Is it OK to be gay?

Is it OK to be gay?

I'm not asking whether we should take them out and execute them, I am asking whether we should encourage them.

Whenever I try to understand things from the gay community viewpoint I keep coming back to this question. Is it natural? I keep coming up with the answer that it is not. No matter what fancy arguments they come up with, I have to face facts, and the facts are that the manner in which they practice sex is not natural.

Mother Nature or God (take your pick) designed human beings with sexual organs for the purpose of propagation of the species. I find it amusing that the left wing that screams evolution and science will also scream we must encourage homosexuals.

Homosexuals try to fit the round peg into the square hole. It just ain't natural.

Homosexuals say they are born that way. That they have no choice. The APA says homosexuality is not a disease or mental illness. Maybe they are right, maybe not. What happens if we put a little "science" into the argument? In societies that are extremely accepting and permissive of homosexuality does the rate of homosexuality increase or decrease? These societies already exist and how come no studies have been conducted to survey the results? Is it because we fear what the results will be? That the rate within permissive societies will actually show an increase and expose homosexuality to be a disease that can spread?

If it is not a disease it should not spread once the floodgates are opened. Let's conduct a study and see what science has to say about it. As for the APA? Them people used to be in favor of lobotomies. That which they study is an inexact science. Will they too accept the facts when it is pushed under their noses? Or will they continue to insist the unnatural is somehow natural?


Blogger Michael said...

Hmm... there are some seriously faulty arguments here.

"... the manner in which they practice sex is not natural."

Firstly, what is your definition of natural? This is the first failing step in your (and indeed for many other people) logic. In this setting, there are actually two meanings.

(1) Natural as "intended by nature"
(2) Natural as a "subjective value statement"

For most homosexual people, the sexual acts they practice is as "natural" (i.e., innate biological urges) as heterosexual acts for heterosexual people. If this is so (i.e., the sex they engage in is in fact NOT some deliberate choice they perform AGAINST their biological predisposition), then in must reasonably be designated as "natural" as "intended by nature". That is, natural (biology) designed them to be homosexuals.

One could argue that a heterosexual person engaging in homosexual sex would indeed be "not natural" and similarly for a homosexual person with heterosexual sex.

Which leaves that most people when they say their "sex is not natural", they actually by large fall into the second definition of "natural". That is, it is simply a value statement. "Homosexual sex is not normal" because "I don't like it" / "I don't think it's right" / etc, rather than "against the nature order".

Mother Nature or God (take your pick) designed human beings with sexual organs for the purpose of propagation of the species. I find it amusing that the left wing that screams evolution and science will also scream we must encourage homosexuals.

By your natural view of the purposes of our sexual organs, then surely homosexual sex is then no different than oral sex, masturbation or contraception?

The view that our sexual organs are only for the purposes of procreation in the Western World is a mythology spread by the Christian Church, entrenched during the Victorian period and still lives on today. People have sex, and have always had sex for many reasons other than procreation. Pleasure and intimacy seems like pretty good reasons to have sex!

The proof that humans evolved to have sex for reasons other than procreation? Humans, unlike many other animals, have sex ("naturally" because we "desire" it) throughout the entire menstrual cycle of the woman. Humans continue to have sex after the woman reaches menopause. Therefore, sex (and the energy involved in doing it) outside of the bounds procreation must somehow (or at least, very probably) have provided a survival benefit. The reason? We are social creatures and sex is (as I'm sure a number of authors have written) the "glue" which binds society.

Humans are also not the only animals which have sex for non-procreation purposes and are not the only animals to have homosexual sex either.

In societies that are extremely accepting and permissive of homosexuality does the rate of homosexuality increase or decrease? These societies already exist and how come no studies have been conducted to survey the results? Is it because we fear what the results will be? That the rate within permissive societies will actually show an increase and expose homosexuality to be a disease that can spread?

There are studies. Perhaps you simply don't read them. In all societies, regardless of "permissiveness", the rate of homosexuality is about the same. It is the number of people "coming out the closet" that is different. If you could be executed for being a homosexual, you wouldn't say so in public either.

There are plenty of studies looking at the cause of homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. It is almost certainly "biological". That is, you don't get to choose whether you are straight or gay. There is probably some genetic link that gives a predisposition, but it is most likely that your sexual orientation is hardwired into your brain during interuterine neurological development.

feminised brain, female body --> heterosexual woman.
feminised brain, male body --> homosexual man.

masculinised brain, male body --> heterosexual man.
masculinised brain, female body --> homosexual woman.

Furthermore, even if a "learned behaviour" could spread, does it make disease? I'm sorry, but you are falling into moralising rather than logic. Increasing rates of oral sex as well as women shaving their pubic hair is almost certainly a "learned behaviour" that has "spread" in the last few decades. However, that is hardly a "disease".

For a behaviour to be a "disease" or "pathological", it must be disruptive to the degree that they are no longer functional in society. For example, someone who feels angry when they get cut off in traffic may have a short temper, but it is not a "disease". However, if their fuse is so short and they lack sufficient self control such that they regularly get into fights, then that may well be a "pathological behaviour". Similarly, if someone's fetish for women's underwear is limited to getting pornography or a "Victoria's Secrets" brochure then it is not pathological. If they start stalking women, then it is.

The vast majority of homosexual people live perfectly normal and "respectable" lives. Their sexual orientation does not affect their social functioning. By definition then, homosexuality is not a "behavioural disease".

12/08/2005 08:40:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...


Let me kill two birds with one stone. Not natural sex and sex is for propagation.

The reason sex "feels good" is so that we do it often. The reason Mother Nature or God (again take your pick) wants us to do it often is because it is the best way for the species to stand the best chance to continue to survive in the face of setbacks (as for example the threat of bird flu).

As for which meaning of natural was I referring to? I will sign on with "intended by nature". I object to the second definition because if that was "allowed" then just about anything, anywhere, on any subject is "natural". As in it would then have to be "natural" for man to murder man because man is inherently evil etc etc. It is not "OK" for a murderer to kill for money only because he "naturally" would prefer to be rich rather then poor.

The reason the sexual urge exists is for the propagation of the species. Just because homosexuals might have the desire for sex in ways that does nothing to assist in this goal does not mean is "natural". At a minimum it must be described as a birth defect or evolutionary dead end.

While heterosexuals might use their sexual organs in ways they were not intended does restrict that there is at least there is a chance for the round peg to find its way to the round hole (this is a little off color I know)and a baby might be the result.

I "naturally" might desire to stamp out homosexuality because it does nothing to ensure the survival of the species, and in fact might be a threat to such survival if bird flu reaches its potential. One of our basic instincts is supposed to be survival of the species.

You are correct that I have not seen any of the studies you say have been conducted. Can you point me to where I can read about them myself? I will warn you that I think I will find fault with them because you already try to explain away increases as just be more people coming out the closet. This gets back to the homosexual argumnent that there are three types of sexual preferences, heterosexuals, homosexuals and liars, saying that anyone who claims to be bisexual is just lieing.

This "we must be accepting" argument gets just downright ludicrous. I saw one case reported upon in TV. It was a case of a man who says he is a woman trapped in a mans body. He was even undergoing a sex change operation. Only problem is that he did not think he was just any woman, he is a LESBIAN woman trapped in a man's body. He still prefers women, but he has to be a lesbian woman!

I have listened to the arguments because I did not want to be a bigot. I now think it is the homosexuals that are the bigots. They are right because they want us to accept, condone and encourage their lifestyles. They are unwilling to engage in reasonable, rational argument and refuse to accept any conclusion other then they are right. They are bigots.

12/08/2005 03:01:00 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

For studies, go to PubMed or Medline and search using the appropriate terms (e.g., "homosexual").

Once again, humans sexuality is not simply designed to "propogate the species", otherwise, the vast majority of us will only have sex with females "on heat". From an evolutionary point of view, sexual intercourse required a lot of energy, not to mention we are somewhat distracted when we do it (risky if sabre-tooth tigers are roaming around).

For those animals where sex is primarily about procreation, they only have sex when it is likely to be successful. Humans, however, do not and this implies that human sexuality has evolved to have other purposes. As I mentioned before, this is most likely as a socialising agent.

For example, the bonabo monkey has clearly "social sex" and even homosexual sex as well.

As for evolutionary "dead end", it is clearly not the case. A "true" homosexual may well never have any children, but that doesn't mean that his genes won't propogate. For example, by your reasoning then, surely there should be no one around with inheritable genetic diseases that are fatal before reproductive age? Well, there are plenty of diseases that fit this category (e.g., cystic fibrosis). The same genes may be carried in some people without "producing gayness". The same gene variant may arise spontaneously. Or, they may actually have reproductive benefits in the other gender:

New Scientist Article.

In any case, it seems like that your main objection to homosexuality is ultimately that you don't like their "lifestyle". That is fine and I think that most people who dislike homosexual "culture" feel the same as you. However, I do not feel that it is reasonable to try to justify your emotional response by trying to apply entirely spurious logical arguments.

Homosexuality is not a "disease". It is a variant of human sexuality. Homosexual sex between consenting adults does not harm anyone any more than heterosexual sex between consenting adults.

I don't need you to "accept" homosexuality insofar that I don't expect you to be permissive of homosexual sex. You can be as disgusted as you want inside the confines of your own thoughts. However, I do not believe that it is reasonable for you or anyone to openly or covertly discriminate against someone on their sexual orientation.

Frankly, I don't think someone who is homosexual should be expected to "engage in reasonable, rational argument" if you charge them of being "unnatural" and "bigots" because they want you to "accept" them insofar as not to be openly discriminated against.

Imagine the following:
You go to party where 90% of the participants are Indonesian so they frown upon PDAs (public displays of affection). Someone comes up to you and says,

"Your behaviour is unnatural and immoral," referring to you holding hands with your partner, "please discuss why you do this in a reasonable and rational argument".


12/09/2005 01:01:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

As for not holding hands at a party, if I was in a foreign society where it was not accepted I would refrain from doing so.

For example, when I traveled the world it was explained to me that in some societies it is an insult to wave with the front of the hand, or to point the bottom of your feet to people. I adjusted.

I think society has the right to encourage monogamous heterosexual relationships. We should not "punish" the homosexual for being homosexual anymore then we should punish the adulterer for adultery (although it still should be grounds for divorce).

However I think society has the right to encourage behavior that is best for the species. Monogamous heterosexual relationships are best for society.

I will even sidetrack for a moment. We need not punish adultery as long as we can continue to develope medecines that treat sexually transmitted diseases. As I am sure you are aware the arsenal of medecines is shrinking as STDs develope resistance to existing drugs. Once our arsenal of drugs is exhausted we may have to resort to the "old ways", including blood tests before a marriage license is issued.

This is getting windy but your comment covered so much ground so forgive me.

Other species engage in sex only when in heat because the female becomes fertile so infrequently. Mankind went down a different path with the female becoming fertile often.

Sex is a social funtion? Come on. Heterosexual males will engage in fist fights over desirable females. In some historic human societies powerful males would have harems and engage in polygamy and hog all the women. This is socially desirable?

Why did sexual organs evolve? For propagation. Not for pleasure. It is only pleasurable so we would want to do that which Mother Nature thinks is desirable. Mother Nature thinks it is desirable for humans to have babies and by making sex fun Mother Nature achieves her goals.

I think homosexuality is a choice for many. Despite how at least some homosexuals refuse to be "accepting" of bisexuals I find it just as reasonable to "accept" that a person can become sexually aroused by either sex as becoming aroused by only the same sex. I would like to "encourage" these bisexuals to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle and settle down with a member of the opposite sex and have kids. Kids who can help pay for my Social Security benefits.

If you believe in evolution you must also accept that a mutation of a species that prevents propagation of the species is an evolutionary dead end. Homosexuals can not "naturally" share their genes without engaging in heterosexual sex. They might be able to do so with "unnatural" technological assistance. However this would then involve "unnatural" selection.

As for my being unreasonable in calling most homosexual bigots? Go look up the definition of bigot. When I have tried to engage homosexuals in reasonable debate they normally resort to namecalling such as "homophobe" and "bigot". THEY are the bigots. Why should I have to endure their medecine and they not have to endure a little bit of it coming from me?

I probably missed some of the points from you comment, but I was getting windy enough as it was.

12/09/2005 04:53:00 PM  
Blogger Little David said...


I finally got around to reading the article you provided to the New Scientist. Very interesting. I hope you do not mind if I steal the link and use it to post a completely new post.

I never knew the New Scientist web page existed. I have bookmarked the page. Thanks for that as well.

12/10/2005 06:43:00 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

New Scientist is weekly science and technology magazine. Its main readership are in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, though it is trying to crack into the US market.

It is a very good magazine, if somewhat expensive (I have a "dead tree" subscription).

In general, it has much more "science news" and is easier to read than Scientific American which is much more technically based (i.e., almost a journal). On the otherhand, it has much more scholarly merit than Popular Science which is a piece of trash.

Michael Tam

12/11/2005 12:29:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home