Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ritastrakosha

Modern diet and stress cause homosexuality?

63 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I am saying that loving a person of opposite sex is natural.

 

It is. Loving a person of the same sex is natural, too. Everything that happens must be natural.

 

Which could bring us back to an old discussion asking whether our clothes are natural or not.

We had one or two people here that wanted to be straight and looking for some sort of medical intervention.

 

Psychotherapy is more in its place then.

 

Poignant how people can be made into thinking that they, or what they believe in or stand for, is not natural and should be fixed. Poignant how even the most modern societies can be cruel to minorities.

 

Roger Dynamic Motion, might I, a bit off-topic, enquire your views on transsexualism and transgenderism?

Edited by Function
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is. Loving a person of the same sex is natural, too. Everything that happens must be natural.

 

Which could bring us back to an old discussion asking whether our clothes are natural or not.

 

 

Psychotherapy is more in its place then.

 

Poignant how people can be made into thinking that they, or what they believe in or stand for, is not natural and should be fixed.

yes it is natural The homosexuality way way back in time was forbidden because it would slow down the reproduction of human on earth but it is natural feeling for an other person .
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it is natural The homosexuality way way back in time was forbidden because it would slow down the reproduction of human on earth but it is natural feeling for an other person .

 

Stating this, how could you ever say in post #41 that there is a choice involved in the development of sexual orientation?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stating this, how could you ever say in post #41 that there is a choice involved in the development of sexual orientation?

I have never said that; go see again .
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never said that; go see again .

 

To my question asking you whether a choice exists in sexual orientation, you answered "yes very much so."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Function, on 01 Jun 2017 - 2:42 PM, said:

Are you insinuating the existance of choice in sexual orientation?

yes very much so . The homosexuality way way back in time was forbidden because it would slow down the reproduction of human on earth .

meaning that to chose a person as your lover is ok and natural according to nature not because of the law of Man .

Edited by Roger Dynamic Motion
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes very much so . The homosexuality way way back in time was forbidden because it would slow down the reproduction of human on earth .

It can increase the survivability of offspring and in a sense increase reproduction rate. It's called the gay uncle hypothesis (I love this name)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You say that choice is involved in the development of sexual orientation. My dear friend, it is not. If it were, I'd choose to be attracted to women. For a multitude of reasons.

 

 

 

"Reparative therapy", pardon me? Nothing is broken, nothing has to be repaired. Trust me, the examples you give are whatsoever destructive for the mental well-being of the homosexual. They do not inherently 'want' to become heterosexual, they think they do because they are forced into believing they must. These lines of thought are no natural thought patterns and are mere results of public opinion and its religious influences on sexual orientation and are - plain wrong.

 

"Nothing is broken"? One of the main functions of every living organism is reproduction and the brain of persons unable to have heterosexual sex is missing this function . At the population level it does not create problems as long as it is isolated to a few members.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"Nothing is broken"? One of the main functions of every living organism is reproduction and the brain of persons unable to have heterosexual sex is missing this function . At the population level it does not create problems as long as it is isolated to a few members.

 

Heterosexual sex is no prerequisite for reproduction. Above all, lots of heterosexuals do not reproduce, whereas a fair amount of homosexuals do reproduce, albeit mostly not in a manner involving sexual intercourse.

 

Sex is no requirement for reproduction and we have luckily enough evolved to a situation where this thought pattern can be eradicated. I hope you will follow and leave behind your - forgive me - narrow-minded thoughts.

 

Above all, and more important, we, as self-conscious human beings, have evolved into organisms able to fill in the meaning of life and its goals ourselves, not letting them be dictated by others or so-called evolutionary postulations. If we decided for ourselves that indeed, our only main goal would be reproduction and conservation of our species, then we should ask ourselves what the general purpose of that would be. If we have no other meaning than reproduction and conservation, we could all hang ourselves because our intrinsic life would have no purpose.

Edited by Function
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Heterosexual sex is no prerequisite for reproduction. Above all, lots of heterosexuals do not reproduce, whereas a fair amount of homosexuals do reproduce, albeit mostly not in a manner involving sexual intercourse.

 

Sex is no requirement for reproduction and we have luckily enough evolved to a situation where this thought pattern can be eradicated. I hope you will follow and leave behind your - forgive me - narrow-minded thoughts.

 

Above all, and more important, we, as self-conscious human beings, have evolved into organisms able to fill in the meaning of life and its goals ourselves, not letting them be dictated by others or so-called evolutionary postulations. If we decided for ourselves that indeed, our only main goal would be reproduction and conservation of our species, then we should ask ourselves what the general purpose of that would be. If we have no other meaning than reproduction and conservation, we could all hang ourselves because our intrinsic life would have no purpose.

 

Heterosexual sex is a prerequisite for non-assisted reproduction. Medicine can assist reproduction artificially, like it does for many other dysfunctions, but it has a health and financial cost for the persons involved and it may not be possible in poor countries. Reproduction is not necessary to have a meaningful life, but it makes a good life even better. That's why many homosexuals adopt children or have biological children through artificial means.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

Heterosexual sex is a prerequisite for non-assisted reproduction. Medicine can assist reproduction artificially, like it does for many other dysfunctions, but it has a health and financial cost for the persons involved and it may not be possible in poor countries. Reproduction is not necessary to have a meaningful life, but it makes a good life even better. That's why many homosexuals adopt children or have biological children through artificial means.

 

Medicine assists in "natural" reproduction too. Imagine the child and mother mortality rates otherwise.

 

If medical intervention is your criterium for excluding reproductions as "non-assisted", then you should exclude most pregnancies and births and reproductions in most developed countries. What about medical help with subfertility or infertility? This still applies to heterosexuals, too, and is an assisted form of reproduction. I suggest you exclude all reproductions in which medical help is involved to any degree, end up with only a few reproductions, and check what the mortality rates are there.

 

It is impossible to exclude medicine from modern reproduction. Reproduction is no longer equal to the old-fashioned image you may have of it, we are way ahead ot that. We do no longer live in the ancient times you recall without medical help, without assisted reproductions, and without homosexual reproductions.

 

Additionally, do you have arguments against surrogacy? That's quite "natural" (in your definition) and can still be the product of love between 2 homosexuals and the natural help of a third. Would that be unnatural?

 

Your attempts to blackguard homosexuality in the evolutionary sense keeps failing in my opinion. I'm sure there will be others here totally agreeing with you, but your thoughts prove a certain lack of progressiveness, which is essential in a science forum.

 

There's this critical question, stating that if homosexuality has nothing but disadvantages in an evolutionary sense, then why wasn't it eradicated over the last millions of years? If it wasn't present from the beginning, why would it randomly occur and persist to occur from a certain point on, if it were so unnatural and disadvantageous to evolution? I'm asking you to give me a convincing answer to that question, staying loyal to the ideals you have made clear before.

Edited by Function
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Medicine assists in "natural" reproduction too. Imagine the child and mother mortality rates otherwise.

 

If medical intervention is your criterium for excluding reproductions as "non-assisted", then you should exclude most pregnancies and births and reproductions in most developed countries. What about medical help with subfertility or infertility? This still applies to heterosexuals, too, and is an assisted form of reproduction. I suggest you exclude all reproductions in which medical help is involved to any degree, end up with only a few reproductions, and check what the mortality rates are there.

 

It is impossible to exclude medicine from modern reproduction. Reproduction is no longer equal to the old-fashioned image you may have of it, we are way ahead ot that. We do no longer live in the ancient times you recall without medical help, without assisted reproductions, and without homosexual reproductions.

 

Additionally, do you have arguments against surrogacy? That's quite "natural" (in your definition) and can still be the product of love between 2 homosexuals and the natural help of a third. Would that be unnatural?

 

Your attempts to blackguard homosexuality in the evolutionary sense keeps failing in my opinion. I'm sure there will be others here totally agreeing with you, but your thoughts prove a certain lack of progressiveness, which is essential in a science forum.

 

There's this critical question, stating that if homosexuality has nothing but disadvantages in an evolutionary sense, then why wasn't it eradicated over the last millions of years? If it wasn't present from the beginning, why would it randomly occur and persist to occur from a certain point on, if it were so unnatural and disadvantageous to evolution? I'm asking you to give me a convincing answer to that question, staying loyal to the ideals you have made clear before.

 

Homosexuality continues because of 2 main reasons:

 

-As a byproduct of high sexual willingness: Several studies show that in promiscuous species homosexuality is more frequent. The same gene that makes one relative promiscuous, with several partners and a lot of children, makes the other relative homosexual. While a non-promiscuous species would respond to stress by shutting down reproduction, the promiscuous species would respond to stress by accelerating reproduction, intensifying sexual response, lowering the threshold to orgasm and responding more quickly and more randomly to stimuli.

-The other kind of homosexuality is that related to gender non-conformity. A highly masculine father and a highly feminine mother are very successful individuals. When these traits are inherited to the opposite sex child they make for a gender non-conform child and when inherited to a same sex child they make for a very successful one. The successful child continues to procreate and inherit the gene, while the gender non-conform child becomes homosexual. Stress and diet increases gender non-conformity by sending hormones to their extremes.

 

So the genetic predisposition to homosexuality is inherited from generation to generation because it confers advantages to some individuals and disadvantages to others. It is similar to other diseases. For example, the gene responsible for thalasemia protects against malaria, the genes responsible for obesity protect against starvation during famine etc.

Regarding the unassisted reproduction: In Afghanistan, where there is almost no medical assistance during pregnancy and after, the death rate during childbirth is only 1 in 100 births.

 

Yes, many reproductions are assisted. Medicine identifies the situations when it needs to intervene as diseases, disorders and the patient accepts that she/he has that disorder and asks for help. While homosexuals consider themselves totally healthy and still ask for help from medicine (or from other individuals like surrogates) for reproduction.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several studies show that in promiscuous species homosexuality is more frequent. The same gene that makes one relative promiscuous, with several partners and a lot of children, makes the other relative homosexual.

 

The other kind of homosexuality is that related to gender non-conformity. A highly masculine father and a highly feminine mother are very successful individuals. When these traits are inherited to the opposite sex child they make for a gender non-conform child and when inherited to a same sex child they make for a very successful one. The successful child continues to procreate and inherit the gene, while the gender non-conform child becomes homosexual. Stress and diet increases gender non-conformity by sending hormones to their extremes.

 

It is similar to other diseases. Regarding the unassisted reproduction: In Afghanistan, where there is almost no medical assistance during pregnancy and after, the death rate during childbirth is only 1 in 100 births.

 

Medicine identifies the situations when it needs to intervene as diseases, disorders and the patient accepts that she/he has that disorder and asks for help. While homosexuals consider themselves totally healthy and still ask for help from medicine (or from other individuals like surrogates) for reproduction.

 

Considering the promiscuity: we were told it was the other way around, that homosexuals were more prone to promiscuity and this promiscuity is a necessary condition for the conservement of a healthy relationship in lots of cases.

 

The next paragraph is a very dangerous one. For lots of reasons. Please provide peer-reviewed articles supporting your statements there.

 

Again, homosexuality is not a disease. Stop suggesting so. Concerning the child mortalities alone: please do compare with developed countries.

 

Per conclusion, your view on the need for medicine is very old-fashioned, lacks progressiveness (which is obligatory nowadays) and just plain wrong. Again: stop suggesting homosexuality is a disease, or just get out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0