You certainly are taking this discussion far too seriously. I'm going to answer you in the tersest way possible...because, just after posting, what, twice, I feel more than enough hostility coming from both you, Noelle, and most of the others on this topic. If you'd like to take this conservation into the argumentative state, then I'll have no part in it.
Part of the purpose of the Politics & Religion boards is to debate. I apologize if you perceive anything I've said as hostile, as it was not my intent. However, if you do not want your views criticized (or as you've put it, "taking this discussion far too seriously"), then this may not be the right section for you and you may not want to end your posts with "feel free to comment". As Brandon pointed out, you don't have to discuss anything you don't want to, but you should probably let us know up front as not to waste our time.
You just perceive my words as condescending. They were used just to further discuss my point of choosing sexuality.
my posts as hostile -- again, I apologize if that is how you read into my post, as it was not my intent, but just because you do not feel it was condescending doesn't mean it did not have that effect. Justification does not remove that sentiment, in fact, it often makes it worse. I was pointing out that the way you were treating the subject is flippant and marginalizing to the struggles of homosexuals to gain acceptance as being nothing more than "moping" is a very harmful mindset. That is offensive
even if you didn't intend it.
What, a female and male, after having sex, won't produce a baby? Must I really find scientific evidence to prove this? Homosexuality does not create children, of course.
No, procreation was not what I was referring to. That's about the only claim you've made so far that I can
substantiate with science. If you'd like to do a little research and show me what is backing your view on homosexuality as a choice, that would be a great start to an intelligent debate.
Then, if one couldn't choose their sexuality, if it were based solely on biology, when won't those deemed homosexuals be "unnatural"? Men cannot further their bloodline with other males, and the same goes with females. [/size]
I fail to see what procreation has to do with whether or not homosexuality occurs in nature, which by your own definition, would be 'natural'. But again, this point is wholly futile, given the naturalistic fallacy. Whether or not it's natural...really doesn't matter, because 'natural' is not synonymous with any kind of moral concept like 'good' or 'bad'. Some would argue that giving to charity is 'unnatural' (if you'd like to talk about the so-called 'selfish gene'), or that shaving your legs is 'unnatural' (after all, the hair is supposed
to be there!). It's not a particularly strong basis for an argument.
Complete, utter rubbish. Would you like to present me with some evidence that proves this statement's actuality? I, for one, will never have a sexual relationship with a woman--never have I ever had the urge to do this either. I have the strongest grasp upon my sexuality.
I would be happy to, if you could be so kind as to return the favor and maybe show a bit more respect for my opinion than calling it "complete, utter rubbish". I am open to being proven wrong, but only if you're going to make an effort to do so rather than being uncivil.
I did misword my response a bit, so that was my mistake -- I was thinking of adolescence as a different age range than it is, I'm thinking more of early preadolescence and before.
First, I'd like to put your quote into context, since it does matter.
You made this claim:
When you are an infant, you cannot make the choice to be anything other than what your body and hormones exude
When you are an infant
, you do not experience sexual attraction. Infants do not even have a concept of gender or gender identity (this develops a little later on) and therefore are incapable of developing a sexual orientation. This isn't to say that children aren't, at some level, aware
of sexuality -- little boys are notorious for touching themselves because it feels good, but they are generally unaware of what that feeling is and why.Here is an AAP chart of normal sexual behavior in children.Another chart regarding observed typical behavior in children-preadolescents.
This chart is especially noteworthy. A few points:
1. Before children have hit the stage where they have developed a definite gender identity, you'll notice that 13% dresses like the opposite sex and 6% wants to be the opposite sex. As time goes on, these feelings diminish.
2. Curiosity in their own sexual parts is very pronounced at a young age, as well as interest in others. However, you'll notice that their correlation with personal sexual gratification and other people
remains largely non-existent. They are curious about other people's bodies and curious about sexualized things on TV and the like, but have not made the connection yet.
3. I'll point out the "overly friendly with men" category, which starts out at 2.5% and gradually diminishes as they age. Even interest in opposite sex peaks at only 25% between the ages 10-12 and drops before then.
Hormones do not, in fact, play a significant role until puberty -- certainly not when you're an infant.
It is also not uncommon for parents to find their young children engaging peers of the same sex, usually in an exploratory, curious manner (games of 'doctor', etc). This neither confirms nor denies any evidence of homosexual tendencies in children later on.
If it's natural and normal, then why isn't ever animal participating in homosexuality? How can you compare a duck to a human? Even you said they can't choose their sexual orientation.
I didn't say it was normal. If your definition of normalcy is based on what happens in the majority
of cases, then yes, animal homosexuality is abnormal
. As I've stressed many times, normalcy is not a moral definition. Being normal is neither morally superior nor necessarily morally repugnant. So what's your point?
It's natural in the same way cancer is natural. Just because cancer is a naturally-occurring disease doesn't mean everyone has to have cancer.
Animals are completely instinctive, automatic things. They can't think rationally about anything and are extremely simplistic. Lubricious...It's like contrasting a candy wrapper and a rock. Come now...humanity's complexities can't even be categorized in the same bracket as an animal's simplicities. [/size]
I don't understand your views. Humans are
animals. One minute you say homosexuality is a product of biology, but then you say it's a choice. Is your biological sex a choice then, too? I can choose to present myself as a man later on in life, after all!
You say it's unnatural, but then when I give you examples of homosexuality happening in creatures who aren't sentient enough to be able choose, that's also apparently unacceptable to you. You gave the definition of what's natural, I'm abiding by it, and now you're crying foul, not to mention consistently committing fallacies.
Determining whether or not homosexuality in humans is 'normal' is pointless. It's an utterly wortheless endeavor. 'Normal' in the sense of social acceptance is fickle. Normal is a worthless concept.