An accidental homosexuality experiment?

rolling7 said:
Make sure, StSapphire, that all are aware you ask for this.

A beaver builds a dam..........that is nature.

Mankind build the Hoover and many other dams..........that is against nature.
Click to expand...

Uh... just because you said so? What is the basis for your statements? Both dams are structures built entirely of atoms and quarks and were made by creatures who were themselves made entirely of atoms and quarks.
 
souggy said:
Yes, it has its origin in robotics; but I have heard used a lot in biology. It's when two species are within hybrid zones, they can hybridize, but the behavioural protocols are too dramatically different for such matings to take place-- so they don't intermix.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this post.
 
rolling7 said:
Make sure, StSapphire, that all are aware you ask for this.

A beaver builds a dam..........that is nature.

Mankind build the Hoover and many other dams..........that is against nature.
Click to expand...

A person posting on alldeaf.com = nature?

(That sounded almost like dr phil.... :run: )


Seriously folks, I don't even understand this.... comparison with animals. If you compare humans with animals regarding homosexuality, you will see that there's quite a bit of evidence of homosexuality (check out those wild Bonobo females!). But um.... why are we even comparing ourselves with animals? If you say that whatever animals do is "natural", well then I got news for you, buddy. NOTHING we do is natural! Wearing clothes, pooping into porcelain, getting manicures, filling out forms, applying hairspray, pay taxes, and so on.
 
StSapphire said:
What the hell is this?

1) You see points in the process of evolution. I'm pretty sure you've never "seen evolution" unless you've performed laboratory experiments, since in the wild, evolution is an exceptionally slow process, dependent upon the rate of reproduction of the species it's acting upon.

2) I'm not entirely certain, but I'm pretty sure the Big Bang cosmological model isn't yet a full Scientific Theory, though I could be wrong. However, if it is, then you're severely abusing the dead horse meme of "just a theory".

3) Define something which is 'against nature'? Everything that exists exists naturally. There's no such thing as "unnatural" because everything is made of atoms and quarks, and atoms and quarks are natural.



Who said anything about the uncanny valley? The only way I've heard that used was in talking about cyborgs/human-shaped robots.





Er, you *were* the one who mentioned racism. Though who knows, that guy's post was just a wibbly-wobbly mass of confusion.
Click to expand...

Check back. I asked a question. I did not make a statement.:cool2:
 
Daredevel7 said:
A person posting on alldeaf.com = nature?

(That sounded almost like dr phil.... :run: )


Seriously folks, I don't even understand this.... comparison with animals. If you compare humans with animals regarding homosexuality, you will see that there's quite a bit of evidence of homosexuality (check out those wild Bonobo females!). But um.... why are we even comparing ourselves with animals? If you say that whatever animals do is "natural", well then I got news for you, buddy. NOTHING we do is natural! Wearing clothes, pooping into porcelain, getting manicures, filling out forms, applying hairspray, pay taxes, and so on.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really making a comparison. Just pointing out that when others bring "nature" into the discussion, the evidence is against them.;) And after all, we do share >99% DNA with those wild Bonobo females.:giggle:
 
jillio said:
I wasn't really making a comparison. Just pointing out that when others bring "nature" into the discussion, the evidence is against them.;) And after all, we do share >99% DNA with those wild Bonobo females.:giggle:
Click to expand...

Oh I know. I'm saying for a person who thinks it is unnatural, using animals as a comparison is an awful route to go for debating. Even *I* can come up with better reasons why it is "unnatural".
 
Daredevel7 said:
Oh I know. I'm saying for a person who thinks it is unnatural and using animals as a comparison, it's an awful route to go for debating. Even *I* can come up with better reasons why it is "unnatural".
Click to expand...

As can I, and I don't even see it as unnatural at all.:lol:
 
Daredevel7 said:
A person posting on alldeaf.com = nature?

(That sounded almost like dr phil.... :run: )

Seriously folks, I don't even understand this.... comparison with animals. If you compare humans with animals regarding homosexuality, you will see that there's quite a bit of evidence of homosexuality (check out those wild Bonobo females!). But um.... why are we even comparing ourselves with animals? If you say that whatever animals do is "natural", well then I got news for you, buddy. NOTHING we do is natural! Wearing clothes, pooping into porcelain, getting manicures, filling out forms, applying hairspray, pay taxes, and so on.
Click to expand...

Bah. That's all natural. For humans. Just like playing with a piece of string is natural for a domesticated cat, or building a dam is natural for a beaver. We live in a fully reducible universe, and everything that happens does so in accordance with the laws of physics. The entire concept of "unnatural" doesn't really make sense.

jillio said:
Check back. I asked a question. I did not make a statement.:cool2:
Click to expand...

I more meant your post was the first time racism was ever mentioned in any manner, as far as I could tell.

jillio said:
I wasn't really making a comparison. Just pointing out that when others bring "nature" into the discussion, the evidence is against them.;) And after all, we do share >99% DNA with those wild Bonobo females.:giggle:
Click to expand...

Not to mention that humans are a species of animals.
 
jillio said:
medical evidence is strongly supportive that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, not a choice of behavior.
Click to expand...

Being a learned characteristic does not imply that it is chosen. A characteristic can be learned and yet not be a choice (ex. tastes, opinions, religious beliefs).

Medical evidence is far from supporting that sexual orientation is innate. Many studies show no biological differences between sexual orientations. Here's a recent review for example:
http://dio.sagepub.com/content/52/4/127.full.pdf+html

It doesn't not mean that sexual orientation is learned, rather that there is not enough evidence to affirm anything. After all, whether one's sexual orientation is innate, learned or a combination of both, one thing is certain: it is not a choice. For example:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pro/33/3/249.pdf
 
Clairol said:
Being a learned characteristic does not imply that it is chosen. A characteristic can be learned and yet not be a choice (ex. tastes, opinions, religious beliefs).

Medical evidence is far from supporting that sexual orientation is innate. Many studies show no biological differences between sexual orientations. Here's a recent review for example:
Sign In

It doesn't not mean that sexual orientation is learned, rather that there is not enough evidence to affirm anything. After all, whether one's sexual orientation is innate, learned or a combination of both, one thing is certain: it is not a choice. For example:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pro/33/3/249.pdf
Click to expand...

Agreed. I lean toward an innate predisposition that is activated by environmental circumstance and experience. Either way, it is not a choice.
 
jillio said:
Absolutely. Homosexuality is not learned anymore than heterosexuality is learned. Why would anyone choose to learn and continue a behavior that creates such a dangerous environment for them given the view of some segments of society.
True story or no, medical evidence is strongly supportive that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, not a choice of behavior.
Click to expand...

I know a guy that gay and he said was because he never felt that his father love or accepted him . He is trying to get the love he never got from his father.
I know women and men that been abused by their mothers and fathers and they learned not to trust or feel save with the opposite sex.
 
No studies support this view. The vast majority of raped people are straight girls... that remain straight. Your friend's case is exceptionnal and does not apply to the vast majority of LGB people.

Anyway, no there is no thing as an "opposite sex" since males and female have more similarities than differences.
 
Last edited:
Banjo said:
Well, you'll be surprised what people would resort to.
Click to expand...

You got that right!! My best girlfriend got pregnant and their parents made her give her baby up. My friend tried to commit suicide after giving up her baby and her parents put her in mental institution had their daughter get shock treatments and have the doctor put an IUD in her while she was passed out from a shock treatment! My poor friend knew something was wrong and the doctor lies to her and said it was from having a baby! My friend parents finally told her years later just before she was getting about the IUD! My friend came to my house crying ! She was so mad about being lies to and being violated by their parents! This is only half of what her parents did to their poor daughter! Is is a down right crime what some parents will do to their child!
 
jillio said:
Especially "well meaning" parents. Personally, I think the mother's complete lack of respect for her son, and her dishonesty in her behavior is a much bigger issue than her son's homosexuality.
Click to expand...

I just posted a comment about some "well meaning" parents I knew!!
 
Back
Top