Graeme Le Saux

[Delima]

In the grand scheme of things you'd have to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

In the grand scheme of thing homosexuality is natural. There are many scientific recorded examples of homosexuality in the natural world, ie gay monkeys, gay penguins etc. Even gay human are natural, cos we are the product of nature, we are part of the nature.

 

Homosexuality is unusual yes, but it is not unnatural. And there is nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality, unless you are a religious person who follows the religious codes.

[Delima]

So Nobby, when do you choose to be heterosexual?

 

everyday

 

So you might be gay tomorrow or the day after?

 

If i choose to be

 

That makes you bisexual, Nobby.

[OzzieMandias]

THE POINT IS: IT'S A CHOICE

 

The point is, it's not.

[OzzieMandias]

If humans do it, it's natural.

[Robster]

When was the last time anyone mentioned Graeme le Saux' article ??

 

Shut it you choosing to do men up the bum just because you can POOFTA!

 

what a bizarre reply 

[Cajun]

When was the last time anyone mentioned Graeme le Saux' article ??

 

Shut it you choosing to do men up the bum just because you can POOFTA!

 

what a bizarre reply 

 

Got carried away with the thread 

[Robster]

When was the last time anyone mentioned Graeme le Saux' article ??

 

Shut it you choosing to do men up the bum just because you can POOFTA!

 

what a bizarre reply 

 

Got carried away with the thread 

 

haha.

Was thinking that it had turned into more of a "Chat" thread as apposed to "Football".

[Mowen]

THE POINT IS: IT'S A CHOICE

 

Carrying out the act of gay sex is a choice. Who you fancy isn't.

[Cajun]

THE POINT IS: IT'S A CHOICE

 

Carrying out the act of gay sex is a choice. Who you fancy isn't.

 

Exactly KD protests (a little too much if you ask me) he is straight, just because he hasn't had sex with a women it doesn't mean he isn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its the having sex with men which means he isnt!

[Robster]

Who would choose to be gay when you have women like Beyonce and Jennifer Aniston on this planet ??

[Cajun]

Who would choose to be gay when you have women like Beyonce and Jennifer Aniston on this planet ??

 

But Wentworth Miller is sooo dreamy!

[Taylor Swift]

In the grand scheme of things you'd have to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

In the grand scheme of thing homosexuality is natural. There are many scientific recorded examples of homosexuality in the natural world, ie gay monkeys, gay penguins etc. Even gay human are natural, cos we are the product of nature, we are part of the nature.

 

Homosexuality is unusual yes, but it is not unnatural. And there is nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality, unless you are a religious person who follows the religious codes.

 

Well, tbf, the gene that says you're gay would naturally cease to exist because there's no way that this gene can be passed on to future generations. The fact that this gene is actually created certainly has to be down to a 'mutation' which isn't beneficial to the gene itself (because it can't be passed on). So I guess homosexuality can actually be argued to be 'unnatural', but that has no bearing on whether it's morally right or wrong. And I mean 'unnatural' as in it goes against what our body was 'naturally' created for (to reproduce and pass on our genes).

 

Edit - It's pretty important for science to try to understand why this mutation is happening though, especially since it's not isolated to a certain race nor gender.

[Cajun]

Surely its evolution which is natural?

[Taylor Swift]

But natural selection would mean that this gene should eventually 'die out', no?

 

We need a biologist.

[Guest toonlass]

In the grand scheme of things you'd have to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

In the grand scheme of thing homosexuality is natural. There are many scientific recorded examples of homosexuality in the natural world, ie gay monkeys, gay penguins etc. Even gay human are natural, cos we are the product of nature, we are part of the nature.

 

Homosexuality is unusual yes, but it is not unnatural. And there is nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality, unless you are a religious person who follows the religious codes.

 

Well, tbf, the gene that says you're gay would naturally cease to exist because there's no way that this gene can be passed on to future generations. The fact that this gene is actually created certainly has to be down to a 'mutation' which isn't beneficial to the gene itself (because it can't be passed on). So I guess homosexuality can actually be argued to be 'unnatural', but that has no bearing on whether it's morally right or wrong. And I mean 'unnatural' as in it goes against what our body was 'naturally' created for (to reproduce and pass on our genes).

 

Edit - It's pretty important for science to try to understand why this mutation is happening though, especially since it's not isolated to a certain race nor gender.

 

So are you saying that there has never been a case of a gay man fathering a child? Because I know a bloke who was married for several years, had two kids to his wife and then came out as gay as he couldn't keep on living a lie and has for the past 32 years(he was a friend of my dad's and that is how I know him) has lived in a relationship with another man.

 

I wonder how many straight men here only ever have sex to reproduce?

[Guest LucaAltieri]

In the grand scheme of things you'd have to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

In the grand scheme of thing homosexuality is natural. There are many scientific recorded examples of homosexuality in the natural world, ie gay monkeys, gay penguins etc. Even gay human are natural, cos we are the product of nature, we are part of the nature.

 

Homosexuality is unusual yes, but it is not unnatural. And there is nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality, unless you are a religious person who follows the religious codes.

 

1) Alright, by the sctrictest use of "unnatural" you are correct. However, I didn't pick the word. My point still stands in the grand scheme of things homosexuality is a tiny deviation hardly worthy of mention.

 

2) There are not "many" other cases of homosexuality in other species. It's a common misconception. And in those species where it does occur, again its very isolated.

 

3) Using the term "gay" to describe other animals is a bit misleading. They may engage in homosexual acts, but from what I've understood they don't do this exclusively. At best you could describe them as bi-sexual. However, this isn't something I've read a lot about.

[Guest LucaAltieri]

But natural selection would mean that this gene should eventually 'die out', no?

 

We need a biologist.

 

Well, perhaps. But there's no conclusive proof that gayitis is genetic. It has been studied, and I think fairly recently scientists decided that there might be a gay gene. But they weren't 100% about it. And its only one study. We still don't know really.

[Taylor Swift]

In the grand scheme of things you'd have to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

In the grand scheme of thing homosexuality is natural. There are many scientific recorded examples of homosexuality in the natural world, ie gay monkeys, gay penguins etc. Even gay human are natural, cos we are the product of nature, we are part of the nature.

 

Homosexuality is unusual yes, but it is not unnatural. And there is nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality, unless you are a religious person who follows the religious codes.

 

Well, tbf, the gene that says you're gay would naturally cease to exist because there's no way that this gene can be passed on to future generations. The fact that this gene is actually created certainly has to be down to a 'mutation' which isn't beneficial to the gene itself (because it can't be passed on). So I guess homosexuality can actually be argued to be 'unnatural', but that has no bearing on whether it's morally right or wrong. And I mean 'unnatural' as in it goes against what our body was 'naturally' created for (to reproduce and pass on our genes).

 

Edit - It's pretty important for science to try to understand why this mutation is happening though, especially since it's not isolated to a certain race nor gender.

 

So are you saying that there has never been a case of a gay man fathering a child? Because I know a bloke who was married for several years, had two kids to his wife and then came out as gay as he couldn't keep on living a lie and has for the past 32 years(he was a friend of my dad's and that is how I know him) has lived in a relationship with another man.

 

I wonder how many straight men here only ever have sex to reproduce?

 

I mean naturally as in if he was gay and admitted it from a young enough age, there isn't a 'natural' way to pass on those genes. The case you mentioned is an exception. I don't think it's normal for a gay man/woman to be in a marriage and have two children before coming out as being gay.

 

In regards to your last sentence, I echo it (and have said so in this thread). Natural or unnatural is really irrelevant because of how we've evolved and how we're capable of doing much more than what was/is 'natural' to us.

[indi]

If homosexuality is in fact genetic, then the probable answer to how it can be passed on from one generation to the next would be that it must be a recessive gene. In other words, it could still be carried and therefore passed on by people who are not themselves gay and it would need two parents, who both had this recessive gene, to produce gay offspring. I'm not a biologist or a geneticist or anything - my brother is a biochemist though - but that's my understanding of it.

[Guest toonlass]

In the grand scheme of things you'd have to say that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

In the grand scheme of thing homosexuality is natural. There are many scientific recorded examples of homosexuality in the natural world, ie gay monkeys, gay penguins etc. Even gay human are natural, cos we are the product of nature, we are part of the nature.

 

Homosexuality is unusual yes, but it is not unnatural. And there is nothing wrong or immoral about homosexuality, unless you are a religious person who follows the religious codes.

 

Well, tbf, the gene that says you're gay would naturally cease to exist because there's no way that this gene can be passed on to future generations. The fact that this gene is actually created certainly has to be down to a 'mutation' which isn't beneficial to the gene itself (because it can't be passed on). So I guess homosexuality can actually be argued to be 'unnatural', but that has no bearing on whether it's morally right or wrong. And I mean 'unnatural' as in it goes against what our body was 'naturally' created for (to reproduce and pass on our genes).

 

Edit - It's pretty important for science to try to understand why this mutation is happening though, especially since it's not isolated to a certain race nor gender.

 

So are you saying that there has never been a case of a gay man fathering a child? Because I know a bloke who was married for several years, had two kids to his wife and then came out as gay as he couldn't keep on living a lie and has for the past 32 years(he was a friend of my dad's and that is how I know him) has lived in a relationship with another man.

 

I wonder how many straight men here only ever have sex to reproduce?

 

I mean naturally as in if he was gay and admitted it from a young enough age, there isn't a 'natural' way to pass on those genes. The case you mentioned is an exception. I don't think it's normal for a gay man/woman to be in a marriage and have two children before coming out as being gay.

 

In regards to your last sentence, I echo it (and have said so in this thread). Natural or unnatural is really irrelevant because of how we've evolved and how we're capable of doing much more than what was/is 'natural' to us.

 

I think there are many men who attempt to make a straight relationship work before admitting their true feelings. Not because they do not realise they are gay, but because they want to be straight. But that is just my opinion.

[Nobby]

If homosexuality is in fact genetic, then the probable answer to how it can be passed on from one generation to the next would be that it must be a recessive gene. In other words, it could still be carried and therefore passed on by people who are not themselves gay and it would need two parents, who both had this recessive gene, to produce gay offspring. I'm not a biologist or a geneticist or anything - my brother is a biochemist though - but that's my understanding of it.

 

Cheers, so it is either a choice, or a mentally disability

[Taylor Swift]

If homosexuality is in fact genetic, then the probable answer to how it can be passed on from one generation to the next would be that it must be a recessive gene. In other words, it could still be carried and therefore passed on by people who are not themselves gay and it would need two parents, who both had this recessive gene, to produce gay offspring. I'm not a biologist or a geneticist or anything - my brother is a biochemist though - but that's my understanding of it.

 

Cheers, so it is either a choice, or a mentally disability

 

Mental disability? WTF? Where did you get that from indi's post?

[indi]

If homosexuality is in fact genetic, then the probable answer to how it can be passed on from one generation to the next would be that it must be a recessive gene. In other words, it could still be carried and therefore passed on by people who are not themselves gay and it would need two parents, who both had this recessive gene, to produce gay offspring. I'm not a biologist or a geneticist or anything - my brother is a biochemist though - but that's my understanding of it.

 

Cheers, so it is either a choice, or a mentally disability

 

You've forgotten, again!!

[Guest LucaAltieri]

If homosexuality is in fact genetic, then the probable answer to how it can be passed on from one generation to the next would be that it must be a recessive gene. In other words, it could still be carried and therefore passed on by people who are not themselves gay and it would need two parents, who both had this recessive gene, to produce gay offspring. I'm not a biologist or a geneticist or anything - my brother is a biochemist though - but that's my understanding of it.

 

Cheers, so it is either a choice, or a mentally disability

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

 

Enjoy.

[tmonkey]

I have nothing against homosexual people...and theres a but coming...but...

 

...surely its without a doubt unnatural, and there is something "wrong" with it from a biological viewpoint? We werent designed to be homosexual, it serves no purpose as we cant reproduce if we have that sort of sexual preference, and hence evolution should have wiped homsexuality out if it were natural. But it hasnt, mainly because homosexuality is like a mutation - something goes "wrong" at some stage during the physical or emotional development of a person, hence the eventual same-sex preference, beastality, necrophilia, etc.

 

Its why the sexual organs in a man and a woman are designed for the opposite sex, not the same. Thats why men have to take it up the arse and women...I mean really, I don't even understand how two woman can make love. I mean unless they kinda just scissor...

 

...Oh this is hot scissoring, Scissor me timbers!

 

1) So what if it's unnatural though? We've evolved and developed from simplistic creatures who act on their primal instincts (cavemen?) to being capable of thought, reasoning and doing something which goes against our genes. I think quite a few things that humans do nowadays can be described as unnatural because they're going against what our genes says we should (altruism maybe?). No point in saying homosexuality is 'wrong' because it's unnatural because then so many things that we do today can be classified as 'wrong' as well.

 

2) Also, I think there's been studies on homosexuality and it seems that the hypothalamuses (part of the brain) of homosexuals are larger than heterosexuals, so it's not a 'choice' whether they're gay or not.

 

1) My post was just furthering kingdawson's arguement that there is a difference between homophobia and racism. Its a pretty mute point since ultimately its still discrimination based on someone being different, but when homosexuals are using the "would you say that to a black person" arguement, if can seem wrong if you look at it from the viewpoint that homosexuality is unnatural and the result of a biological anomaly (even if somewhat common), and by comparing it to racism, theyre basically implying that its unnatural to be black.

 

For example, would someone like Emily Mauresmo retort to homophobia by pointing at a pair of conjoined twins and saying "you wouldnt make fun of them, so dont make fun of me"? There seems to be this element of denial in the gay community that "genetic" homosexuality is unnatural and the result of something biologically "going wrong", and thats all that my post was intending to point out.

 

From a different perspective, if you were a coloured person, how would you feel if everytime gays, dwarves, conjoined twins, people in wheelchairs, etc, are discriminated against, they point at you and say "erm, you wouldnt say the same to them either, would you"? I appreciate they are are merely pointing out prejudices and discrimination, but a coloured person would surely also be thinking "why are these freaks lumping me in with them everytime they get insulted?".

 

However small and mute the difference, since again the end result of discrimination and hatred is completely unaccpetable, it does exist for me.

 

2) Whether that study is true or not, and to be fair there have been a whole load of agenda backed studies from different sides that prove different things, I think its fair to say that homosexuality for some people IS a choice, but not for others (eg those who are born with the "wrong" genes for their body). Otherwise, how would you explain bisexuality, or those who "become" homosexual eg due to extremely bad experiences in the past?

 

And what about inmates at a hardcore prison? Arent they the perfect people to testify that homosexuality may be a "choice" for some in that its dependant on the persons' environment which shapes their mentality and eventually sexual preferrence? Maybe its not a direct "choice", but I dont think the "youre either gay or youre not" statement is true at all for many homosexuals. Ones who are born that way, yes, ones who arent, its impossible to tell and I doubt even they would know since theyd be the product of that "choice".