Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    when did i ever say homosexuality is bad? how do you know i'm not gay?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    What about bisexuality? If everyone was bisexual we wouldn't die out, but I guess that's not 'natural' :rolleyes:
    When they are having sex with the opposite sex then its natural because reproduction can happen. It cant when they are shagging someone of the same sex.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lozza)
    Argh guys! I'm not saying being gay is bad. I'm saying that according to evolution and nature, it's not what is the best idea, seeing as they can't reproduce. if everyone was gay then there would be no more human race. two of my best friends are gay and the only difference it makes is that i get to listen to them blabber on about fit guys instead of fit girls.
    I know at least I wasnt implying that. But I just dont know your argument about evolution holds. I assume evolution is in general, a process that naturally regulates anything that might be a disadvantage to the species.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I was referring to those performed by doctors. People often cherry pick over reasoning with naturalness regarding one scenario and not another, including this one.
    ok. well sucking a foetus out of a womb or killing it with lethal injections isn't natural. but if there was the circumstances, i'd do it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    Please state your argument in a way that does not suggest intent, i.e. change the word 'designed'.
    What words I use to describe it makes no difference, the penis is there to deliver sperm into the vagina for sexual reproduction to take place.

    Bisexuality would be fine too, why don't we do that?
    Raping random women would also spread your genes faster, why don't we do that?
    My answer would be - social factors, and therefore a mix of nature and nurture comes into play.
    Raping women would indeed spread your genes faster, as long as you weren't caught. If there was a gene that made you more likely to be a rapist, that would be an argument for abortion in those cases.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I reckon homosexuality is natures way of keeping control of the human race.
    It doesn't seem to be working too well

    And nature also refers to amounts of minerals/chemicals which enter the body through food etc. at specific times having small effects in the chemistry of the brain which affect behaviour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If it is purely genetics, then it’s a fairly fatal mutation (or inherited gene). I would probably argue that evidence (i.e. twin studies) suggests it has more to do with environment. That isn’t saying that someone chooses their sexuality, but that it is developed from their surroundings like a huge number of things about any one person.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    I know at least I wasnt implying that. But I just dont know your argument about evolution holds. I assume evolution is in general, a process that naturally regulates anything that might be a disadvantage to the species.
    evolution is adapting to the environment and keeping the species going. for example say the earth become really cold, the people who could handle it best would survive and those who couldn't would die (and therefore couldn't reproduce). then if any anomolous children were born who couldn't survive cold, they'd die too. eventually, the only people left would be those who could survive the cold. well that's my simple explanation anyway

    my point is, if everyone was homosexual, we couldn't reproduce, we'd die out. and life is designed to evolve so that it adapts and doesn't die out. hence it does not want all the individuals in the species to be homosexual, as then there'd be no more species. my point is: while a species needs heterosexuals, it doesn't need homosexuals. this is from a purely continuing-the-species pov.

    however, it could be a recessive gene?

    alternatively there's the idea that gay men didn't get enough testosterone in the womb and gay women got too much. so it was a mistake of nature - so natural all the same. i guess it's a difficult discussion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    It doesn't seem to be working too well

    And nature also refers to amounts of minerals/chemicals which enter the body through food etc. at specific times having small effects in the chemistry of the brain which affect behaviour.
    It's just my opinion that homosexuality, along with being infertile, and everything else that happens that makes people 'unable' to have children (I use those words loosely, since gay people can still have children if they so wish, they just don't wish), is there because of nature, not nurture.

    So basically: it's nature, not nurture, so it's not going against nature at all... In my opinion...

    I haven't worded any of this very well, have I?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lozza)
    ok. well sucking a foetus out of a womb or killing it with lethal injections isn't natural. but if there was the circumstances, i'd do it.
    So you keep saying.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    it's probably not a good idea to go around raping women...it's not natural to have your penis chopped off either...
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    What words I use to describe it makes no difference, the penis is there to deliver sperm into the vagina for sexual reproduction to take place.
    When they are having sex with the opposite sex then its natural because reproduction can happen. It cant when they are shagging someone of the same sex.
    I know that heterosexuality is natural, but you haven't convinced me that not being heterosexual is unnatural.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    So you keep saying.
    ?? that doesn't make any sense. of course it's unnatural.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think we've long established that abortion via medical uses is unnatural.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speleo)
    I know that heterosexuality is natural, but you haven't convinced me that not being heterosexual is unnatural.
    if that's your opinion then you can't be convinced otherwise. just don't try to force your opinion on others.

    my glasses are unnatural. my clothes are unnatural. hell, my exams are unnatural. does it really matter?
    Offline

    18
    Lets face it, homosexuality is like masturbation. Probably feels great, but you have no illusions you are going to pass on your genes through doing it, nor that evolution has made you do it or designed you for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think this argument is definitely better considered as genetic or environment, since nature and nurture are far less well defined as biological terms. i.e. if ‘nature’ is taken as a synonym for ‘genetic’, it implies that anything not controlled by genetics is unnatural – which is blatantly nonsense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I think we've long established that abortion via medical uses is unnatural.
    woo, good. i'm still confused
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Lozza)
    if that's your opinion then you can't be convinced otherwise. just don't try to force your opinion on others.

    my glasses are unnatural. my clothes are unnatural. hell, my exams are unnatural. does it really matter?
    precisely. THe whole 'natural vs unnatural' argument is rubbish.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Some stuff I posted in the other thread, to make the discussion a little more informed:

    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    What we need are some identical twin studies...
    Bingo..

    Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

    * 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
    * 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
    * 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

    J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
    Study based on 161 pairs of twins.
    If you take the study to be reasonably accurate, which there are many reasons not to:
    Environmental aspect: 11%
    - based on adoptive brothers as they have not genes in common
    -- This does not account for environmental aspects of the womb, so if likely to be a low estimate

    Genetic aspect: 22 - 41%
    - the lower part of the range is (fraternal twins - environmental) X 2
    -- X 2 because they have 50% genes in common, this is likely to be low as they will have shared a womb and had more similar upbringins than adoptive brothers.
    - The upper part of the range is (identical twins - adoptive brothers)



    So my completely speculative extrapolation of the results suggests a mixture of environmental and genetic, with other taking the majority.
    As I've said this is really just qualitative, but nonetheless interesting.
    Thought I'd add some justification of assuming 11% environmental aspects from the adopted brothers:

    From here homosexual prevalence is around 5%. This gives a 0.25% chance of two brothers being homosexual selected at random.

    Good post. Although I think there could be a genetic part to it in theory. In the past society has been very against homosexuality, and a bit further back being a bachelor all of your life. This could pressure people who might wish to be homosexual to lead a heterosexual life propogating any genetic element there may be.
    Another possibility is if you imagine there are many genes that increase the likelihood of you being homosexual, as with the genetic basis of blood pressure perhaps, then these might come together in some people to cause homosexuality, a bit like a polygenic recessive disorder. If the genes that increased the likelihood of homosexuality when not together conveyed some osrt of advantage, again it could be possible.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 16, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

2,082

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.