Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Nurvingiel]

Elfhelm, you rock so much.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Ever hear of the phrase "nature of things" "nature of the universe" "nature of man" etc.? That's what I'm talking about.

I've heard those phrases, I see what you mean then. Though, these phrases mean different things to everyone, while saying natural WRT things that occur in nature is more clear.

It does help to be clear on words in this thread.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I disagree, and you don't seem to have posited any sort of reason for me to change my opinion, so I'll leave it at that.

Do you mean you do not agree homosexuality occurs in nature?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But no, I just said that's an equivocation on nature. Read what I write!

I read your post, but I don't get it. I'm sure it was unintentionally vague <just kidding>.

Originally Posted by Inked

Nurv,

Your second paragraph is so very close to recognizing that one can disagree with the gay agenda without condemning the persons, do you really mean it?
Because when I have taken that tack I have been accused of all sorts of evils that were not in fact true. The data, remember?

Of course I mean that! One can not be cool with homosexuality while not condemning the actual people involved. This approach takes careful thought, and you strike me as a thoughtful person.

Did I accuse you of evil things? I had something to say about some of your data, but not you personally!

What is the gay agenda again? I keep forgetting what the hive mind said when gay people became Borgs.

[Rían]

This animal talk reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Chesterton:

from "Orthdoxy", by G.K. Chesterton
The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.

I'm done for this round, methinks

If nothing else is clear from my posts on this thread, let this be clear: I think homosexuals are just like everyone else, and I care for them just the same as I care for others. We're all in the same boat. And all of us, as members of our respective societies, have opinions about what behaviors, including sexual behaviors, are appropriate, and these opinions differ, because they're based on different worldviews. And none of us can PROVE which worldview is correct. We all just go on our best guess.

[Nurvingiel]

Er, savages Chesterson?

Anyway, I agree with you RÃ*an.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Elfhelm, you rock so much.

I've heard those phrases, I see what you mean then. Though, these phrases mean different things to everyone, while saying natural WRT things that occur in nature is more clear.

It does help to be clear on words in this thread.

I think "natural" more often means "in accordance with the nature of something". For instance, if someone was a good card-player, you would say he was a natural card-player, though of course card-playing is not found in Nature. You would say that someone is naturally friendly if friendliness comes easily to them.

Do you mean you do not agree homosexuality occurs in nature?

Of course not; that would be silly of me. It's far too well documented to seriously doubt.

I read your post, but I don't get it. I'm sure it was unintentionally vague <just kidding>.

Nyeh.

[The Gaffer]

As far as I am aware, it's the "anti" people who put forward the argument of "it's not natural", so it's kindof ironic to see them deploying semantics to squirm out of the hole they've dug for themselves.

Bonobos don't just have gay sex, they have all kinds of sex all of the time.

Dirty!

[inked]

Yes, well there are lots of "natural" behaviours that are not appropriate to humans, TG. That's what you mean when you say "beastly" - that is a behaviour is what is expected of animals not humans. Some examples might include eating your young or abandoning the runt of the litter or physical battles for tribal headship.

And the fact that some animals engage in homosexual activities doesn't mean it is "natural" any more than masturbating by zoo animals means they do it in the wild.

So, next we must consider if any animals are asserting their superiority because of this behaviour - a current claim under the heading "we're special and deserve special treatment." It seems that what I recall from zoology the dominant male gets the harem and the younger mates play with themselves or each other as an alternative rather than a dominant behaviour. Perhaps this aspect of natural is what homosexual behaviour means.

So, TG, natural and natural and natural are in fact different senses..........
but you knew that already.

[Spock]

Prenatal Effect Hinted for Some Gay Men
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID (AP Science Writer)
From Associated Press
June 26, 2006 7:25 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - Men who have several older brothers have an increased chance of being gay - whether they were raised together or not - a finding researchers say adds weight to the idea that sexual orientation is based in biology.

The increase was seen in men with older brothers from the same mother, but not those who had stepbrothers or adopted brothers who were older.

"It's likely to be a prenatal effect," said Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines, Canada, who did the research. "This and other studies suggest that there is probably a biological basis" for homosexuality.

Bogaert studied four groups of Canadian men, a total of 944 people, analyzing the number of brothers and sisters each had, whether or not they lived with those siblings and whether the siblings were related by blood or adopted.

His findings are reported in a paper appearing in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

S. Marc Breedlove, a professor in the neuroscience and psychology department of Michigan State University, said the finding "absolutely" confirms a physical basis.

"Anybody's first guess would have been that the older brothers were having an effect socially, but this data doesn't support that," Breedlove said in a telephone interview.

The only link between the brothers is the mother and so the effect has to be through the mother, especially since stepbrothers didn't have the effect, said Breedlove, who was not part of the research.

Tim Dailey, a senior fellow at the conservative Center for Marriage and Family Studies disagreed.

"We don't believe that there's any biological basis for homosexuality," Dailey said. "We feel the causes are complex but are deeply rooted in early childhood development."

There have been a number of attempts to establish a physical basis "and in every case the alleged findings have been severely challenged and questioned," he said.

"If it is indeed genetically based it is difficult to see how it could have survived in the gene pool over a period of time," Dailey added.

Bogaert said the increase can be detected with one older brother and becomes stronger with three or four or more.

But, he added, this needs to be looked at in context of the overall rate of homosexuality in men, which he suggested is about 3 percent. With several older brothers the rate may increase from 3 percent to 5 percent, he said, but that still means 95 percent of men with several older brothers are heterosexual.

The effect of birth order on male homosexuality has been reported previously but Bogaert's work is the first designed to rule out social or environmental effects.

Bogaert said he concluded the effect was biological by comparing men with biological brothers to those with brothers to whom they were not biologically related.

The increase in the likelihood of being gay was seen only in those whose brothers had the same mothers, whether they were raised together or not, he said.

Men raised with several older step- or adopted brothers do not have an increased chance of being gay.

"So what that means is that the environment a person is raised in really makes not much difference," he said.

What makes a difference, he said, is having older brothers who shared the same womb and gestational experience, suggesting the difference is because of "some sort of prenatal factor."

One possibility, he suggests, is a maternal immune response to succeeding male fetuses. The mother may react to a male fetus as foreign, but not to a female fetus because the mother is also female.

It might be like the maternal immune response that can occur when a mother has Rh-negative blood but her fetus has Rh-positive blood. Without treatment, the mother can develop antibodies that may attack the fetus during future pregnancies.

Whether that's what is happening remains to be seen, but it is a provocative hypothesis, said a commentary by Breedlove, David A. Puts and Cynthia L. Jordan, all of Michigan State.

The research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

[Elfhelm]

It's natural for yeast to pollute its environment to the point where it become unliveable. I would say that isn't a good idea for humans. But the question of what is "human nature" was a definition that Gwai brought up, and that is different from what is natural. I think it is human nature to observe other animals and imitate their behaviors. Humans don't need to die in order to eliminate unsuccessful behaviors the way other animals do because we can remember the past and imagine the future. In short, I'm saying that it isn't behaviors which are natural (to some) or part of human nature (to others) but the assessment of success or failure based on those behaviors that makes us who we are.

And if you accept that, then the next question is, is non-procreative sex of any variety a successful survival technique or not? I say yes because it holds our societies together. Some say sex that does not lead to procreation is automatically unsuccessful, but I'll just kick that stone and say I refute it thus. We are here. We've been having non-procreative sex for a million years. Our ancestors have been doing it for a billion years. So it must be a successful survival technique.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I wasn't thinking necessarily of human nature; more of the nature of the sexual act, at least between two human beings, which I suppose is sort of related to human nature, but not the same thing. But anyway, it's not different from what is "natural", it is simply that the word "natural" has more than one meaning.

[The Gaffer]

Maybe we could have some sort of notation system so that we know which interpretation of "natural" is being deploye

I think this bit of the discussion illustrates nicely how the word "natural" has little or no use in this debate.

Interesting study, spock. It's a small sample for a survey, and they don't report whether the results were statistically significant (don't see how they could be dealing with numbers like 3% of 900-odd men), but interesting nevertheless.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But anyway, it's not different from what is "natural", it is simply that the word "natural" has more than one meaning.

... naturally my dear Gwai.

Maybe we could have some sort of notation system so that we know which interpretation of "natural" is being deploye

like a squad rotation system?

I think this bit of the discussion illustrates nicely how the word "natural" has little or no use in this debate.

... naturally my dear Gaffer.

except where it naturally occurs, naturally.

It's natural for yeast to pollute its environment

... naturally my dear Elfhelm.

Beer is good though.

Yes, well there are lots of "natural" behaviours that are not appropriate to humans

... naturally my dear Inked.

(Dogs do a fair few i can think of ...)



................................................

or, to put it another way, either we define what and how we are going to discuss the issue of 'nature' related to the subject or we drop it as being far too wide and multi-meaning ...


else, i fear we shall get bogged down with semantics again.


Best all, BB

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Some say sex that does not lead to procreation is automatically unsuccessful, but I'll just kick that stone and say I refute it thus. We are here. We've been having non-procreative sex for a million years. Our ancestors have been doing it for a billion years. So it must be a successful survival technique.

Don't you just hate it when people quote your least relevant point and leave your good point to die as if it were never said?

[Butterbeer]

Elfhelm:

Don't you just hate it ...

*BB absently picks up a dead point and throws it in the "natural" compost heap...*

so... Elfhelm ..where do you stand on .... ( hang on ... ) Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II then?

Is it Better than the original?

best, BB

[Elfhelm]

Elfhelm tips his cap... er... helm to BB...

My thoughts on this topic are that it exists solely to give religious zealots an opportunity to justify their prejudices. The only argument we normal folks can give is to be tolerant. But they think Rome fell due to loose morals. I believe that theory unlies all their real objections. They feel America will fall if we tolerate gay people. America will fall if we let it become a theocracy. America is an experiment in multiple cultures living together. I can't think of a better test of tolerance. Gays are probably the most reviled people in history. A society's greatness can be measured by how it treats its minorities. In America today, we are falling short of greatness. In fact, we are moving backwards. Gay rights are being used to divide people, when human rights as a whole should be uniting us.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Elfhelm tips his cap... er... helm to BB...

*tips bowler hat towards Elfhelm*

I say! ... Nice helm you have there!

*damn these pointy things get everywhere! ... lobs another in da compost heap *

[Butterbeer]

*puts serious hat on .... tips it again at Elfhelm*

Nice statement!

[Elfhelm]

Elfhelm's head begins to swell, causing him an enormous headache inside the bizarre elven headpeice. You'd think an elf's helm would leave room for head swelling!

[Spock]

...sees Elfhelm going into politics and rivaling Dean in his fervor.

[Elfhelm]

I sound my barbaric YAWP over the roofs of the world.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I think this bit of the discussion illustrates nicely how the word "natural" has little or no use in this debate.

Forgive me, Gaff, but that's absurd! That is essentially saying that because a word has more than one meaning, you can't use it; no, no, no. One must merely make the distinction of different meanings.