Cause of Homosexuality and Bisexuality

[Esternial]

Well, this is just a theory, mind you.

There might be different forms of homosexuality. One is functional homosexuality, one is accidental homosexuality and the other is societal homosexuality.

Functional homosexuality occurs when two creatures partake in same-sex intercourse to serve some kind of primitive end. Considering many animals run mainly on their instincts, functional homosexual behaviour is primarily for a creature's own gain. Whatever that may be, I dunno, but I ripped an example of wikipedia where insects do it to rid themselves of old sperm.

Accidental homosexuality isn't "surprise buttsex" but also occurs for different reasons. The most obvious I could think of was hormones, chemicals or other substances that lead a male to believe another male is in fact a female. The confused male tries to engage in intercourse and may or may not fail while doing so. There may be other cases based on different principles in higher organisms, but I haven't gotten far with my hypothesis yet.

Societal homosexuality is unique to higher organisms. These tend to have mechanisms to 'reward' the creature for having intercourse, which may cause some animals to engage in homosexual behaviour -- because of an absence of a female at that time. It gets more complex as the organism becomes more complex as well. Bonobo's are an obvious example.

Now I've reading humans. Ourselves. I believe that, because we have developed a society where one is in function of the many (ignore this seemingly communist subtext), as well the development of our brains towards functioning in a society with many of our own kind, that we have suppressed our basic instinct to reproduce to a point where we no longer feel as obliged to pass on our genes, instead now paying attention to a personal advantage in our partner. An emotional advantage. A sound mind in a sound body results in a productive member of society, so if that sound mind finds a member of the same sex attractive, it will.

That's my hypothesis. I know it's pretty crude, but I hope you guys can follow my line of thinking.

Very intriguing. You could extend that further and have a really nice paper on your hands.

Well, it's not part of my field of study, but I do like to ponder about certain subjects

[Laerod]

Quite honestly, only the anti-gay crowd really makes that argument (albeit from an opposite standpoint). When proven wrong, they ask whether rape should be ok because animals do that too.

What?

That whether or not it's natural matters. It's along the lines of "Well it's not natural."

[Menassa]

It's a possibility that theory... again starting off the standpoint that the Bible.... Old Testament was written by man.

Which would again make sense.

Which we could argue from dusk till dawn but let's stay on topic.

[Menassa]

What?

That whether or not it's natural matters. It's along the lines of "Well it's not natural."

Again, because an animal does something doesn't make it good: 'Natural does not mean Good'

This is the lovely Logical Fallacy known as: Appeal to Nature.

[Arcturus Novus]

What?

That whether or not it's natural matters. It's along the lines of "Well it's not natural."

But it is, though. And rape happens at an animal level because they have a more primal society than humans. We've evolved past that, mostly.

[Individuality-ness]

Which would again make sense.

Which we could argue from dusk till dawn but let's stay on topic.

Gladly. I think homosexuality is a combination of both genetics and environment, both prenatal and postnatal.

[Laerod]

That whether or not it's natural matters. It's along the lines of "Well it's not natural."

Again, because an animal does something doesn't make it good: 'Natural does not mean Good'

This is the lovely Logical Fallacy known as: Appeal to Nature.

I'm tempted to allow smilies just for the sake of using the facepalm one.

[Laerod]

That whether or not it's natural matters. It's along the lines of "Well it's not natural."

But it is, though. And rape happens at an animal level because they have a more primal society than humans. We've evolved past that, mostly.

Oh, my God. Does no one read the conversation anymore?

[Menassa]

Again, because an animal does something doesn't make it good: 'Natural does not mean Good'

This is the lovely Logical Fallacy known as: Appeal to Nature.

I'm tempted to allow smilies just for the sake of using the facepalm one.

I wan't to blame my misunderstanding of what you'e saying on your non-clarity... can you repeat it again?

[Menassa]

Which we could argue from dusk till dawn but let's stay on topic.

Gladly. I think homosexuality is a combination of both genetics and environment, both prenatal and postnatal.

That's also a possibility.

[Laerod]

I'm tempted to allow smilies just for the sake of using the facepalm one.

I wan't to blame my misunderstanding of what you'e saying on your non-clarity... can you repeat it again?

I am in no way saying those people are right, I am saying that the premise that some (potentially moronic) people make is: "Because animals do it, therefore it implies it's okay."

Eating pig is natural, people eat certain foods to survive, yet half of the bible forbids it..... the bible Clearly doesn't forbid things because they are: "Unnatural."

Quite honestly, only the anti-gay crowd really makes that argument (albeit from an opposite standpoint). When proven wrong, they ask whether rape should be ok because animals do that too.

[Oneracon]

Clicky. Also, Bonobos.

Well, this is just a theory, mind you.

There might be different forms of homosexuality. One is functional homosexuality, one is accidental homosexuality and the other is societal homosexuality.

Functional homosexuality occurs when two creatures partake in same-sex intercourse to serve some kind of primitive end. Considering many animals run mainly on their instincts, functional homosexual behaviour is primarily for a creature's own gain. Whatever that may be, I dunno, but I ripped an example of wikipedia where insects do it to rid themselves of old sperm.

Accidental homosexuality isn't "surprise buttsex" but also occurs for different reasons. The most obvious I could think of was hormones, chemicals or other substances that lead a male to believe another male is in fact a female. The confused male tries to engage in intercourse and may or may not fail while doing so. There may be other cases based on different principles in higher organisms, but I haven't gotten far with my hypothesis yet.

Societal homosexuality is unique to higher organisms. These tend to have mechanisms to 'reward' the creature for having intercourse, which may cause some animals to engage in homosexual behaviour -- because of an absence of a female at that time. It gets more complex as the organism becomes more complex as well. Bonobo's are an obvious example.

Now I've reading humans. Ourselves. I believe that, because we have developed a society where one is in function of the many (ignore this seemingly communist subtext), as well the development of our brains towards functioning in a society with many of our own kind, that we have suppressed our basic instinct to reproduce to a point where we no longer feel as obliged to pass on our genes, instead now paying attention to a personal advantage in our partner. An emotional advantage. A sound mind in a sound body results in a productive member of society, so if that sound mind finds a member of the same sex attractive, it will.

That's my hypothesis. I know it's pretty crude, but I hope you guys can follow my line of thinking.

An interesting theory, though the research into exactly how primitive non-human minds are is still ongoing. For example, regarding the first part of your thesis statements (for lack of a better term): the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness raises the point that there is a growing body of evidence indicating we are not the only species on this planet that possess higher-level consciousness.

[Menassa]

I wan't to blame my misunderstanding of what you'e saying on your non-clarity... can you repeat it again?

Quite honestly, only the anti-gay crowd really makes that argument (albeit from an opposite standpoint). When proven wrong, they ask whether rape should be ok because animals do that too.

Yes.... thank you for clarity and it is true.

However, I have heard some people (anti-theists mainly) say: "Well, if animals do it."

[Laerod]

Yes.... thank you for clarity and it is true.

However, I have heard some people (anti-theists mainly) say: "Well, if animals do it."

In response to the claim that it's not natural. The line of argument typically gets opened up by the people protesting homosexuality.

[Esternial]

Well, this is just a theory, mind you.

There might be different forms of homosexuality. One is functional homosexuality, one is accidental homosexuality and the other is societal homosexuality.

Functional homosexuality occurs when two creatures partake in same-sex intercourse to serve some kind of primitive end. Considering many animals run mainly on their instincts, functional homosexual behaviour is primarily for a creature's own gain. Whatever that may be, I dunno, but I ripped an example of wikipedia where insects do it to rid themselves of old sperm.

Accidental homosexuality isn't "surprise buttsex" but also occurs for different reasons. The most obvious I could think of was hormones, chemicals or other substances that lead a male to believe another male is in fact a female. The confused male tries to engage in intercourse and may or may not fail while doing so. There may be other cases based on different principles in higher organisms, but I haven't gotten far with my hypothesis yet.

Societal homosexuality is unique to higher organisms. These tend to have mechanisms to 'reward' the creature for having intercourse, which may cause some animals to engage in homosexual behaviour -- because of an absence of a female at that time. It gets more complex as the organism becomes more complex as well. Bonobo's are an obvious example.

Now I've reading humans. Ourselves. I believe that, because we have developed a society where one is in function of the many (ignore this seemingly communist subtext), as well the development of our brains towards functioning in a society with many of our own kind, that we have suppressed our basic instinct to reproduce to a point where we no longer feel as obliged to pass on our genes, instead now paying attention to a personal advantage in our partner. An emotional advantage. A sound mind in a sound body results in a productive member of society, so if that sound mind finds a member of the same sex attractive, it will.

That's my hypothesis. I know it's pretty crude, but I hope you guys can follow my line of thinking.

An interesting theory, though the research into exactly how primitive non-human minds are is still ongoing. For example, regarding the first part of your thesis statements (for lack of a better term): the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness raises the point that there is a growing body of evidence indicating we are not the only species on this planet that possess higher-level consciousness.

Hmm...well that might push several members of the first two categories into the last one, I believe.

Damn it, I want to find out but I can't possibly study genetics, psychology, neurology AND biochemistry...at least not in one lifetime D:

[Menassa]

Yes.... thank you for clarity and it is true.

However, I have heard some people (anti-theists mainly) say: "Well, if animals do it."

In response to the claim that it's not natural. The line of argument typically gets opened up by the people protesting homosexuality.

Which is why I started with: "I support Homosexuals,"

However I also, support Logic.

[Arcturus Novus]

http://www.truthwinsout.org/opinion/2011/10/19114/
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
My friend recommends review of these sites.

[Laerod]

In response to the claim that it's not natural. The line of argument typically gets opened up by the people protesting homosexuality.

Which is why I started with: "I support Homosexuals,"

However I also, support Logic.

I know. I'm pointing out that supporters typically don't open up that argument.

[Menassa]

Which is why I started with: "I support Homosexuals,"

However I also, support Logic.

I know. I'm pointing out that supporters typically don't open up that argument.

Well, My support for logic outweighs my support for Homosexuals then

[Esternial]

Which is why I started with: "I support Homosexuals,"

However I also, support Logic.

I know. I'm pointing out that supporters typically don't open up that argument.

I also tend to come out with certain arguments that make people assume I'm in the other camp

[Kinktopia]

"Homosexuality isn't natural."
Hilarious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... l_behavior

Is 1500 species enough for you?

[Menassa]

"Homosexuality isn't natural."
Hilarious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... l_behavior

Is 1500 species enough for you?

Christians tell me a lot: "You've debunked this prophecy but we have 300!"

300x0 is still 0

[Esternial]

"Homosexuality isn't natural."
Hilarious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... l_behavior

Is 1500 species enough for you?

Christians tell me a lot: "You've debunked this prophecy but we have 300!"

300x0 is still 0

That site's adorable

[Tlaceceyaya]

"Homosexuality isn't natural."
Hilarious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... l_behavior

Is 1500 species enough for you?

Christians tell me a lot: "You've debunked this prophecy but we have 300!"

300x0 is still 0

Note that whenever those lists are taken out, it's in response to someone saying that homosexuality isn't natural. It's not an appeal to nature, it's showing someone that homosexuality is, in fact, natural.

[Kinktopia]

Christians tell me a lot: "You've debunked this prophecy but we have 300!"

300x0 is still 0

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
I was simply removing doubt that homosexuality has been observed in nature. If somebody was not arguing that it has not, that is my mistake.

I would be guilty of the fallacy if I was trying to prove that homosexuality is moral because it happens in nature. I was not.