Ancient Greek Homosexuality

[The Feral Underclass]

I found this very short little article on the internet and was instrigued by it. I think it is interesting that men in Ancient Greek times found it so natural to almost worship male masculinity and indulged in homosexuality as a "a social duty to the state."

Why was it such a natural practice and in many ways a profound experience for men to "indulge" in masculinity in this way? Could it be that men suppress any feelings they may have torwards masculinity in the present, because of social constructs. In the beginnings of civilisations it must have been much easier for men to be open about their admiration or lust for masculinity, as those social constructs did not exist? Could it be that this attraction to male masculinity is acually natural to men?


Most ancient Greeks lived openly bisexual and polyamorous lifestyles. While the Greek man was expected to marry and raise children, he was also expected to enter into erotic and mentoring relationships with worthy youths. Intimate relationships between older adult men and male youth were not only common, they were considered a social duty to the state. Even though male homosexual relations were common, there were certain guidelines to be adhered to. Greek homosexuality was largely intergenerational. Relationships between two adult men of similar age were ununsual, and open to riducle, as were relations with overly young boys. The ancient Greeks believed in an age of consent, marked by a young man's ability to "think for himself". This age of consent ranged from adolescence to early adulthood.

These relationships were both erotic and educational. A male youth would be courted by many men, and then he would choose one to be his lover. The goal of Greek education was the attainment of male perfection -- both physical and mental perfection. This education took place in the gymnasium. The gymnasium was the center of every Greek town, and served a far greater purpose than the modern gym. The gymnasium was an elaborate structure with many rooms, baths, and hallways decorated with all sorts of art work including statues of gods and heroes. Philosophers, poets, and other intellectuals would come together in these places. Boys and men would spend their days in both intellectual and physical exercises. Youth weren't just valued for their bodies, but also for their minds -- their ability to reason and debate. Sports and even the public olympics were performed in the nude. In fact, public nudity was not at all uncommon. The body was something to be proud of. It did not elicit the feelings of shame or modesty that many of us feel in modern society.

Ancient Greek Homosexuality and Education (http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/glbthistory/greeklove.htm)

[James]

The spartans encouraged homo. relations in their army, which was one of the finest, if not the finest, army in the ancient world.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 01:02 PM
The spartans encouraged homo. relations in their army, which was one of the finest, if not the finest, army in the ancient world.
Spartan boys were taken at a very young age into military camps outside the city and trained to serve in the army. They did this until 31 at which point they were expected to start a family. In those 25 or so years of military life it was apparently essential to form sexual relationships with your comrades. Even from a very early age. Contact with women was regarded as harmful to this training and service.

You didn't answer my questions?

[monkeydust]

The spartans encouraged homo. relations in their army, which was one of the finest, if not the finest, army in the ancient world.


That's true.

Apparently compassionate feelings between soldiers made them fight with so much more resolve and unity. Essentially, there would be more reason to defend your lover, than simply your friend or brother in arms.

However, as you mention, this was encouraged, and almost certainly not an entriely natural phenomenon.


Could it be that men suppress any feelings they may have torwards masculinity in the present, because of social constructs. In the beginnings of civilisations it must have been much easier for men to be open about their admiration or lust for masculinity, as those social constructs did not exist? Could it be that this attraction to male masculinity is acually natural to men?


Perhaps, but I'd consider it unlikely.

I think it's probably true that it's natural to some men, though surely not to all, or even the majority. Biologically, I doubt man would have evolved that way.

You point about social constructs is an important one. Undoubtedly modern man is, subconsciously or otherwise, discouraged from homosexual relationships. In the same way however, Greek society actively promoted such things. Many may have felt bisexuality to be "the norm" and would have felt in some way "weird" to question it.

Still, you could be right, I don't think we'll ever be able to ascertain, with 100% certainty, how "natural" it is for humans to be homosexual.

[Trissy]

Why was it such a natural practice and in many ways a profound experience for men to "indulge" in masculinity in this way?
Well firstly we need to consider what type of society the Greeks had. If we consider that most of the city states where patriarchal states with various different political systems of rule then we begin to see a possible explanation for the Greeks seeing homosexuality in such a positive light.

If one believes that men are superior to women then it does not take a great leap to think that male-female relationships are inferior to those between two men. Women were principally only for having children with and for doing the housework in Greek times. We must also remember that Platonic relationships were viewed as being even superior to homosexual relations. I think it became an acceptable practise through the philosophical views they held, just like things become acceptable in modern society.


Could it be that men suppress any feelings they may have torwards masculinity in the present, because of social constructs?
I think that is a perfectly plausible suggestion. The collapse of a patriarchal world has affected men greatly and for a long time they have struggled to find a new role for themselves, just as women have struggled to find a role as equals to their male counterparts. From the sexually free 60's to the end of the cold war and the bith of the AIDS crisis in the 80's we've seen many different faces to man, and all can be viewed through the eyes of the histoy of social change.


In the beginnings of civilisations it must have been much easier for men to be open about their admiration or lust for masculinity, as those social constructs did not exist
Perhaps, although I'm not so sure. Different societies and different civilisations have always had their different moralities, rules and taboos...plus there is often a different set of rule for the rulers and the ruled. Take Britain for example! Aristocratic families have always got up to sexual behaviour which would be seriously criticised if it was done by the workers. Our different roles in society make it easier or harder for us to break and make new values.


Could it be that this attraction to male masculinity is acually natural to men?
Well it has always been my view that it is part nature and part nurture that establishes our sexuality. I think it's fair to say that many men do find other men attractive but are far to ashamed or scared to admit it. Whatever the statistics are, I always feel that the results will be skewed in favour of hetrosexality until the day when homosexuality is no longer viewed in a negative light.

[Wenty]

if homosexuality is natural in anyway then why can't gay people reproduce?

[DaCuBaN]

Interesting topic, though I'm not sure whether this is more history or theory. Anyway:


We must also remember that Platonic relationships were viewed as being even superior to homosexual relations.

You learn something new every day: Does the phrase 'platonic' have any relation to it's namesake?


Why was it such a natural practice and in many ways a profound experience for men to "indulge" in masculinity in this way?

The greeks are well known to value experimentation; intellect; physique. There is no reason that this 'indulgence' was not simply another way to expand their boundaries.

Is it any different in modern times? Sure there's a stigma attached these days in many circles, but to be honest I don't think it would have been all too different in Ancient Greek circles: People would have had differing opinions on the subject even then.


Could it be that men suppress any feelings they may have torwards masculinity in the present, because of social constructs.

No, else you wouldn't get (as a crass example) men looking to science to change their sex. As always, our societies simply send out mixed (and confusing) messages - again, I doubt greek society was much different in this manner.

You tend to find, and this is often attributed to greek society, that more 'enlightened' individuals simply don't see the barriers of sexuality anymore: They are what they are, they do what they will.

Crudely put I know, but I'm reaching :unsure:


Could it be that this attraction to male masculinity is actually natural to men?

I wish I could say: I find myself more attracted to the opposite sex, yet this does not mean there are not men who I consider attractive - I'm just not sexually attracted (to any I have yet seen/met). As I said, greek culture embraced thought: And thought will tell you there's no problem with sexual relations in the vast majority of capacities.

I would be intruiged however, to see their take on the female equation.

[Trissy]

if homosexuality is natural in anyway then why can't gay people reproduce?
I think you do an injustice to nature if you simply link it to certain causes and effects. Just because hetrosexual intercourse (cause) leads to children (effect), and homosexual intercourse doesn't, it doesn't necesarily mean that one is natural and the other isn't. Under this odd distinction we find ourselves saying that rape is natural, and if that is the case then why do we punish rapists?

Natural in my humble opinion relates to feelings and tendancies which in turn relate partly to genetics and partly to our upbringing in whatever society we happen to have been born into. I think the sheer numbers of gay and bisexual people in the world speaks for itself (and we must also remember that these statistics are skewed by fear, stigma and denial). If it was unnatural and purely a product of our society then why do we see it spanning many different forms of society and history itself? It is found even in the most religious and conservative of times. If (as I suspect you may say) it is only the exception to the rule in those conservative areas and times, then I shall reply that it is because of the deep rooted fear and ignorance surrounding the subject, instead of it being that they were not exposed to our decadence creating social influences.

Finally may I add that it also fails to take into consideration the idea of love, and sex as an expression of love, instead it reduces love to merely a trick mankind plays on itself in order for the species to survive. I am not skilled in the ways of love, but as someone who holds existential views I am not prepared to deny the meaning in love, even if this meaning only happens to be subjective. Do all hetrosexual people have sex merely to reproduce? I think not. By asserting what is natural and unnatural with such simplicity you are in great danger of making all men out to be monsters (although I accept that you attach no/little moral value to the terms unlike the demon St.Aquinas).


You learn something new every day: Does the phrase 'platonic' have any relation to it's namesake?

As far as I am aware it does indeed relate to Plato. For an interesting discussion on the topic of love then 'The Symposium' is a good place to start. From memory one quote (I forget from which character) is 'there is no greater love then between a boyfriend and his lover'. I find Socrates view on love is probably the most interesting.


The greeks are well known to value experimentation
Not before Aristotle they weren't and even then it was limited. The Greeks were metaphysicians more then they were scientists. They thought that one could find the answers to their questions through reason alone. They were great philosophers but very poor scientists. This explains why they were not an advanced civilisation in terms of the technology they had. They reasoned that if you had slaves to do something then why do you need to make objects to do their tasks?

So relating this back to the topic, they didn't appreciate homosexuality because they were dabbling in it, rather they appreaciated it because to them it seemed rational.


As I said, greek culture embraced thought: And thought will tell you there's no problem with sexual relations in the vast majority of capacities.
Perhaps. If you forgive me sounding Nietzschean for a moment, the problem with Reason tends to be that my Reason can often be vastly different to your Reason.

Take the Scholastics for example. To them it was totally rational to believe that homosexuality was an abomination in the Lords eyes because it was a clear abuse of the Natural Law he has laid down. It also followed that it was an abuse of the freewill that the Lord had given us, and so these individuals were destined for Hell except for the Grace of God. The Greeks on the other hand would find this very hard to believe, especially since to them there was not one God, but lots of Gods. They would have also probably been puzzled at the abuse of the works of Plato and Aristotle by the Church...


I would be intruiged however, to see their take on the female equation
I'm not too sure on their view although the women on the island of Lesbos are of course quite famous. As their views of women tend to be quite sexist by today's standards then I'd guess they'd either view it badly or be indifferent to it. Perhaps they didn't believe it existed like Queen Victoria? Who knows?

[Wenty]

I think you do an injustice to nature if you simply link it to certain causes and effects. Just because hetrosexual intercourse (cause) leads to children (effect), and homosexual intercourse doesn't, it doesn't necesarily mean that one is natural and the other isn't. Under this odd distinction we find ourselves saying that rape is natural, and if that is the case then why do we punish rapists?

Not sure it follows that rape is natural by my distinction, we punish rapists because we feel its immoral. I'm saying that if homosexuality was natural then why didn't nature equip them with the tools, so to speak!, to reproduce.

[Invader Zim]

I recall reading that Alexander the great, was very happy persuing relationships with both sexes, and that it was considered perfectly normal in Greek society in general.

I for one find it disturbing that a civilisation from thousands of years ago, can be in some cases more advanced than modern society. I find it most depressing than in this case society has actually moved backwards.

[commiecrusader]

Not sure it follows that rape is natural by my distinction, we punish rapists because we feel its immoral. I'm saying that if homosexuality was natural then why didn't nature equip them with the tools, so to speak!, to reproduce.
not sure if this is relevant, but lots of species of chimpanzees, such as Bonobos, use sexual expression as a form of social interaction, to create a hierachy. they don't do it for sexual gratification most of the time, or to breed, but to create the hierachy of the society.

the same happened in Greece it appears, with the older, more senior males, asserting dominance over the new generation, but also encouraging them to improve themselves through this.

perhaps this doest happen any more is because society creates and maintains the hierachy in other ways, such as through taxation, lack of actual 'contact' with the 'alpha males/females' through the distance created?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 06:48 PM
Not sure it follows that rape is natural by my distinction, we punish rapists because we feel its immoral. I'm saying that if homosexuality was natural then why didn't nature equip them with the tools, so to speak!, to reproduce.
What relevance does this have to anything? You can not discuss nature in this way. There is nothing natural about humans, as soon as we started to wear clothes and hunt with tools!

[Trissy]

Not sure it follows that rape is natural by my distinction, we punish rapists because we feel its immoral. I'm saying that if homosexuality was natural then why didn't nature equip them with the tools, so to speak!, to reproduce.
I think it clearly follows from your distinction that rape is natural Adam because rapists have been equiped with the tools to reproduce (which seemed to be your reasoning for homosexuality perhaps not being natural). A rapist can rape someone and they can bear him children.

We may punish him for it but that does not suddenly make it unnatural because the distinction between natural/unnatural and moral/immoral is not necessarily the same (unless you're a Catholic and then it makes perfect sense to call a husband who rapes his wife a moral man, and two people of the same sex who love each other and want to express it physically evil). Who knows perhaps God places rapists in a second class section of heaven with the Crusaders and other religious zealots who kill people who work in Abortion clinics, queers and the such like for God?

[Wenty]

You can not discuss nature in this way. There is nothing natural about humans, as soon as we started to wear clothes and hunt with tools!

I can quite easily talk about nature this way, i'm talking about our biological makeup, not about clothes or hunting tools and its quite obvious that the way we are made is geared for different sex reproduction. This is where i'm getting my idea of what is 'natural', in this instance at least.

To answer Tristan - theres nothing natural about rape, theres something natural about those who do it feeling a desire to reproduce though, which is in some way the crux of what i'm saying. However, it can't be said that the act of forcing themselves on someone else is natural by my definition (or any for that matter probably).

[Arminius]

Why was it such a natural practice and in many ways a profound experience for men to "indulge" in masculinity in this way? Could it be that men suppress any feelings they may have torwards masculinity in the present, because of social constructs. In the beginnings of civilisations it must have been much easier for men to be open about their admiration or lust for masculinity, as those social constructs did not exist? Could it be that this attraction to male masculinity is acually natural to men?

Well, the Germanic societies of northern Europe punished homosexuality with death. "Worshiping masculinity" might just be unique to certain cultures.

[commiecrusader]

i have nothing against homosexuality at all, but i think to argue that it is natural to indulge in homosexuality for sexual gratification is slightly innacurate.

i can see where Wenty is coming from with his/her distinction. to argue that homosexuality is natural from a biological point of view isn't practical in my view. from a biological point of view, sex is only valid or useful if it is between two people who can reproduce, and homosexual sex cant. therefore it is unlikely to have evolved, or if it did, the 'homosexual gene' if there is one, or trait or way of life or whatever, would probably have been extincted.

i think the reason homosexuality came into being is possibly for a number of reasons. these are social or socially constructed reasons, not biological.
1) the book im reading at the moment is The Science of Discworld II by Terry Prattchett (which incidentally is pretty good tho i dont understand some of the sciency bits) and in this (from my understanding) they suggest that homosexuality may have developed as a 'rite of passage' so to speak for young men - they would have been abused by the older men, in order to be inducted into the tribe. this is an unpleasant idea but is possible i guess...
2) like in my monkeys(sp?) thread earlier, it developed as a form of social interaction, for some sort of hierachical reason or some reason other than to breed.
3) maybe it was an expression of a frustration felt at some stage of being confined or limited in some way.

all these are social rather than biological or sexual reasons for it to come about. now i dont dispute that nowadays it is more than that, and that homosexuals do experience love and sexual gratification on both parts, but i feel that probably, this is not how homosexuality came about.

i would like to repeat i have nothing against homosexuals and have not set out to insult them, and im sorry if anyone finds my post insulting...

please dont restrict/ban/hate me? :ph34r:

[Wenty]

to argue that homosexuality is natural from a biological point of view isn't practical in my view

Even if you were making a practical point, which i don't think you are, its not relevent in this case. We're debating whether its natural or not, practicality doesn't even enter into the equation.

In any case the question remains, if you accept that homosexuality is natural then why can't homosexuals reproduce.

[PRC-UTE]

In any case the question remains, if you accept that homosexuality is natural then why can't homosexuals reproduce.

homosexual is indeed natural but it's not about reproduction. Very rarely is sex about reproduction; in complex mammals it's primarily about bonding.

homosexuality is far too common to be an anomoly. There must be a reason it consistently arises in complex mammals.

There have been a few valid theories tossed out there, but I'm not an evolutionary biologist.


On a side note:
I've heard socialists and even anarchists condemn homosexuality. It's scary when people who are knowledgeable about politics comment on something they're not qualified to speak of, ie evolutionary science.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 06:48 PM
I can quite easily talk about nature this way, i'm talking about our biological makeup, not about clothes or hunting tools and its quite obvious that the way we are made is geared for different sex reproduction. This is where i'm getting my idea of what is 'natural', in this instance at least.
Can you prove that our biological make up was designed to reproduce? Not to sound like the 'lizard theory man' but you speak with such certainty that it almost makes homosexuality fiction. It quite clearly isn’t? Millions of people, throughout history in fact, have found it extremely natural to sleep with members of the same sex. I for one am physically and emotionally attracted to men as you, I assume, are to women. What if it is proven that I am, biologically, a homosexual?

[Wenty]

Very rarely is sex about reproduction; in complex mammals it's primarily about bonding.

I find this hard to believe but nevertheless even if it were true its irrelevent. It doesn't matter what you use them for, they're there for a purpose, reproduction.


Can you prove that our biological make up was designed to reproduce?

All i'm doing is looking at the evidence and coming to a fairly basic conclusion. The human anatomy is designed for different sex reproduction, period.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 02:49 PM
The human anatomy is designed for different sex reproduction, period.
True, but homosexuality exists nonetheless and it exists in the same physical and emotional way as heterosexuality. Why, if homosexuals cannot reproduce, has "nature" created it?

[Louis Pio]

True, but homosexuality exists nonetheless and it exists in the same physical and emotional way as heterosexuality. Why, if homosexuals cannot reproduce, has "nature" created it?

Not nature, but Satan! :D

Nah seriously you make a good point. If homosexuality should be so much "against nature" (some people seems to personalise nature) then why does it exist? Why does it exist among animals and why has it existed among humans for so long?

[commiecrusader]

I did suggest a few reasons in a prior post which Wenty disregarded as impractical.

I personally believe homosexuality originally came about because of social reasons rather than biological reasons:

1) the book im reading at the moment is The Science of Discworld II by Terry Prattchett (which incidentally is pretty good tho i dont understand some of the sciency bits) and in this (from my understanding) they suggest that homosexuality may have developed as a 'rite of passage' so to speak for young men - they would have been abused by the older men, in order to be inducted into the tribe. this is an unpleasant idea but is possible i guess...
2) like in my monkeys(sp?) thread earlier, it developed as a form of social interaction, for some sort of hierachical reason or some reason other than to breed.
3) maybe it was an expression of a frustration felt at some stage of being confined or limited in some way.
Whilst these arent the most attractive reasons for homosexuality, I think these are possible reasons for the start of homosexuality. These are social reasons, since i think homosexuality probably arose as a way of social expression/interaction rather than a biological cause. However this could still be viewed as a 'natural' cause I guess if you believe that societies are created naturally. I'm undecided really on that particular point.

Obviously however nowadays, homosexuality is much more than a mere social interaction, and is pretty much the same as a heterosexual relationship i assume. I would suggest this is because despite the downsides of our current societies, they are more liberal than they have been for a long time, hence there is more freedom of choice and views have changed, people are no longer socialized in such an extreme way to be 'straight', and homosexuality is no longer shrouded in mystery/taboo, at least not as much anyway.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 01:49 PM

I find this hard to believe but nevertheless even if it were true its irrelevent. It doesn't matter what you use them for, they're there for a purpose, reproduction.



All i'm doing is looking at the evidence and coming to a fairly basic conclusion. The human anatomy is designed for different sex reproduction, period.
I find this hard to believe but nevertheless even if it were true its irrelevent. It doesn't matter what you use them for, they're there for a purpose, reproduction.

And? Its there organs they can do what they like with them, if you have a problem with that then I suggest you get over it, because there is nothing you can do about it.

The human anatomy is designed for different sex reproduction, period.

Rubbish, I take it that blokes taking a piss didn't cross your mind when you made this statement. Did it also ever occur to you that pleasure is another function of the human reproductive system?

Tell me did you get taught biology at school?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 05:48 PM

Not sure it follows that rape is natural by my distinction, we punish rapists because we feel its immoral. I'm saying that if homosexuality was natural then why didn't nature equip them with the tools, so to speak!, to reproduce.
Foolish logic, the Nazis punished Jews for being Jewish, does that make being jewish immoral?

[LSD]

um... someone might want to define "natural" if this discussion is going to continue.

Since homosexuality seems to appear all throughout nature and is naturally found in numerous animals, it would clearly fall into one definition of natural. I doubt anyone would argue that it's artificial.

What, I think, Wenty is trying to say is that homosexuality does not, in and of itself, lead to reproduction and therefore does not aid in the continuation of the specied.... and of course he's right.... but who cares?


Heres a terrible analogy:

Cancer.
It doesn't help in human reproduction, but no one would argue that cancer isn't natural.

For a slightly less offsensive comparison, how about baldness?
Studies show that single bald men are significantly less to attract a parter (therefore less likely to reproduce), but is baldness "not natural"?

[Wenty]

And? Its there organs they can do what they like with them

I was referring to the fact that the organs being there in the first place exist fundamentally for different sex reproduction.


Rubbish, I take it that blokes taking a piss didn't cross your mind when you made this statement. Did it also ever occur to you that pleasure is another function of the human reproductive system?

None of that matters towards my argument. My point was that biologically homosexuality can't be called natural, for the very simple point that if it was natural then they would have the ability to reproduce.

[LSD]

I was referring to the fact that the organs being there in the first place exist fundamentally for different sex reproduction.

No argument.


None of that matters towards my argument. My point was that biologically homosexuality can't be called natural, for the very simple point that if it was natural then they would have the ability to reproduce.

...um.... why?

Again, you're misusing the word "natural".

Just because something does not promote procreation does not mean it is "not natural", it merely means it is unrelated to procreation. There is more to "nature" that procreation.

Is society "natural"?
Is language "natural"?

I think what your arguing is that since homosexuals, by being homosexuals, won't reproduce (theoretically, even that point is arguable), then homosexuality as a genetic trait cannot be passed down.....

...except....

you're disproving your own argument. Because, genetic traits that are not natural are the ones that occur only when passed down genetically (e.g., Sickle-cell anemia or Fatal familial insomnia) whereas the sheer number of genetically unrelated homosexuals in thousands of species shows that it is indeed a fully naturally occuring phenomenon.

[Wenty]

Just because something does not promote procreation does not mean it is "not natural", it merely means it is unrelated to procreation. There is more to "nature" that procreation.

Is society "natural"?
Is language "natural"?

I agree on several of your points, first i think its important before we even debate this issue what indeed we mean by natural and secondly i agree something can be natural without it relating to procreation. The only point i've ever argued in all of these posts is a biological one though, i haven't touched on any other possible points for homosexuality being natural. I'm simply saying its unnatural on the basis that they can't carry on the line, as it were.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:35 AM
I'm simply saying its unnatural on the basis that they can't carry on the line, as it were.
Why is this the basis for your definition of "natural"?

[Trissy]

To answer Tristan - theres nothing natural about rape, theres something natural about those who do it feeling a desire to reproduce though, which is in some way the crux of what i'm saying. However, it can't be said that the act of forcing themselves on someone else is natural by my definition (or any for that matter probably).
But desire to reproduce and something being natural are not the same. Many hetrosexual people don't desire to have children but they like sex and you would call that natural. Your initial argument seems to be that something cannot be natural if it doesn't have the ability to reproduce (regardless of the intent of the people). Under that definition it seems clear to me that your argument can be used to call rape natural since rapists can reproduce (ignoring intent like I have said).

On what grounds (other then perhaps gut instinct) are you saying that rape is not natural? Studies of lions show that the lioness feels discomfort during sex and the male lion has to grab the muscles in her neck in his jaws while they mate because when he releases her she'll try and attack him. Er...that doesn't sound totally consensual to me. The animal kingdom does not seem to pay strict attention to what we call morality and so how can we be confident on what is and what is not natural. We are all animal after all! Far from the superman ideal...


sex is only valid or useful if it is between two people who can reproduce, and homosexual sex cant
I shall make sure I remind you that you are about to engage in 'invalid' sex if you ever get the offer to have sex with two of the most beautiful people on the planet who will only consent if you use contraception. I'm sure it'll be playing on your mind so much that if an offer of a threesome ever comes your way you'll be weeping all the way through it


All i'm doing is looking at the evidence and coming to a fairly basic conclusion. The human anatomy is designed for different sex reproduction, period.
I can't resist but quote something from Voltaire's witty book 'Candide'...

"It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best."

:lol:


first i think its important before we even debate this issue what indeed we mean by natural
nat·u·ral adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
4 a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people. b. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader. c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
8. Expected and accepted: "In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love" (Duff Cooper).
9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
11. a. Related by blood: the natural parents of the child. b. Born of unwed parents: a natural child.
12. Mathematics Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero.
13. Music a. Not sharped or flatted. b. Having no sharps or flats.

Take your pick!

[LSD]

I agree on several of your points, first i think its important before we even debate this issue what indeed we mean by natural and secondly i agree something can be natural without it relating to procreation. The only point i've ever argued in all of these posts is a biological one though, i haven't touched on any other possible points for homosexuality being natural.

But, again, that has nothing to do with it being natural or not.

As trissy pointed out, the word natural has many meanings and none of them have to do with procreation.


I'm simply saying its unnatural on the basis that they can't carry on the line, as it were.

That is basically your argument, yes?

What I am pointing out is that argument is fallacial.

Here's what you're saying:

A) Homosexuals cannot procreate through homosxual relationships.
B)Without procreation, homosexuals cannot pass on their genetic information.
C)Unless a relationship leads tol passing on genetic information to the next generation, it is not evolutionarily benneficial.
D)That which is not evolutionarily benneficial is not natural
E) Homosexuality is thereby not natural


I trust you can see that the flaw lies with premise (D).

Many things irrelevent to evolution are nonetheless natural, like developing any myrdiad of conditions, such as skin color or eye color or sickle-cell anemia or autism or hightened visual acuity or double-joints....

It doesn't matter, it's still natural

[Wenty]

i haven't even mentioned evolution. I'm not ruling out (and never have) that its natural in a social context, or whatever, merely on a physiological basis.


the word natural has many meanings and none of them have to do with procreation

the way we are made, the way we reproduce is all to do with nature. To use the definitions:-


1. Present in or produced by nature


2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature

[LSD]

1. Present in or produced by nature

Where does procreation appear in that?
If someone is born homosexual than wasn't that homosexuality "Present in or produced by nature."?


Of, relating to, or concerning nature

See above.

[LSD]

I'm not ruling out (and never have) that its natural in a social context, or whatever, merely on a physiological basis.

I'm talking about physiology.

If you don't mean evolution and the passing on of genetic information than what does procreation have to do with anything?

Procreation is only more important than, say, watching football from an evolutionary perspective, otherwise there is nothign that makes it any more natural. Purely physiologically, sex gives us pleasure. That is the physiological imperative. Now, evolutionarily, that can be argued to serve a "natural" process of genetic propagation, but if you are discounting evolution as a factor, then aren't you in effect defeating your own argument?

In the present physiological sense, homosexual sex is exactly the same as heterosexual sex, because it achvieves the same primary present goal of most sex, which is pleasure.

[commiecrusader]

Why do we feel pleasure when we have sex?

Because when our brains werent evolved enough to understand that if you had sex a baby would come soon, there had to be some other incentive for creatures to have sex otherwise we wouldnt have gone further than the dividing cells on an evolutionary level, like amoebas.

From a physiological p.o.v., the sole purpose of sex is to reproduce, the pleasure experienced is just a pleasant incentive. I believe homosexuality is natural, but not in a biological way, and not necessarily in the way it occurs now between humans, but as a form of social interaction as i've said before.

[LSD]

From a physiological p.o.v., the sole purpose of sex is to reproduce, the pleasure experienced is just a pleasant incentive.

From an evolutionary perspective, yes.
From a physiological one, NO.

The physiological reason we have sex is because it feels good. That is the sole biological imperative

[Because when our brains werent evolved enough to understand that if you had sex a baby would come soon, there had to be some other incentive for creatures to have sex.
Exactly right, therefore our bodies now induce us to have sex through a pleasure system. That is the biological end of the story in terms of our motivations to have sex. Anything involving the evolutionary element, or the reasons for the development of the particular system is wholly irrelevent to the discussion at hand.


I believe homosexuality is natural, but not in a biological way,

And yet.. it occurs in literaly hundreds of species, if that doesn't indicate a natural, biological process at work, nothing does.


but as a form of social interaction as i've said before.

Well... that is hardly a novel oppinion.

"I think homosexuality is just another distraction, albeit a much stronger distraction than even OCD or back pain. Homosexuality seems to be a way for men in our society to avoid the responsibilities of being an adult male. It's not genetic. It's all psychosomatic. Why? I maintain it's because those are the guys most likely to attract women and attract this responsibility, and this is their way of escaping. It's a fear of making a living and suppotring a family to the nth degree. If you're gay, it's almost as if you're perpetually caught in boyhood. You hang out with the guys. You don't have the wife and kids and the house and the mortgage."

[commiecrusader]

Exactly right, therefore our bodies now induce us to have sex through a pleasure system. That is the biological end of the story in terms of our motivations to have sex. Anything involving the evolutionary element, or the reasons for the development of the particular system is wholly irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
I guess your right. I'm kind of waggling the wrong stick really lol. The physiological reason for sex is to reproduce, biological is for pleasure.


And yet.. it occurs in literaly hundreds of species, if that doesn't indicate a natural, biological process at work, nothing does.
I know it occurs in hundreds of species, I posted earlier about it happening in monkeys. And I have been arguing that it's natural, but just because it occurs in many species doesn't make it a biological process. It, I would say, is a social process, in the same way that it is in the many other species that have homosexuality.


Well... that is hardly a novel oppinion.
Nowhere did I claim this was a novel opinion, I just said it was my one. I don't give a flying fuck (homosexual or otherwise lol) how novel it is.

[commiecrusader]

Exactly right, therefore our bodies now induce us to have sex through a pleasure system. That is the biological end of the story in terms of our motivations to have sex. Anything involving the evolutionary element, or the reasons for the development of the particular system is wholly irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
I guess your right. I'm kind of waggling the wrong stick really lol. The physiological reason for sex is to reproduce, biological is for pleasure.


And yet.. it occurs in literaly hundreds of species, if that doesn't indicate a natural, biological process at work, nothing does.
I know it occurs in hundreds of species, I posted earlier about it happening in monkeys. And I have been arguing that it's natural, but just because it occurs in many species doesn't make it a biological process. It, I would say, is a social process, in the same way that it is in the many other species that have homosexuality.


Well... that is hardly a novel oppinion.
Nowhere did I claim this was a novel opinion, I just said it was my one. I don't give a flying fuck (homosexual or otherwise lol) how novel it is.

[commiecrusader]

Exactly right, therefore our bodies now induce us to have sex through a pleasure system. That is the biological end of the story in terms of our motivations to have sex. Anything involving the evolutionary element, or the reasons for the development of the particular system is wholly irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
I guess your right. I'm kind of waggling the wrong stick really lol. The physiological reason for sex is to reproduce, biological is for pleasure.


And yet.. it occurs in literaly hundreds of species, if that doesn't indicate a natural, biological process at work, nothing does.
I know it occurs in hundreds of species, I posted earlier about it happening in monkeys. And I have been arguing that it's natural, but just because it occurs in many species doesn't make it a biological process. It, I would say, is a social process, in the same way that it is in the many other species that have homosexuality.


Well... that is hardly a novel oppinion.
Nowhere did I claim this was a novel opinion, I just said it was my one. I don't give a flying fuck (homosexual or otherwise lol) how novel it is.

[LSD]

uess your right. I'm kind of waggling the wrong stick really lol.

Well, you're waggling something...


The physiological reason for sex is to reproduce, biological is for pleasure.

What do you say we clear this one up:

Biological: adj., of or pertaining to biology. Biology: n., The science of physical life; the division of physical science which deals with organized beings of animals and plants; in a narrower sense = physiology.
Physiological: [i]adj., of or pertaining to physiology.

All of which takes us to....

Physiology: n., The science of the normal functions and phenomena of living things.


Sex is for pleasure, biolically, physiologically.

The only time it isn't is when we look at evolutionary origins, but as we've already discvered evolution is irrelevent in deciding what is "normal" or "natural".

Homosexual sex is just as physiologically natural as heterosexual.


I know it occurs in hundreds of species, I posted earlier about it happening in monkeys. And I have been arguing that it's natural, but just because it occurs in many species doesn't make it a biological process.

Well, it certainly lends credence to that hypothesis.

The appearance of similar attraction and actions across several species tends to indicate that it is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

In fact, that's the only logical conclusion without countering evidence. You're (ahem) "theory" is nice, but Occam's razor dicatates that the more rational conclusion is that it is simply a common and naturally occuring phenomenon that does not tend to favour gene promulgation, but by it's continue appearance demonstrates itself to be natural indeed.


It, I would say, is a social process, in the same way that it is in the many other species that have homosexuality.

From what... the social unconsious?

Unrelated cultures and barely related species all share the same "social process"?

Unlikely.

[LSD]

uess your right. I'm kind of waggling the wrong stick really lol.

Well, you're waggling something...


The physiological reason for sex is to reproduce, biological is for pleasure.

What do you say we clear this one up:

Biological: adj., of or pertaining to biology. Biology: n., The science of physical life; the division of physical science which deals with organized beings of animals and plants; in a narrower sense = physiology.
Physiological: [i]adj., of or pertaining to physiology.

All of which takes us to....

Physiology: n., The science of the normal functions and phenomena of living things.


Sex is for pleasure, biolically, physiologically.

The only time it isn't is when we look at evolutionary origins, but as we've already discvered evolution is irrelevent in deciding what is "normal" or "natural".

Homosexual sex is just as physiologically natural as heterosexual.


I know it occurs in hundreds of species, I posted earlier about it happening in monkeys. And I have been arguing that it's natural, but just because it occurs in many species doesn't make it a biological process.

Well, it certainly lends credence to that hypothesis.

The appearance of similar attraction and actions across several species tends to indicate that it is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

In fact, that's the only logical conclusion without countering evidence. You're (ahem) "theory" is nice, but Occam's razor dicatates that the more rational conclusion is that it is simply a common and naturally occuring phenomenon that does not tend to favour gene promulgation, but by it's continue appearance demonstrates itself to be natural indeed.


It, I would say, is a social process, in the same way that it is in the many other species that have homosexuality.

From what... the social unconsious?

Unrelated cultures and barely related species all share the same "social process"?

Unlikely.

[LSD]

uess your right. I'm kind of waggling the wrong stick really lol.

Well, you're waggling something...


The physiological reason for sex is to reproduce, biological is for pleasure.

What do you say we clear this one up:

Biological: adj., of or pertaining to biology. Biology: n., The science of physical life; the division of physical science which deals with organized beings of animals and plants; in a narrower sense = physiology.
Physiological: [i]adj., of or pertaining to physiology.

All of which takes us to....

Physiology: n., The science of the normal functions and phenomena of living things.


Sex is for pleasure, biolically, physiologically.

The only time it isn't is when we look at evolutionary origins, but as we've already discvered evolution is irrelevent in deciding what is "normal" or "natural".

Homosexual sex is just as physiologically natural as heterosexual.


I know it occurs in hundreds of species, I posted earlier about it happening in monkeys. And I have been arguing that it's natural, but just because it occurs in many species doesn't make it a biological process.

Well, it certainly lends credence to that hypothesis.

The appearance of similar attraction and actions across several species tends to indicate that it is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

In fact, that's the only logical conclusion without countering evidence. You're (ahem) "theory" is nice, but Occam's razor dicatates that the more rational conclusion is that it is simply a common and naturally occuring phenomenon that does not tend to favour gene promulgation, but by it's continue appearance demonstrates itself to be natural indeed.


It, I would say, is a social process, in the same way that it is in the many other species that have homosexuality.

From what... the social unconsious?

Unrelated cultures and barely related species all share the same "social process"?

Unlikely.

[commiecrusader]

Physiology: n., The science of the normal functions and phenomena of living things.


Sex is for pleasure, biolically, physiologically.

The only time it isn't is when we look at evolutionary origins, but as we've already discvered evolution is irrelevent in deciding what is "normal" or "natural".

Homosexual sex is just as physiologically natural as heterosexual.
Okay fine, now we are getting bogged down in technicallities. I thought what I had said was what you were arguing, I was trying to agree. The only time sex is not for pleasure is when looked at from an evolutionary p.o.v., when it becomes about breeding, and our design also becomes about breeding.


Well, it certainly lends credence to that hypothesis.

The appearance of similar attraction and actions across several species tends to indicate that it is a naturally occuring phenomenon.
I KNOW. I AGREE THAT IT IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING PROCESS. HOW MANY TIMES MUST I STATE THIS.


From what... the social unconsious?

Unrelated cultures and barely related species all share the same "social process"?

Unlikely.
In pretty much all species except for modern humans, homosexuality occurs as a hierachical process. My male rabbits try to fuck each other as do all male rabbits, not for pleasure, but to establish who is the 'boss rabbit'. The same is true with dogs, bonobo monkeys and many other species. Is it so unlikely that it could be used by many cultures and creatures in this manner? Only as unlikely as all creatures and all currently existing cultures having a hierachy. It is one of many ways that all creatures can interact. I think that this, since we evolved from apes, is probably how it started in humans, but obviously now it occurs for different reasons.

[commiecrusader]

Physiology: n., The science of the normal functions and phenomena of living things.


Sex is for pleasure, biolically, physiologically.

The only time it isn't is when we look at evolutionary origins, but as we've already discvered evolution is irrelevent in deciding what is "normal" or "natural".

Homosexual sex is just as physiologically natural as heterosexual.
Okay fine, now we are getting bogged down in technicallities. I thought what I had said was what you were arguing, I was trying to agree. The only time sex is not for pleasure is when looked at from an evolutionary p.o.v., when it becomes about breeding, and our design also becomes about breeding.


Well, it certainly lends credence to that hypothesis.

The appearance of similar attraction and actions across several species tends to indicate that it is a naturally occuring phenomenon.
I KNOW. I AGREE THAT IT IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING PROCESS. HOW MANY TIMES MUST I STATE THIS.


From what... the social unconsious?

Unrelated cultures and barely related species all share the same "social process"?

Unlikely.
In pretty much all species except for modern humans, homosexuality occurs as a hierachical process. My male rabbits try to fuck each other as do all male rabbits, not for pleasure, but to establish who is the 'boss rabbit'. The same is true with dogs, bonobo monkeys and many other species. Is it so unlikely that it could be used by many cultures and creatures in this manner? Only as unlikely as all creatures and all currently existing cultures having a hierachy. It is one of many ways that all creatures can interact. I think that this, since we evolved from apes, is probably how it started in humans, but obviously now it occurs for different reasons.

[commiecrusader]

Physiology: n., The science of the normal functions and phenomena of living things.


Sex is for pleasure, biolically, physiologically.

The only time it isn't is when we look at evolutionary origins, but as we've already discvered evolution is irrelevent in deciding what is "normal" or "natural".

Homosexual sex is just as physiologically natural as heterosexual.
Okay fine, now we are getting bogged down in technicallities. I thought what I had said was what you were arguing, I was trying to agree. The only time sex is not for pleasure is when looked at from an evolutionary p.o.v., when it becomes about breeding, and our design also becomes about breeding.


Well, it certainly lends credence to that hypothesis.

The appearance of similar attraction and actions across several species tends to indicate that it is a naturally occuring phenomenon.
I KNOW. I AGREE THAT IT IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING PROCESS. HOW MANY TIMES MUST I STATE THIS.


From what... the social unconsious?

Unrelated cultures and barely related species all share the same "social process"?

Unlikely.
In pretty much all species except for modern humans, homosexuality occurs as a hierachical process. My male rabbits try to fuck each other as do all male rabbits, not for pleasure, but to establish who is the 'boss rabbit'. The same is true with dogs, bonobo monkeys and many other species. Is it so unlikely that it could be used by many cultures and creatures in this manner? Only as unlikely as all creatures and all currently existing cultures having a hierachy. It is one of many ways that all creatures can interact. I think that this, since we evolved from apes, is probably how it started in humans, but obviously now it occurs for different reasons.

[LSD]

Okay fine, now we are getting bogged down in technicallities. I thought what I had said was what you were arguing, I was trying to agree. The only time sex is not for pleasure is when looked at from an evolutionary p.o.v., when it becomes about breeding, and our design also becomes about breeding.

Agreed.


I KNOW. I AGREE THAT IT IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING PROCESS. HOW MANY TIMES MUST I STATE THIS.

Good!


In pretty much all species except for modern humans, homosexuality occurs as a hierachical process. My male rabbits try to fuck each other as do all male rabbits, not for pleasure, but to establish who is the 'boss rabbit'. The same is true with dogs, bonobo monkeys and many other species. Is it so unlikely that it could be used by many cultures and creatures in this manner? Only as unlikely as all creatures and all currently existing cultures having a hierachy. It is one of many ways that all creatures can interact. I think that this, since we evolved from apes, is probably how it started in humans, but obviously now it occurs for different reasons.

You provide no evidence that the proces is the the reverse of what you outlined.

Homosexuality develops naturaly, biologically and is then used in the way you describe as many other biological processes have been used, to express who's the "boss rabbit".

The point, however, is the "social" processes rarely cross considerable special gaps and even when they do, it is because of social tranference. That is society remembers and teaches and remembers and teaches...

Homosexuality has developed in too many cultures for it to be a social remnant and has been found in those who were never socialized!

In short, the social argument doesn't hold rabbit piss.

[LSD]

Okay fine, now we are getting bogged down in technicallities. I thought what I had said was what you were arguing, I was trying to agree. The only time sex is not for pleasure is when looked at from an evolutionary p.o.v., when it becomes about breeding, and our design also becomes about breeding.

Agreed.


I KNOW. I AGREE THAT IT IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING PROCESS. HOW MANY TIMES MUST I STATE THIS.

Good!


In pretty much all species except for modern humans, homosexuality occurs as a hierachical process. My male rabbits try to fuck each other as do all male rabbits, not for pleasure, but to establish who is the 'boss rabbit'. The same is true with dogs, bonobo monkeys and many other species. Is it so unlikely that it could be used by many cultures and creatures in this manner? Only as unlikely as all creatures and all currently existing cultures having a hierachy. It is one of many ways that all creatures can interact. I think that this, since we evolved from apes, is probably how it started in humans, but obviously now it occurs for different reasons.

You provide no evidence that the proces is the the reverse of what you outlined.

Homosexuality develops naturaly, biologically and is then used in the way you describe as many other biological processes have been used, to express who's the "boss rabbit".

The point, however, is the "social" processes rarely cross considerable special gaps and even when they do, it is because of social tranference. That is society remembers and teaches and remembers and teaches...

Homosexuality has developed in too many cultures for it to be a social remnant and has been found in those who were never socialized!

In short, the social argument doesn't hold rabbit piss.

[LSD]

Okay fine, now we are getting bogged down in technicallities. I thought what I had said was what you were arguing, I was trying to agree. The only time sex is not for pleasure is when looked at from an evolutionary p.o.v., when it becomes about breeding, and our design also becomes about breeding.

Agreed.


I KNOW. I AGREE THAT IT IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING PROCESS. HOW MANY TIMES MUST I STATE THIS.

Good!


In pretty much all species except for modern humans, homosexuality occurs as a hierachical process. My male rabbits try to fuck each other as do all male rabbits, not for pleasure, but to establish who is the 'boss rabbit'. The same is true with dogs, bonobo monkeys and many other species. Is it so unlikely that it could be used by many cultures and creatures in this manner? Only as unlikely as all creatures and all currently existing cultures having a hierachy. It is one of many ways that all creatures can interact. I think that this, since we evolved from apes, is probably how it started in humans, but obviously now it occurs for different reasons.

You provide no evidence that the proces is the the reverse of what you outlined.

Homosexuality develops naturaly, biologically and is then used in the way you describe as many other biological processes have been used, to express who's the "boss rabbit".

The point, however, is the "social" processes rarely cross considerable special gaps and even when they do, it is because of social tranference. That is society remembers and teaches and remembers and teaches...

Homosexuality has developed in too many cultures for it to be a social remnant and has been found in those who were never socialized!

In short, the social argument doesn't hold rabbit piss.

[commiecrusader]

Okay you've lost me with that last point, I don't really understand what you mean by this...

You provide no evidence that the proces is the the reverse of what you outlined.

Homosexuality develops naturaly, biologically and is then used in the way you describe as many other biological processes have been used, to express who's the "boss rabbit".

The point, however, is the "social" processes rarely cross considerable special gaps and even when they do, it is because of social tranference. That is society remembers and teaches and remembers and teaches...

Homosexuality has developed in too many cultures for it to be a social remnant and has been found in those who were never socialized!

In short, the social argument doesn't hold rabbit piss.
Sorry. I'm evidently a moron lol. I do understand the rabbit piss bit... :D

[commiecrusader]

Okay you've lost me with that last point, I don't really understand what you mean by this...

You provide no evidence that the proces is the the reverse of what you outlined.

Homosexuality develops naturaly, biologically and is then used in the way you describe as many other biological processes have been used, to express who's the "boss rabbit".

The point, however, is the "social" processes rarely cross considerable special gaps and even when they do, it is because of social tranference. That is society remembers and teaches and remembers and teaches...

Homosexuality has developed in too many cultures for it to be a social remnant and has been found in those who were never socialized!

In short, the social argument doesn't hold rabbit piss.
Sorry. I'm evidently a moron lol. I do understand the rabbit piss bit... :D

[commiecrusader]

Okay you've lost me with that last point, I don't really understand what you mean by this...

You provide no evidence that the proces is the the reverse of what you outlined.

Homosexuality develops naturaly, biologically and is then used in the way you describe as many other biological processes have been used, to express who's the "boss rabbit".

The point, however, is the "social" processes rarely cross considerable special gaps and even when they do, it is because of social tranference. That is society remembers and teaches and remembers and teaches...

Homosexuality has developed in too many cultures for it to be a social remnant and has been found in those who were never socialized!

In short, the social argument doesn't hold rabbit piss.
Sorry. I'm evidently a moron lol. I do understand the rabbit piss bit... :D

[LSD]

Okay you've lost me with that last point, I don't really understand what you mean by this...

um... what don't you understand?

I'm just pointing out that it is more likely that homosexuality is a biological process that has been used socially than a social process that has biological elements.

[LSD]

Okay you've lost me with that last point, I don't really understand what you mean by this...

um... what don't you understand?

I'm just pointing out that it is more likely that homosexuality is a biological process that has been used socially than a social process that has biological elements.

[LSD]

Okay you've lost me with that last point, I don't really understand what you mean by this...

um... what don't you understand?

I'm just pointing out that it is more likely that homosexuality is a biological process that has been used socially than a social process that has biological elements.

[commiecrusader]

O right. I guess you could be right...

The same could be said about most of the things we do, like talking, eating in groups etc. Fair point.

I guess I'm thoroughly defeated then lol. Although I think the way homosexuality is in humans now ie. homosexuals having the same type of relationship as heterosexuals is a new development, in the grand scheme of things.

[commiecrusader]

O right. I guess you could be right...

The same could be said about most of the things we do, like talking, eating in groups etc. Fair point.

I guess I'm thoroughly defeated then lol. Although I think the way homosexuality is in humans now ie. homosexuals having the same type of relationship as heterosexuals is a new development, in the grand scheme of things.

[commiecrusader]

O right. I guess you could be right...

The same could be said about most of the things we do, like talking, eating in groups etc. Fair point.

I guess I'm thoroughly defeated then lol. Although I think the way homosexuality is in humans now ie. homosexuals having the same type of relationship as heterosexuals is a new development, in the grand scheme of things.

[Wenty]

In the present physiological sense, homosexual sex is exactly the same as heterosexual sex, because it achvieves the same primary present goal of most sex, which is pleasure.

Thats pretty contentious, sex produces pleasure but serves a fundamental function, that of reproduction. Something that pertains to nature in my view.

[Wenty]

In the present physiological sense, homosexual sex is exactly the same as heterosexual sex, because it achvieves the same primary present goal of most sex, which is pleasure.

Thats pretty contentious, sex produces pleasure but serves a fundamental function, that of reproduction. Something that pertains to nature in my view.

[Wenty]

In the present physiological sense, homosexual sex is exactly the same as heterosexual sex, because it achvieves the same primary present goal of most sex, which is pleasure.

Thats pretty contentious, sex produces pleasure but serves a fundamental function, that of reproduction. Something that pertains to nature in my view.

[LSD]

Thats pretty contentious, sex produces pleasure but serves a fundamental function, that of reproduction. Something that pertains to nature in my view.

That issue has been amply covered between myself and commiecrusader.

You are indeed correct from an evolutionary perspective, but physiologically all that is relevent is motivation and cause, not outcome. No one denies that sex produces reproduction, however from a temporal biolical sense, we don't care.

[LSD]

Thats pretty contentious, sex produces pleasure but serves a fundamental function, that of reproduction. Something that pertains to nature in my view.

That issue has been amply covered between myself and commiecrusader.

You are indeed correct from an evolutionary perspective, but physiologically all that is relevent is motivation and cause, not outcome. No one denies that sex produces reproduction, however from a temporal biolical sense, we don't care.

[LSD]

Thats pretty contentious, sex produces pleasure but serves a fundamental function, that of reproduction. Something that pertains to nature in my view.

That issue has been amply covered between myself and commiecrusader.

You are indeed correct from an evolutionary perspective, but physiologically all that is relevent is motivation and cause, not outcome. No one denies that sex produces reproduction, however from a temporal biolical sense, we don't care.

[Wenty]

the truth of that is no greater than if i just happened to say the opposite, its just opinion you're relying on.

[Wenty]

the truth of that is no greater than if i just happened to say the opposite, its just opinion you're relying on.

[Wenty]

the truth of that is no greater than if i just happened to say the opposite, its just opinion you're relying on.

[LSD]

the truth of that is no greater than if i just happened to say the opposite, its just opinion you're relying on.

What??

[LSD]

the truth of that is no greater than if i just happened to say the opposite, its just opinion you're relying on.

What??

[LSD]

the truth of that is no greater than if i just happened to say the opposite, its just opinion you're relying on.

What??

[Funky Monk]

But in ancient societies homosexuality led to the treatment of women as merely objects. Going back to the Spartans, a man wasnt allowed to see his wife in daylihgt for the first ten years of their marriage. She was just a machine for popping out little soldiers.

[Vallegrande]

Homosexuality has been repressed brutally for thousands of years. Sappho of Lesbos was a gay female poet (no wonder lesbian is a word for gay). Only a couple of her works have survived from her collection, because some shit heads burned down the Library of Alexandria, one of the greatest international libraries. This has been going on for many generations due to deluded religious beliefs.

"Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself." -George Carlin

[Grunch]

Yes sorry I know this thread is old oh well.

I noticed some people saying how because homosexuality can be found in hundreds of different species and throught history that its normal or natural. I agree to some extent however, dwarves, and many other people have been born with birth defects throught history and in all species of life. If homosexuality is somthing people are born with then perhaps its a biological flaw. Now the word flaw may hurt peoples feelings but please that is not my intent.