Sexuality - is there a "natural" sexuality

[peekay]

Someone mentioned in a previous thread that they felt homosexuality to be unatural. As far as I am concerned all people are bisexual, should they prefer to admit it or not. Indeed, do close friends of the same sex not embrace? or even kiss? Are these not acts of physical intimacy? How can we draw a line between a demonstration of affection such as this and other sexual acts that would rule someone a homosexual? What should prevents people of the same sex who are close friends from becoming physically intimate with each other?

[munkey soup]

I believe heterosexuality is more natural than homosexuality just because our basic instinct is too mate with the opposite sex and create offspring, something you cannot do with someone the same sex as you. I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, and I am in favor of same sex marriage and same sex couples being allowed to adopt kids.

But as for me considering myself bisexual, no way. Sure I have strong affection toward my friends, but in no way is it sexual. And just think if you had sex with a close female (or male) friend of yours, theres a good possibility that that could ruin the friendship.

Plus (I'm gonna piss some of you off when I say this, but) I think its just nasty, sorry, but thats how I look at it.

[peekay]

lol, no not pissed in the least

and i'm not suggesting people have random sex with their friends, should they be male or female, it would it all likelyhood make things..wierd, at least.
however, i don't see why close friends of any kind could not further develop their relationship into something including increased physical intimacy
isn't that how people meet their mates? my girlfreind an I started out as "just friends" I'm sure it's the same for many.

to counter the point about mating with the opposite sex to be instinct i present the following:
dogs hump things. (in fact, lots of animals hump things)
it sounds stupid, but they do, they'll hump legs, inanimate objects, other dogs of the same sex
heh

[munkey soup]

True, but that's cause dogs are horny devils :)

[Pinko]

Homosexuality, by the very definition of the word nature, is unnatural. The natural order of things runs the other way, nature intends that we mate with the opposite sex to reproduce.
However, wearing clothes is unnatural, smoking is unnatural, cutting our hair is unnatural. We are born with the freedom to choose, we are born with free will (much as I hate to use a term with such religious connotations).
A better question would be to ask if it is wrong.
To which I would answer, no. Each to their own.

[Ian]

I see homosexuality as perfectly natural, it occurs in EVERY specie on earth as was proved not so long ago. I do not believe that anyone would delibrately choose the ridicule of being homosexual so that is another reason I believe it to be natural.

[Marxist1848]

"dogs hump things. (in fact, lots of animals hump things)
it sounds stupid, but they do, they'll hump legs, inanimate objects, other dogs of the same sex "

Dogs hump people legs and other dogs of the same sex...that is true....but not for sexual reasons. It is to establish dominance and rule over that person or animal. The dog below can submit and he will get off or the dog below can try to be dominant and bite the other dogs of of his back, usually resulting in a fight. When a dog humps an inanimate object, there could be a few things. One he could show his ownership on the object by dominating it or possessing it, this way no other dogs/animals can try to take it away. Or, they could be sexually agitated (horny dogs as mentioned before) and be taking out their anxiety on their - bed, pillow, pole etc.

The sexual reasons are pretty rare. The dominance issues show up all the time. I should know. I have 5 dogs and my mom is a dog behaviorist and trainer in her part time.

Oh and i do believe homosexuality is unnatural. I beleivve that the reason there are both women and men is so that they both have offspring as in EVERY OTHER SPECIES on EARTH. And-
"I see homosexuality as perfectly natural, it occurs in EVERY specie on earth as was proved not so long ago."
No it hasnt. The only thing proven in animals was in some species of animals such as slugs, snails, and barnicles which is that they are hermaphrodite and can choose their sex to be the opposite of the fellow orgnism near them allowing for immediate courtship. This way they dont have to search for a mate of the opposite sex but find ANY memeber of their species.

[Marxman]

Hmm, I have nothing to say here, except - Why in the hell is this topic for Politics? I mean, sure, homosexuality in burgeois democracy (today) is more tolerated than in fascism, stalinism. But we must know that even the ancient Greeks had homosexuality in their genes. Later it was kind of artifically abolished due to other totalitarian politics, including monarchy.

[mentalbunny]

well, i think there are two kinds of homosexuality, environment enduced and natural.

My sister (previously my brother) always felt attracted to members of both sexes and always helt he/she should be a woman. Finally she fulfilled her wishes and now lives relatively happily with one of her girlfriends (it's all good, she's polyamorous, as is her live-in girlfriend, I don't know about the other one).

However there are also many cases where homosexuality developes, and sometimes it is less clear if they are to do with the environment or if it is in their genes. I think I'd agree with the possibility of a "gay" gene, but then again maybe it is natural to find both sexes attractive, and as some people find the oppostite more attractive then some find their own more attractive, if you get what I'm saying. I hpoe that makes sense, basically I think that bisexuality is probably the norm, and people have different balances between homo- and heterosexuality. but that's only my opinion.

[Mazdak]

homosexuality is unnatural. But it is not a disease and no one should try to cure it.

[anti machine]

We must all admit that heterosexuality is natural, but i dont think homosexuality is depraved necessarily. I just dont swing that way.

[Fires of History]

Hypocrites, all of ye!

(Ok, thus ends my Pastradamus impression)

Seriously though, I love how people appeal to what's "natural" when homosexuality is brought up. But to those of you who appeal to what's "natural," do you do that in the rest of your arguments?

Do you argue against technology? I mean, what's more unnatural than a homo sapien orbiting the Earth?

Not to mention the fact that everyone likes using the word "natural," but no one ever really defines what they mean by that. Natural law? Natural as "god" intended? What? This vague word "natural" must be defined if people are going to spit it out like some so-called kryptonite to homosexuality.

[mentalbunny]

Fires of History Posted on 9:15 pm on Sep. 3, 2002

Not to mention the fact that everyone likes using the word "natural," but no one ever really defines what they mean by that. Natural law? Natural as "god" intended? What? This vague word "natural" must be defined if people are going to spit it out like some so-called kryptonite to homosexuality.

Well I define natural as something that would happen without environmental interference, suh as other humans and their ideas. I don't realy believe in the kind of creator god who designed us all as we are, but I think there must be some force that we can't explain that set the whole thing rolling. Apparently (I do not know for sure as I have never witnessed it) you can find homosexuality in species other than homo sapiens.

[carlmarx]

i feel hormonal forced sexual activity is normal, its just happens sum people are more attracted to the same sex.

[anti machine]

Natural: Procreation, a dick going in a pussy

Unnatural: homosexuality, a dick going into an asshole

[MJM]

Anti machine: What about anal sex for hetros?

[Socialmalfunction]

lol mjm good point. but what about breast implants? those we all know arent "natural" and yet i know of plenty of guys that say as long as they can touch them its real enough to them. but they still arent natural. i think homosexuality is natural. but if you going into heterosexuality... what about those dads that have the idea of "dick into pussy" as being natural and go for their daughter's pussy? is that natural to anti machines standards? im just curious as to what you think.

[anti machine]

lol, you guys are funny.

[anti machine]

listen, i have tons of gay friends, and i respect the gay community. I'm just arguing that attraction to someone with whom you can procreate is more natural as a same-sex attraction. Hell, its what life is based upon-heterosexuality. Literally.

I dont condemn the gays at all. Unlike Che, to whom this site is devoted to and whom i am assuming you all support.

[Fires of History]

Anti Machine,

I hear what you're saying. I guess if we were still swinging in the trees, the 'group' as a whole would be better off from more numerous 'procreations.' But of course we're not. We've changed. We've evolved (a little at least, lol).

I just thought you were about to pull out the hopeless "natural" argument as a reason to condemn GLBTs. And while you raise a good point about GLBT relationships being based on heterosexuality, I would say many are not. Depends on what you mean by that.

Peekay,

Whether or not you are truly homosexual comes down to attraction. A question of whether or not- when you kiss you friend of the same sex- you want something more? Hugging, kissing, etc, of the same sex can sometimes just be cultural norms.

[vox]

I'm noticing a very disturbing anti-science trend here on Che-Lives. Such faith-based appeals to nature are an example of this. While we can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that some things, such as flying through the sky chasing birds, are unnatural for human beings, it becomes much more difficult to say what is "natural" behavior, and really relies upon the same sort of short-sighted, culturally determined "human nature" arguments used so often by the bourgeoisie. It seems to me that when people here say that homosexual behavior isn't "natural," what they really mean is that it's not natural for themselves, so it shouldn't be natural for others.

If we look at history, we'll find examples of homosexual behavior dating very far back. The Old Testament talks about it. Anyone remember Sappho? Plato? Indeed, we find examples of homosexual behavior historically and cross-culturally, regardless of the prevailing attitude toward that behavior in any specific society. This fact does not lend itself to calling homosexual behavior "unnatural" at all, for, though never the dominant sexual relationship in a society, rarity of occurence is not, by itself, a definition of what is unnatural, especially when we have such a constancy of occurence.

As for the animal kingdom, am I the only one who remembers the lesbian pigeons? Before making a judgment, it's always good to do a little research. Everyone posting on this board has access to the Internet. The Internet is loaded with information. If laziness isn't the reason for such misinformed opinions, then it must be pompousness and arrogance, with people thinking that they know all the facts magically, without doing any reading about a subject.

But guess what? Taking about thirty seconds I was able to find a review at Salon.com of a book about homosexual behavior in animals (http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html). Here's a brief passage:

"Male black swans court and form stable pairs. With two males, they are able to defend huge territories from other swan couples, which sounds like a double-income-no-kids situation except that they often manage to wangle some eggs from somewhere -- all right, they steal them -- and become model parents, twice as successful as straight parents."

And there's more, of course. There almost always is. Seldom is life so simple that one can reach the conclusion, especially without research, that they know all there is to know about anything.

vox

[Marxist1848]

"what about those dads that have the idea of "dick into pussy" as being natural and go for their daughter's pussy? is that natural to anti machines standards? im just curious as to what you think. "
Well in most species in-breeding is a common thing. We probably had some when we were primative (heck we have it still today).

"As for the animal kingdom, am I the only one who remembers the lesbian pigeons? "
Again, animals use these ways of coupling for a few reasons. With the pidgeons, theye could have establishing a rank within the group, or as many other species do - "Male black swans court and form stable pairs. With two males, ...."
Preservation of species! The males are far stronger and euqipped to gaurd eggs. this relationship had no sexual bond between the swans. They gaurded eggs.

"If laziness isn't the reason for such misinformed opinions, then it must be pompousness and arrogance, with people thinking that they know all the facts magically, without doing any reading about a subject. "
No i know about the fucking subject. I know a hell of alot about the subject (the animal part that is) and i dont like the fact you assume ignorance or arrogance. I was not misinformed, i did not feel the need to name these occurances because they had no relevance to homosexuality. My male german sheperd bred with a a working female from germny. the female diedand we were forced to have the qwhole litter put down because no one would care for the babaies. But we didnt. I took them and had to bottle feed them. My other male dog (bullmastiff) was left with his litter for a while as a puppy and has developed some maternal behaviour by watching his mother for so long and being around puppies. he started cleaning the puppies mutually with the male sheperd. They both felt defensive around them and felt as f they were their own.The litter of babies looked at these dogs as their own parents. Does this make my dog gay? no!
its called preservation of species and its a natural instinc. i think you my friend is the one who needs to research more! One who talks of arrogance but drips of ignorance is what some call a hipocrite.

[munkey soup]

Jesus fucking christ! All I was saying was that the majority of people in this world tend to be attracted to the opposite sex because its in our basic instinct to mate and create offspring. Is this statement false? Excuse me for not citing my source! I'm sorry I even said the word 'natural.'

And as for "gay" animals, are they fucking each other for pleasure? Or, as Marxist1848 pointed out, are they cooperating to help ensure their offsprings survival?

[vox]

As I quoted in my post, male black swans have been seen courting each other, as well as male ostriches. Pigeons of the same sex mate for long periods. I suggest you check out the link for yourselves.

Marxist1848, your anecdotal story doesn't appear to be relevant, for you talk only about one animal, not a species, and even then not in terms of sexual courtship or mating.

Homosexual behavior has been documented throughout the animal kingdom. That's the way it is. But don't let the facts get in the way of your cherished opinion. Most people never do.

vox

[mentalbunny]

I do believe I was the first person on this thread who mentioned homosexual animals, so I will mention it again. Dolphins are the only other species (I think) who have sex for ploeasure, they are also sometimes homosexual. I don't know if they go as far as homosexual sex, but then not even all human homosexuals practice anal sex.

I don't really mind what people think aobut homosexuality/transexuality as long as they aren't obviously homophobic. I can cope of people are uncomfortable with the whole thing, it's understandable but I don't like people shoving their opinions down my throat. And with the topic of this thread we are all left to opinion, there is no solid scientific proof (yet) so we are all just using what we know and feel. I suppose that's the point of it, but I can't help feeling there are more important things to think about...

[canikickit]

Chimpanzees have sex for pleasure.

People are usually attracted to the opposite sex because when they are children they develop attraction to their parent of the other sex.

It is a well known fact that males are attracted to people who remind them of their mother and females to people who remind them of their father.

[vodun]

So swans and monkeys and dogs go for gay sex once in awhile. So fucking what? Is that supposed to mean something? "If a dog does it, then it's normal". Hey, discussion over! Oh, except for meat. We can rise above that. Cuz we're humans. But when it comes to butt sex, DOGS AND SWANS DO IT. So it's good enough for humans. Am I following along correctly?

Discriminating against someone who engages in a particular (victimless) sexual behavior is DIFFERENT than acknowledging that that behavior may not be "natural". Unless you have some agenda to push - then it's the same thing, and you're just ignorant because you didn't back up your claim with the Sacred Well Of Truth -- the internet. And you're an evil gay basher. You're all fortunate enough to have a human brain. Not the best invention, I know, but try to use it anyway.

By the way, my dog tried to screw the neighbor's four month old puppy. Is it cool if I bang my neighbors five year old I've had my eye on? The evidence is mounting. Please advise.

[vox]

"So swans and monkeys and dogs go for gay sex once in awhile. So fucking what? Is that supposed to mean something? "If a dog does it, then it's normal". Hey, discussion over! Oh, except for meat. We can rise above that. Cuz we're humans. But when it comes to butt sex, DOGS AND SWANS DO IT. So it's good enough for humans. Am I following along correctly?"

I didn't make the argument that it's "natural" because animals do it. I corrected the falsehoods about homosexual behavior in animals, which you perpetuate by mischaracterizing it as "once in a while" when, in fact, some of these animals mate for a long time.

I did, however, make the argument that homosexuality in people has been around for as long as we can recall, and also in all societies. This, it would seem, is not the pattern of something "unnatural" at all, but something that comes perfectly naturally to a segment of the population.

"you're just ignorant because you didn't back up your claim with the Sacred Well Of Truth -- the internet."

Do you have any specific concerns about the link I left, or are you simply trying to delegitimize it by attacking the entire Internet? Is Salon.com suddenly not credible?

By the way, I also didn't accuse anyone of being "an evil gay basher."

Try reading for comprehension before that knee starts jerking too much, Vodun.

vox

[Angie]

Bisexuality, homosexuality and heterosexuality are all perfectly fine to me, so long as both (or however many) people consented to it, and no unacceptible emotion/physical pain is felt by anyone involved (by unacceptible, I mean that if pain's something you get off on, so be it. But the moment you start screaming for it to genuinely stop, it's no longer okay.) Since all three 'orientations' have all been in existence since who-knows-when, I don't personally feel that I'm in a position to state what isn't natural. They just exist, it's our place to take it with a grain of salt, not to torment those people who aren't exactly like ourselves. If we were all the same, we'd be bloody boring.

[mentalbunny]

Well said, Angie.

[Beyond Good and Evil]

Too often do people simply appeal to "reason" or "science" or, in this case, "nature" to push their predijuce and prefrence without explaining it. How does that differ from religous dogmatism?

Concider this: When a person masturbates, they are recieving pleasure and orgasm from a member of the same sex. You can claim you thinking about that girl from school or that guy on the hockey team, but the base line is your still pleasuring yourself - same sex pleasure. Its the physical stimulation that causes the pleasure, the images are meerly to enhance it. Therefore, you can get pleasure from someone of the same sex, even if you dont find them attractive.

You can claim its "unnatural" to have homosexual sex, but what do you concider natural? Benifiting the species? Producing offspring? THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU WEARING A CONDOMN!? Thats right, protected sex is unnatural! (so is masturbation).... What are you having sex for then? The pleasure it brings. Is it natural for us to want to make a heap of babies? Not as much as it is for us to seek pleasure, and often babies are the end result of this pleasure (not that theyre nice when you want them...)

Now, theres diffrent kinds of pleasures I can get out of sex, you may experience something diffrent but this is me here. If I just want an orgasm, then why do I have to find a partner? I can get off to on of 5,000,000,000 sites on the internet and not have to worry about STD, pregnancy, or social relationships. If I have sex with someone its for something more than pleasure. Its for an emotional connection I have with them, that close intimacy, that tender love, that empathy with them that elevates it beyond pure physical pleasure. Thats what I get out of sex.

Is it then "unnatural" that if I make this connection with a member of the same sex to not want to pursue it? Would you really think critically if my love didnt produe babies? Hell, a Nazi would think critically of me for loving a black or hispanic instead of a caucasian, does that make me unnatural to breed outside my "race"? Point being, sex like this isnt done out of love or intimacy, but firstly for race or procreation. You can get lucky and have the two collide, but why risk missing out on love just because of social conditioning?

Its only unnatural when you concider something greater than just you and the other person. Forget nature, forget the human race, forget anything else in the world. Theyre not as important as love. If you fall in love and they feel the same, be it with whoever or whatever, then society be damned. Race, religon, and science be damned. Natural is to follow what you feel, not what an artifical construct like society tells you. Love is the most natural and human emotion possible, and constricting it for any reason is a crime against nature.

Homosexual sex is heterosexual sex that doesnt have a chance to produce offspring. You can say thats unnatural, but then so is heterosexual sex if they use protection. Its that love which is truely natural, which truely matters. Who cares of some people dont concider it to be natural. Its like saying something is a sin, who cares if they dont like it. Who cares if it doesnt benifit society. Its not their life, its yours, and you should live it anyway you feel right.

[Beyond Good and Evil]

Sorry if that's a bit of a rant. All I wanted to say is theres more to sex than pure physical pleasure, and thats theres nothing unnatural about seeking that out in whatever form it may come. To love with a set idea of who or what to love is loosing that special something.

Ultimately, you cant chose who you fall in love with.

[Moskitto]

The only thing proven in animals was in some species of animals such as slugs, snails, and barnicles

I take it you didn't here about the christian fundamentalists who wanted to close down a zoo because 2 of the penguins who seemed very, companioney, were both male.

[Zippy]

Quote: from MJM on 12:18 am on Sep. 4, 2002
What about anal sex for hetros?
Thats neither natural or un-natural, its a weekend vacation. :)

God = good and puff = bad, un-natural, i don't care, bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. Everyone free to bum apes. Bla bla bla.

Zippy.

[uth1984]

Am I the only one who doesnt give a monkey what other people do with their cocks? In a socialist society, no-one would have the power to tell another what was allowed between to people. Freedom is freedom. No socialist should ever be homophobc

[RedCeltic]

Beyond Good and Evil

The above post you made ( first one on page four) was one of the best posts I've read on the subject. Great points. :)

[antieverything]

I live in a rural area of Texas and something interesting that I see is that the ranchers (most of whom are wealthy and vote a straight Republican ticket) are much more tolerant of homosexuality than the farmers or town people. Why? Because in every herd of cattle there is one or two bulls that "swing the wrong way". It isn't that they hump each other because of raging hormones, they actually will only become sexually aroused around other bulls and won't even go near a heffer.