• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Scientifically homosexuality is NOT normal

J

Jack Dawson

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
When you can scientifically get members of the same-sex to create children, when you can get two like poles to attract magnetically, when you can get two RCA male speaker jacks to rub together and have music come out of the speakers, when you can get to female wall plugs touching and make a lamp turn on then I will think homosexuality is 'normal' and scientifically correct.

Do I think homosexuals are bad people, definitely not in fact quite the opposite most are very caring, loving individuals but the act they participate in is scientifically not normal or productive.
 
Jack, you get no argument here.
 
Re: Scientifically homosexuality is normal

Jack Dawson said:
When you can scientifically get members of the same-sex to create children, when you can get two like poles to attract magnetically, when you can get two RCA male speaker jacks to rub together and have music come out of the speakers, when you can get to female wall plugs touching and make a lamp turn on then I will think homosexuality is 'normal' and scientifically correct.

Do I think homosexuals are bad people, definitely not in fact quite the opposite most are very caring, loving individuals but the act they participate in is scientifically not normal or productive.
Click to expand...
Your argument doesn't hold water.

First off, "scientific" or "scientifically correct" is an ambiguous statement. Science being a term for the methodology of proving something as possible or correct or as m-w.com defines it:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>

Since it's known that homosexuality does exist in mankind as well as animals. That it is an observable behavior in both, where is the scientific fallacy?

I'm assuming your basis for saying that homosexuality is "not normal" or "scientifcally correct" is surrounding the basis that homosexuals cannot procreate. However, it's known that homosexuals are physically able to have children. Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals have all created children. No, they can't do it without a male-female pairing, but the propensity to do such is there. Of course, humans and mammals are not genetically predisposed to mate with a single other for their whole lives. The purpose of procreation is to keep the species alive. By limiting the gene pool to one partner, it doesn't breed out imperfections. Society's construct of monogamous marriage goes against a scientifically proven natural construct for random procreation. The evolutionary suggestion that has been put forth is that a homosexual (who does not normally reproduce) is able to provide more nutrition to the family/clan without further draining the resources by producing children that would drain those resources. Since his/her nieces and nephews carry on a certain percentage of his/her genetic code, s/he is actually promoting genetic survival. There are several species of animals which have "bachelor uncle" individuals, so the concept is not far-fetched on the face of it.


So what is natural and what is "normal". Is it normal for humans to spend their time philosophizing on homosexuality on a computer to a complete group of strangers? Is that what nature intented or is it what has evolved out of society?
 
Welcome to debate politics. :)

First of all, I think you are way off.

How can one promote genetic survival without adding to the gene pool?
There are several species of animals which have "bachelor uncle" individuals, so the concept is not far-fetched on the face of it.
Click to expand...
The 'bachelor uncle' is the animal that is not strong enough to get to reproduce. Definaly not by it's own accord or interest.

Is that what nature intented or is it what has evolved out of society?
Click to expand...
Society - without question.
 
vauge said:
Welcome to debate politics. :)

How can one promote genetic survival without adding to the gene pool?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the greeting! :D


Here's a recent study from New Scientist that shows how genetic survival is passed on without adding to the gene pool: (bolding mine)

(SNIP)... The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

“We have finally solved this paradox,” says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. “The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females.”
(SNIP)
Click to expand...
In this study, we're showing that the same gene(s) that create homosexuality in offspring will also inversely create a higher level of fertility in the females in the same gene lineage. Now, IMO, the study isn't as in depth with the number of its participants than I'd like to sufficiently prove this theory, but it's an interesting start. The problem with the statement that Jack Dawson proffered is the fact that it's not backed up with scientific studies, it's solely an opinion with syllogistic statements.

It's also still scientifically possible for homosexuals to reproduce via artificial insemination (See Julie Cypher for instance) and there has been success with mice:
As reported in the journal Science and explained in The Washington Post, scientists have used mouse embryonic stem cells to create mouse eggs in the laboratory. Interestingly, the mouse eggs were created from both male and female cells -- indicating that males have the biological capacity to produce eggs, the Post said.
If duplicated in humans, homosexual couples theoretically could attempt to have their own biological child -- with one man supplying the sperm and the other man supplying the laboratory-produced eggs having his biological material. A surrogate mother would be necessary to carry the baby.
Click to expand...
Of course, we're still working without a definition of "normal" which is such a subjective term to begin with.
 
:applaud Very excellent rebutal. Interesting read as well.

Seems extreamly far fetched, but you presented the evidence needed to make me think about it more.

[ there are issues with the rep system currently, hopefully we will get it fixed shortly. ]
 
In my eyes, whether or not homosexuals are scientifically "normal" doesn't matter to me. I still think they should be given the same respect all humans deserve and should be able to live their lives in peace free from harassment or discrimination.

Forgive me if this argument seems a little off topic and uneducated, but I felt it needed to be said.
 
Hell It's not normal but let them marry and leave these people alone. I know many homosexuals and I think they could be good parents also. They are humans and it is wrong to not let them be recognized as life partners or parents because of their sexual preference.
 
I've heard of *politically incorrect*, but scientifically incorrect? Puh-leeze!
 
Re: Scientifically homosexuality is normal

Gay activity is unnatural and therefore unscientific. In short the anus is not meant to have the penis in it its disgusting unnatural and unhealthy.
 
Re: Scientifically homosexuality is normal

^With all due respect, it is only your opinion it is unnatural. Monkeys have sword fights, rhinos spear each other, soldiers used to keep each other company. You believe it is unnatural-that doens't make it so.

Love and affection are never unnatural imo, but again, that is just opinion, not fact.
 
Re: Scientifically homosexuality is normal

phate17 said:
Gay activity is unnatural and therefore unscientific. In short the anus is not meant to have the penis in it its disgusting unnatural and unhealthy.
Click to expand...

Guess what? Lots of gay men do not have anal sex and lots of heterosexuals do.

Your point is?
 
Well I have a question. IF it is not natural, why then, is the male "G" spot in that end of the body?! Men have the capability of having two different types of orgasm (penile and prostate), the same as women with clitoral or vaginal orgasms. Or is this another case of giving you something naturally, then saying "Don't do this".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom