men to pursue women (like beta-Walruses!)

Animal behaviour has been invoked by the left and right as evidence for their preferred theory. It's actually more common on the left, presumably to show that it's "natural". Do you have a problem with that as well?

[Albert]

The argument that attempts to justify homosexuality as natural by drawing comparison between animals and humans I find a bit silly. As sure there is a lot we can learn about ourselves through nature but in the end humans are not animals.

[Pants-of-dog]

Homosexuality exists in nature. This is a fact.

From that, it is logical to deduce that a certain percentage of humans would engage in homosexual behaviour if humans were in some ideal state of nature.

Also, homosexuality does not need to be justified. Even if it were a completely unnatural social construct, it would still be just some thing that some people do that harms no one.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Homosexuality exists in nature. This is a fact.

From that, it is logical to deduce that a certain percentage of humans would engage in homosexual behaviour if humans were in some ideal state of nature.

Homosexual behaviour exists in animals, although I'm not sure if there's good evidence for it to be exclusive and lifelong.

Homosexual identity as we understand it in western countries is quite different and I don't think the left would want to go back to defining it by behaviour alone. For one, if you include people just on the basis of having had sexual experiences with the same sex, with a bit of luck you might well be able to show that conversion therapy works.

[Pants-of-dog]

Homosexual behaviour exists in animals, although I'm not sure if there's good evidence for it to be exclusive and lifelong.

I never said anything about “exclusive and lifelong”. Nor do i see how that is relevant.

Homosexual identity as we understand it in western countries is quite different and I don't think the left would want to go back to defining it by behaviour alone. For one, if you include people just on the basis of having had sexual experiences with the same sex, with a bit of luck you might well be able to show that conversion therapy works.

Is there an argument here?

This seems more like a commentary on what you think leftists believe than an actual argument about homosexuality.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I never said anything about “exclusive and lifelong”. Nor do i see how that is relevant.

Is there an argument here?

This seems more like a commentary on what you think leftists believe than an actual argument about homosexuality.

Homosexual behaviour and homosexuality as understood by modern western humans are not the same, and it makes good sense to keep them separate.

[SolarCross]

I doubt that the sexual practices of some walruses can help us learn about human sexuality. For example, the whole alpha-beta thing is almost certainly not applicable to humans.

If you want a gay gene then you need a Darwinian reason why a gay gene would, contrary to expectations, have some actual reproductive value. Dawkin's sneaky male hypothesis solves that. Of course the beta tactic could just as easily be a stratagem figured out rather than something pre-programmed in the genes. I think this is more likely given that walrus while not being genius level organisms like Homo Sapiens are still pretty smart being higher mammals with a well provisioned neo-cortex.

And yes the alpha - beta thing does apply to humans because humans are not perfectly monogamous, we do tend slightly towards polygamy if not as chronically as some mammals. Where there is polygamy there will be incels or betas. A beta is just a male with none or very poor reproduction prospects.

[Ter]

If you want a gay gene then you need a Darwinian reason why a gay gene would, contrary to expectations, have some actual reproductive value. Dawkin's sneaky male hypothesis solves that.

A homosexual man will not copulate with a female. A bisexual man could.
Another possible explanation is that since siblings share fifty percent of their genes, a non-reproductive sibling could help his siblings to survive and have more offspring. Therefore also promulgating his own genes. It is a plausible theory.

[Pants-of-dog]

Homosexual behaviour and homosexuality as understood by modern western humans are not the same, and it makes good sense to keep them separate.

Okay.

So, what does this have to do with what I said?

———————————

If you want a gay gene then you need a Darwinian reason why a gay gene would, contrary to expectations, have some actual reproductive value. Dawkin's sneaky male hypothesis solves that. Of course the beta tactic could just as easily be a stratagem figured out rather than something pre-programmed in the genes. I think this is more likely given that walrus while not being genius level organisms like Homo Sapiens are still pretty smart being higher mammals with a well provisioned neo-cortex.

And?

Why is this applicable to human sexuality?

And yes the alpha - beta thing does apply to humans because humans are not perfectly monogamous, we do tend slightly towards polygamy if not as chronically as some mammals. Where there is polygamy there will be incels or betas. A beta is just a male with none or very poor reproduction prospects.

I know why you believe the whole alpha-beta thing applies.

I just think you are wrong.

[Drlee]

Homosexual behaviour and homosexuality as understood by modern western humans are not the same, and it makes good sense to keep them separate.

Do not skip over this. Kaiser makes a very important point and it must be included in any discussion of homosexuality. Her point about conversion therapy is also a good point and it would be nice if people thought about it before they simply went off on another ideological tirade.

Science is a contentious thing. It does not always take us down the smoothest road in search of the destination.

[One Degree]

@Kaiserschmarrn
Thank you for a thorough response. There can be no denying genetic/biological factors play an important role. I just believe it is a mistake to go from ‘environment is everything’ to ‘environment is very little’. We will see, but I think environment is still extremely important if for no other reason than placing restraints on natural inclinations that are antisocial. I also think our thoughts will be found to have a biological (possibly even genetic) influence greater than we currently believe. Anyway, the research offers some mind altering possibilities.
I believe homosexuality is clearly due to a mix of the two. Some homosexuality may be too genetically/biologically ingrained to try to restrain. Most will be a matter of choice even if mild inclinations exist.

[Nonsense]

#14960015

By Rugoz -  05 Nov 2018 01:45


This thread if full of the usual hilarious right-wing nonsense:
- Men now fuck men because it's cool.
- Men fuck other men because they're too lazy to pursue women.
- Men pretend to fuck men to pursue women (like beta-Walruses!)
You can't make this shit up.

LOL, YOU just did make some up.

What's 'cool' about sticking it in someone's bung-hole? p
Men = 'Lazy' maybe, I personally like the thrill of the chase...with the ladies that is .
Men pretend to fuck men to pursue women (like beta-Walruses!)...OH!, you mean that they are only acting?...I ALWAYS knew there was plenty of Fakery going on in that community.

[Nonsense]

The argument that attempts to justify homosexuality as natural by drawing comparison between animals and humans I find a bit silly. As sure there is a lot we can learn about ourselves through nature but in the end humans are not animals.

WOW!, a realist exist in our ranks.

It never cease to amaze me, the literal distortions of language that 'gay' folks have to justify, as 'normal' versions of 'sex'(it isn't), the perversions they practice in their physical relationships with same-sex 'partners'.

Like cuckoo's in a different birds nest, they appropriate normal language of heterosexual behaviour to their perverse lifestyles, like getting 'married', their 'husband' or 'wife', BUT, what NONE of them will ever do, is CONSUMATE a relationship physically.

That is because consummating a physical relationship is something that only a male-female does, that is the exact point at which their FALSE paradigm breaks down from it's contradictions, thus exposing their ACT as a shambolic exercise in deceitful behaviour, ad nauseam.

We now have in the Western world, TWO generations of young people, who have\are being brainwashed by Left Wing & Liberalised gender-bending sexual education policies.
Years ago, such education was called, 'reproductive biology', it is a FACT that 'reproductive' has been airbrushed out of the current educational curriculum & replaced by the gender-agenda aberration.

The result is a lowering of the reproduction necessary to maintain indigenous populations, that is a deliberate intent of the Left-Wing Liberal, self-appointed 'elite' subversives in the West, resulting in a vacuum for the migrants to fill & whom reproduce quicker on settling in their new countries so as to establish themselves.

That creates a 'displacement' effect, caused by the two recent generations of indigenous brainwashed youngsters that are now just eunuchs, created by the subversives & happily filled by the migrants that the Right attract at sub-par wage levels, in order to provide profit for the rich-better off.

[Political Interest]

Also, homosexuality does not need to be justified. Even if it were a completely unnatural social construct, it would still be just some thing that some people do that harms no one.

The experience of being homosexual makes a lot of teenagers and many adults very miserable. I think it is better we understand it as objectively as possible from all perspectives rather than trying to politicise it. We need the scientific truth irrespective of ideology.

[B0ycey]

We need the scientific truth irrespective of ideology.

You are assuming there is a scientific truth. If Homosexuality had a link to something we would have identified that link by now. We would have tested and reached a conclusion and all this wouldn't even need debating. The fact that all studies shown on this thread don't reach a definitive means they are unlikely to be right - or even close to being right. Some notions are even absurd.

[Pants-of-dog]

The experience of being homosexual makes a lot of teenagers and many adults very miserable.

I doubt this is true.

And even if it were true, I am certain that the condemnation and bigotry from people who disagree with homosexuality would make things worse.

I think it is better we understand it as objectively as possible from all perspectives rather than trying to politicise it. We need the scientific truth irrespective of ideology.

This can be said about almost anything.

What I find interesting is why homosexuality is such an object of discussion. Why do we concentrate on that instead of things that we know cause harm, like sexial assault?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Okay. So, what does this have to do with what I said?

You seem to conflate the two in the post I first responded to.

The argument that attempts to justify homosexuality as natural by drawing comparison between animals and humans I find a bit silly. As sure there is a lot we can learn about ourselves through nature but in the end humans are not animals.

While it's not the whole story, I think comparing animal behaviours to that of humans can be informative. A lot of our behaviour is based on biological factors, even if we don't realise it, and we are similar enough to some animals to gain at least some insight. For instance, when we observe in apes that their female and male young play differently and have similar play preferences to human girls and boys, that raises a question mark with respect to the assertion that gender roles are entirely culturally imposed.

It would also be interesting to know how common homosexuality and/or homosexual behaviour is in primitive cultures.

You are assuming there is a scientific truth. If Homosexuality had a link to something we would have identified that link by now. We would have tested and reached a conclusion and all this wouldn't even need debating.

What an odd thing to say. As far as human behaviour and thought processes are concerned, there's much more we don't know than we know. We might have picked some low hanging fruits so far, but the vast majority of insights is still there for us to discover.

[B0ycey]

What an odd thing to say. As far as human behaviour and thought processes are concerned, there's much more we don't know than we know. We might have picked some low hanging fruits so far, but the vast majority of insights is still there for us to discover.

So? The biological processes of mental capacity might have no truth to it other than being random. To believe there is a conclusion or equation is today an assumption unless you have evidence saying otherwise. You might as well research why some people prefer blondes over brunettes.

[Pants-of-dog]

You seem to conflate the two in the post I first responded to.

I was not discussing identity at all in any of my posts. So this seems to be something you read into my posts, and not something that is actually relevant to my point.

Again, we do not need to justify homosexuality as natural. Even if it is a purely social construct, which is highly doubtful, it still is not harming anyone and therefore does not merit the disapproval of others.

It would also be interesting to know how common homosexuality and/or homosexual behaviour is in primitive cultures.

I think homosexuality rates in the US are the same as in the developed world.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

So? The biological processes of mental capacity might have no truth to it other than being random. To believe there is a conclusion or equation is today an assumption unless you have evidence saying otherwise. You might as well research why some people prefer blondes over brunettes.

If they are random, that would be an interesting fact as well and random processes can be investigated just like deterministic ones. It's actually quite possible that there's a random element to our behaviour and thoughts which is why I mentioned probabilistic constraints in an earlier post.

I was not discussing identity at all in any of my posts. So this seems to be something you read into my posts, and not something that is actually relevant to my point.

Sure, it's what I took from your post. If I misread you then please ignore me.

Again, we do not need to justify homosexuality as natural. Even if it is a purely social construct, which is highly doubtful, it still is not harming anyone and therefore does not merit the disapproval of others.

There seem to be plenty of people for whom something being unnatural would be sufficient to disapprove of it. And some of them at least might be responsive to the justification that it's natural.

I think homosexuality rates in the US are the same as in the developed world.

With a bit of questionnaire tweaking I'm sure we can make them as high as in the UK.