Homosexuality is natural/unnatural. A discussion.

 

An interesting debate I was having on YouTube with a particular fellow.  I’m not saying I’m right and he’s wrong, what I’m trying to demonstrate here is that he’s not following his own train of logic and therefore needs to rethink how he came about his conclusions and mend his logical process.  I’m not saying I’m right, just saying that I’m following my own logic and my logic is sound.
 
Key:

User Name

Text

Point/Commentary

Counter point

 
 
 
 
lukedcooper 

Ah, so you reduce to name calling after implying that you take the high road ("ad hominems will be ignored?"). Classy. And as Kataz777 so clearly pointed out, homosexuals can reproduce. Most mules cannot reproduce–are they, too, "unnatural?"

Before we continue with this riveting argument, you need to define what you mean by "natural."

mydeadexlover

There is no "Gay Gene" if anything it’s a polygenic trait (meaning it’s a composition of a shit load of other genes even some that have no relation to the overall trait)

ogirv101

No there is no such thing as a gay gene, a person chooses to be homosexual. When do you see an organism naturally choose the same sex organism? NEVER! you see bisexuality in nature, but never true homosexuality in nature, there is no organism that has ever existed that preferred only same sex intercourse. All these so called organisms are essentially bisexual. Next, is that homosexuals are unnatural because they cannot survive natural selection.  This is important later on.  [1]

mydeadexlover 

No it’s not a "Choice" again you just threw in another shit Strawman it’s a polygenic trait that meaning that it is a complitation of many genes… Also… who fucking cares if some came on to one sex, then see that the other is better… THAT’S HOW THEY FIND OUT THAT IF THEY ARE GAY!!! AND ALSO NATURAL SELLECTION???? OUR POPULATION IS OVER 6 BILLION YOU DUMB SHIT!!! AND IF EVEN IF OTHER SPECIES MEMBERS ARE GAY THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT’S UNNATURAL BECAUSE THEY CAN’T PRODUCE OFFSPIRING NATURALLY

ogirv101

I’m throwing strawmen while you’re saying that homosexuality is a polygenic trait without having evidence…. If you’re correct you should win a nobel prize for your work, but you have no evidence, and in fact it contradicts evidence.   This is important later on.  [2]

yes, if an organism can’t produce naturally they are unnatural nad fall victim to natural selection, you’re being irrational right now.  This is important later on.  [3]

mydeadexlover

Many people know that it’s a polygenic trait since it’s genes that are forming the body in complex ways. and since that even Homosexuals are fertile… they don’t produce though same sex, sex. so that makes your statement about how that their unnatural… how is that irrational?

mydeadexlover 

okay I see a few mistakes… *PRODUCE OFFSPIRING THOURGH SAME SEX, SEX…* there fixed…

mydeadexlover

<div id="comment_body_hLq-xV6pHD8″>

okay someone is rating our comments bad… I just fixed yours. there…

thatdontimpressmemuc

you’re so dumb…what is considered natural and unnatural is not decided based on if they can re-produce lol and yes some people are homosexual and they didn’t choose it. nobody said "oh im bisexual, lets make life even more complicated cause i dont want equality and want to be descriminated against so ill become completely gay"…ya right! you’re just talking out of your ass now when you have no knowledge. maybe you just like to think they choose to be homosexual cuz its easier for u to hate!

maxyRO

How would you know that?

gharo72

wow ,homosexuality is not a gene so normal couple might have a homosexual son or daughter.i think people lack the understanding of marriage definition ,it doesn’t describe couple living together ,it is a building block that form a society .therefore only society can determine its building blocks. throwout the history no homosexual society v been heard of,simply it depend on a heterosexual one to survive.

ffles

If you’re going to bring up natural selection as a determining factor in homosexuality, then you must also bring up the factor of cancer, flu, erectile disfunction, hemophelia, and all the other diseases/infections that a human of 2009 can live through simply due to the fact we have modern advances to counter their deaths. If homosexuality is a sin due to natural selection, then preventing cancer and the flu is also a sin in the same regard.

ogirv101

No all those disease are irrelevent, you brought up a strawman argument. They Key proponent for natural selection is the ability to adapt and to reproduce, no matter how much homosexuals have sex they can’t reproduce cutting off future life or expansion of their gene pool. You make argue that they can change their sex, but that isn’t natural and gender confusion or tranvestial feelings are a mental disease. Come back with a coherent argument.  This is important later on.  [4]

mydeadexlover

well thats what I thought about God and Evolution Untill it’s all just a natural phenomon altogether… and god is just the universe itself along the infinite amount of universes and multiverses… but as an agnostic I just don’t care…
Homosexuality is natural… hell even Bisexuality is natural…

ogirv101

No homosexuality is not natural, bisexuality is natural though. Homosexuality is the prefrence of the same sex, there is no organism that prefers the same sex. Of course you do see homosexual behavior, but in fact it’s only bisexual behavior because you see heterosexual behavior along with it. Bisexuality is common, and you know why there is bisexuality among organisms.  This is important later on.  [5]

Next, you believe in Pantheism, not everyone agrees with your concept of God.

mydeadexlover 

I don’t believe in god anymore, that’s one of the things that I used to believe plus I was talking in that other dude’s "lingo"

einreisender314

So a homosexual cannot force him or herself to have sex with someone of the opposite sex for purposes of procreation? That would be a "heterosexual" behavior. You cannot claim that in nature homosexuality is not found because you cannot know if the animal prefers to sleep with the same gender and only sleeps with the opposite gender for procreation.  Or at least through observation the only way to determine true homosexual behavior is seeingwhich gender the animal has sex with when not in heat.

ogirv101

Yes we can know if an organism prefers to have intercourse with the same gender, it’s called observation, but according to your reasoning everyone doesn’t have sex because we can’t see it or we can’t understand their minds.

Also your comment made no sense, I’m saying no natural behavior in organisms have true homosexuality, there is no ‘healthy’ normal organism that has sex with only one gender, and the ones that have sex with the same gender are essentially bisexual.

einreisender314 

I see how you say essentially.
The animal was gay, shagged a vag to give birth.   Alright, so I was being a smart-ass here.
–RK

ogirv101

The reason why I said essentialy is because homosexual behavior is behavior in which an organism has sec with only the same gender, and the cases when this happens, the organism has sex with both genders. they are bisexually by definition, and the so called homosexual behavior is discredited.

I see you love playing with words, but no matter how much quotemining you do or how much circular reasoning you use, you won’t be any more right.   What is "quotemining?"  And where is there circular logic thus far?

einreisender314 

So if a gay woman sleeps with a straight she’s bisexual not gay? Since you cannot see into the mind of an animal you cannot give it any sexual preference either way. Straight, gay, bi, tri, asexual, transsexual, etc.
–RK

ogirv101 

If a women has sex with both genders then she isn’t gay, she is bisexual. I think you’re going out of the bounds of common logic.  How so?

Also you’re bringing irrelevent arguments into this, you also lack coherent logic. We know an animal’s sexual prefrence by OBSERVATION, but of course I wouldn’t expect you to know how Science works.

einreisender314

You know an animals instinctual preference in regards to a sexual partner. Those are things that are hard wired in brain and are nothing more than chemical reactions. You’re talking about enjoyment and preference.
Model your argument after dolphins and chimps as well as humans (we are animals after all.)
–RK

ogirv101

That’s the point, it is natural for them have any sexual partner, and the chemical reactions are caused by natural selection in the attempt to gain the advantage in competition to pass its genes. In a natural selection mechanism, an organism that had sex with only the same gender animal, you know what happens to its genes…. Here he is implying that the only viable choice for reproduction within the homosexual community is homosexuals.  The definition of a species is any organism that can reproduce with another member of it’s own species and produce fertile offspring.

You practically prove my point, homosexuality is a failure and defect in nature. Also you’re implying that homosexuality is a pleasure, that is offensive btw.  We can already see that he’s not going to use logic in this argument because he is emotionally opposed to homosexuality instead of logically opposed.

einreisender314 

What you just said is the most ignorant statement that could have ever been made. You just differentiated homosexuals as being their own species. Congratulations sir. You have won yourself the prize.  Alright, so I was being a smart-ass here too.
–RK

einreisender314

<div id="comment_body_hYUOrVG37EA”>

As for pleasure, all that is is synaptic response. You have to defend your argument on species of animals that have sex for pleasure, not merely propagation.
–RK

ogirv101 

"As for pleasure, all that is is synaptic response."

That is your materialistic perspective, you’re dull and lifeless and I can name millions of people taht would laugh at the incoherence of what you said. You obviously don’t understand the value of life, you’re like a blown out candle in Einstein’s words.

Also you obviously misconstrued my argument, but your pathetic ad hominems have blocked your ability to reason so you resort to ridicule rather than refutation. Great job.

einreisender314

Materialistic? All functions break down to electrochemical responses.

Natural selection? Who is superior? You or a a bear? No weapons, just you, naked, vs. bear. We don’t fit in any more.

We have moved past natural selection as a genetic society.

ogirv101

Yes I know they all breakdown to a fundamental biochemical explanation, but you make it sound as if it has no purpose. Well of course you don’t, you’re an Atheist. An Atheist being philosophical is like a Cat liking water.  Neitzche?  Keirkergaard? And as I mention, Zen Buddhism.

Who is superior? Well the organism that is superior is not the strongest, rather the one that better adapts itself to its enviorment. You obviously don’t know what evolution is.

So you’re saying we’re not part of nature? Anthropomorphic concepts at play?

einreisender314

Absolutely correct, we are no longer part of nature. We no longer fit into the ecology of the biosystem as a whole.
–RK

einreisender314

We have created our own environment to inhabit, we are no longer part of natural selection, the food chain, or really any of the ecology of the planet. Do we affect those aspects? Absolutely.

As for Atheism and philosophy…what does one have to do with the other? A theism is merely the belief that there is no God, where as philosophy is generally the study of knowledge and logic especially how it applies to the human condition.
–RK

ogirv101

You obviously are really impacted by arrogant and anthropomorphical views. So many scientists would laugh at your statement, we are part of nature. we depend on nature survive, and you, like early primtiive beings, try to control nature when nature controls you.

We can die off, and if we don’t adapt to our enviorment we will die, the stronger organisms that better adapt will survive and be dominant, you know nothing about Biology.

ogirv101

They have nothing to do with each other, like Albert Einstein said:

‘The mere disbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all’

Unphilosphical people are like blown out candles.

ogirv101

No, I did not refer to homosexuals as a seperate species, the thing is that you let your ignroance and your need to produce ad hominems get the best of your deficient brain. I referred to homosexuals part of our species, but they are a defective part of our species considering they’re practically worthless in a natural selection model.

Congratulation, you have one the ad hominem prize, you can’t refute arguments so you have to bear false witness, you have to lie, and you have to ridicule….

einreisender314

Two sterile people cannot reproduce, is that unnatural? Homosexuality is a trait that has been with humanity since the dawn of time.
Homosexuals can certainly reproduce. Most simply make a choice to not reproduce in a genetic sense of the word and instead leave