Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
atomXY

Which orifice is more prone to STDs??

Recommended Posts

We aren't worried about a bias in the information; we're concerned about your motives. Or, more specifically, why you are targeting this particular sex act when the espousing of concerns for peoples' health and safety should, one would imagine, not be restricted to such an arbitrary scope.

 

Lately, gay people have become such that any criticism of them, no matter how true, is considered politically incorrect. I suppose that is the pendulum swinging the other way, and eventually it'll settle down. However, I have a problem when anyone thinks that anyone's sensibilities are more important than the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does that mean that you are or are not okay with people trying to slip under the abuse radar using "concerned for your health" as a cover story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because some people will be biased against you, doesn't mean you should be immune to legitimate criticism. And like I said in post #14, the effects of more people being sick really does affect the rest of us.

 

Would you defend someone who refuses to wash their hands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because some people will be biased against you, doesn't mean you should be immune to legitimate criticism.

Just because no such immunity exists, it doesn't mean that any criticism is "legitimate". Nor does it prohibit a robust response or any form of defence.

 

In the same spirit as your statement, one can't simply hand-wave away a valid or sincere defence just by using the magic words "oh, you're whining because you think we're all biased."

 

The door swings both ways, doesn't it?

 

 

AtomXY has two problems here:

 

1) He is targeting one specific subset of all the people who practice the particular act he is opposing. He did shift the goalposts a little, but his very first post states "I believe that male and female bodies may actually be meant to be together as opposed to same sex couplings".

 

By all means he is free to have an opinion on the health implications of anal sex, but when he starts to use that opinion as a masquerade for his objection to homosexuality -- especially when the rationale is so absurdly obtuse as "an order in the universe says so" -- then that is when people will quite rightly shout "hang on a minute..."

 

2) He is targeting one specific sex act out of all the dozens which have similar or worse health implications. If his concern is as noble as he says then people are going to very naturally hear a little alarm bell ringing when he decides only to crusade against a very specific act, one which he quite obviously believes goes hand-in-hand with homosexuality.

 

Despite his claims that he has "experimented on both sides of the fence", if he had the faintest idea of the breadth of gay (mm, ff, and all manner of trans combos) sexual activities, or indeed straight sexual activities, or any of those which are enjoyed by people of all orientations, then he'd see immediately how ludicrous his proposition is.

 

And like I said in post #14, the effects of more people being sick really does affect the rest of us.

So then you will be advocating a ban on non-procreational sex, for health reasons, won't you? Seeing as how vaginal intercourse is the leading cause of STD transmission.

 

Would you defend someone who refuses to wash their hands?

 

Depends on the circumstances. Clearly if there were better things to argue about, I'd be arguing about those instead. If one directly relates your example to this thread, in terms of the argument structure, it's like asking me to defend the man who didn't wash his hands while everyone else around him is daubing excrement on each other.

 

 

And you didn't answer my question. I expect that kind of thing from members like Traveler and Farsight, not you :confused:

Edited by Sayonara³

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because no such immunity exists, it doesn't mean that any criticism is "legitimate". Nor does it prohibit a robust response or any form of defence.

 

No, but what defense are you referring to? Has someone countered the claim that anal sex is more prone to disease transmission?

 

In the same spirit as your statement, one can't simply hand-wave away a valid or sincere defence just by using the magic words "oh, you're whining because you think we're all biased."

 

The door swings both ways, doesn't it?

 

You are definitely right here. In fact, that is exactly what I was saying -- a claim of bias is not a valid defense.

 

AtomXY has two problems here:

 

1) He is targeting one specific subset of all the people who practice the particular act he is opposing. He did shift the goalposts a little, but his very first post states "I believe that male and female bodies may actually be meant to be together as opposed to same sex couplings".

 

That male and female parts are designed for each other is obvious to anyone, regardless of whether they believe in evolution or creationism. The question of whether a male body part is meant to go with the anus is not so clear-cut. To answer that would require a study of homosexuality among primates.

 

By all means he is free to have an opinion on the health implications of anal sex, but when he starts to use that opinion as a masquerade for his objection to homosexuality -- especially when the rationale is so absurdly obtuse as "an order in the universe says so" -- then that is when people will quite rightly shout "hang on a minute..."

 

Even so, you cannot dismiss a person's question because of their intent in asking it. At least not in science.

 

2) He is targeting one specific sex act out of all the dozens which have similar or worse health implications. If his concern is as noble as he says then people are going to very naturally hear a little alarm bell ringing when he decides only to crusade against a very specific act, one which he quite obviously believes goes hand-in-hand with homosexuality.

 

But in those other cases, no one thinks they are immune to criticism.

 

Despite his claims that he has "experimented on both sides of the fence", if he had the faintest idea of the breadth of gay (mm, ff, and all manner of trans combos) sexual activities, or indeed straight sexual activities, or any of those which are enjoyed by people of all orientations, then he'd see immediately how ludicrous his proposition is.

 

 

So then you will be advocating a ban on non-procreational sex, for health reasons, won't you? Seeing as how vaginal intercourse is the leading cause of STD transmission.

 

No, I never said anything needed to be done about it, other than that they should not be immune to criticism. As for your misuse of statistics, an activity does not become less risky because less people do it.

 

Depends on the circumstances. Clearly if there were better things to argue about, I'd be arguing about those instead. If one directly relates your example to this thread, in terms of the argument structure, it's like asking me to defend the man who didn't wash his hands while everyone else around him is daubing excrement on each other.

 

Not really. If anal sex has a higher risk of transmission than vaginal sex, and I've yet to see anyone showing studies to counter those of the OP that say it does, then that is comparable to not washing your hands. Conversely, it is like you are defending people who stick their privates into excrement (which is largely bacteria by weight, and can have abrasive particles). Urine, on the other hand, is usually sterile, and the vagina is lubricated and less prone to tear.

 

And you didn't answer my question. I expect that kind of thing from members like Traveler and Farsight, not you :confused:

 

I'm not OK with people pretending to have good intentions to cover up their abuse. But what I see here is a legitimate question, even if some would call it abuse. Are you saying it makes no difference whether or not anal sex is more prone to disease transmission?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, but what defense are you referring to? Has someone countered the claim that anal sex is more prone to disease transmission?

I think you are missing my point entirely. I am not defending against the claim that anal sex is more prone to disease transmission, but the idea that this -- backed up by "something in the universe, which may or may not be god, doesn't like it when you do it bumwise" -- is any kind of valid reason to suggest that people stop. Is that more clear?

 

AtomXY does not ask the question about anal sex being more prone to disease transmission, except in the thread title. In his posts the actual content reflects a desire to see people stop having anal sex. This desire is ostensibly down to health reasons, but his rationale betrays an ulterior motive.

 

If this were simply a discussion about the comparative likelihood of STD transmission in vaginal and anal sex, then we would agree that a condom should be worn and move on. In fact that has pretty much already happened. However, the main topic in this thread is the strange link between anal sex and AtomXY's nebulous universal "order".

 

 

That male and female parts are designed for each other is obvious to anyone, regardless of whether they believe in evolution or creationism.

Well, yes. It's bordering on being a truism. But arbitrary anatomical comparisons can't be made against a backdrop of mythical universal order without some pretty compelling evidence.

 

The question of whether a male body part is meant to go with the anus is not so clear-cut. To answer that would require a study of homosexuality among primates.

I'd be interested in hearing what you expect such a study would (or would not) show. But I have to ask, why does sexuality come into it? Anal sex is not exclusive to homosexuals.

 

Even so, you cannot dismiss a person's question because of their intent in asking it. At least not in science.

True, but you can dismiss a proposal that is made on the back of hand-waving and metaphysical quackery.

 

But in those other cases, no one thinks they are immune to criticism.

I wasn't aware that there was a Unified League of All Homosexuals who have vetoed criticism of anal sex. Different people have different views, and you seem to be imprinting your own reaction to some of those views onto your responses to this discussion.

 

No, I never said anything needed to be done about it, other than that they should not be immune to criticism.

Fair enough. FWIW, I agree that no group should be immune to criticism. However that comes with the caveat that if you admonish one group in particular for a certain activity, and ignore other groups taking part in the same activity, then your motives deserve scrutiny.

 

As for your misuse of statistics, an activity does not become less risky because less people do it.

It was not my intention to misuse statistics, nor to suggest that occurrence frequency can be used to downplay risks. What I was saying was that what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

 

I'm not OK with people pretending to have good intentions to cover up their abuse. But what I see here is a legitimate question, even if some would call it abuse.

As I said before, the only place he asks that question is in the thread title. In the O/P and subsequent posts it as almost taken as a given. He sums up his aims as "I basically just wanted to see if others would agree that there is some anatomical order that is better left respected", and characterises this unnamed agent as "some order in our universe" which he had previously described as 'not necessarily God'. Can you honestly say that does not prompt you to question his reasoning more closely?

 

Are you saying it makes no difference whether or not anal sex is more prone to disease transmission?

Nothing so vague. What I am saying is that his argument must be commensurate with his claim.

 

Look at it like this: his claim is "our anatomy does indeed point to an order that is healthy and structured for us to follow."

 

My response to this claim has been to ask why it was broached and discussed in a thread which deals with anal sex (whether mm or mf) as the only act which is deemed to work against this order. I think that the question as to what this shows of the OP's motives is a significant one that needs to be asked, and it should be asked regardless of whether some people think that an over-sensitive gay activist fringe gets its own way too much.

 

I hope that clarifies my position! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtually every STD can pass between partners during anal sex, and for most, penetration isn't necessary and a condom may not protect you.

 

You can quite accurately remove the word anal from that sentance.

 

STDs are harder to diagnose when they are inside your anal canal and not on your penis.

 

I do not believe that to be true :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the natural design of the orifices, the mouth and nose is designed for input and output. Food, beverage and oxygen in and CO2 out, unless you hurl. The butt is designed for output of body waste. It can be used for input but this has no natural practical value, in terms of original design, or the output of waste from the digestive track. The male sexual organs are for output only and female both input and output. Humans have free will, so we can change applications away from original design. We can breath in CO2 but the system will react to this unnatural application. The result will be damage to the system.

 

One can have a street bike or street motorcycle. The parameters are optimized for paved roads. We can take it off road and do things it is not designed for. We own it, so we can do what we want. But the result will excessive wear and atrophy. The sphincter is designed to last a lifetime in terms of a good seal to prevent input of germs into the body. This warranty is based on output only. If you add input you void this natural warranty in terms of atrophy and disease.

 

If anal input is natural for some, their genetics should also have provisions for a heavier duty sphincter design, to meet the parameters of both input and output. I would also expect more immune system defense in the butt to meet the new challenges. If I was going to buy a bike designed for the off road you assume it will meet that design by including heavier shocks. If not, if was not designed to be used that way. We can still use it that way, but you may want to check the warranty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are missing my point entirely. I am not defending against the claim that anal sex is more prone to disease transmission, but the idea that this -- backed up by "something in the universe, which may or may not be god, doesn't like it when you do it bumwise" -- is any kind of valid reason to suggest that people stop. Is that more clear?

 

AtomXY does not ask the question about anal sex being more prone to disease transmission, except in the thread title. In his posts the actual content reflects a desire to see people stop having anal sex. This desire is ostensibly down to health reasons, but his rationale betrays an ulterior motive.

 

Well, he did show several studies to back up his point that anal sex transmits more disease. It does seem like he is rationalizing his distaste for homosexuality, I must admit.

 

If this were simply a discussion about the comparative likelihood of STD transmission in vaginal and anal sex, then we would agree that a condom should be worn and move on. In fact that has pretty much already happened. However, the main topic in this thread is the strange link between anal sex and AtomXY's nebulous universal "order".

 

And if that had happened, I would not have felt the need to chime in. But in stead of saying "Yes it does, what of it?", everyone was saying "STFU, you're biased."

 

Well, yes. It's bordering on being a truism. But arbitrary anatomical comparisons can't be made against a backdrop of mythical universal order without some pretty compelling evidence.

 

He was just saying how both evolutionists and creationists would agree on that, IMO.

 

I'd be interested in hearing what you expect such a study would (or would not) show. But I have to ask, why does sexuality come into it? Anal sex is not exclusive to homosexuals.

 

Sorry, I meant a study of anal sex in our evolutionary ancestors. If it was commonplace, we could have some adaptations for it like we have for vaginal sex. That's all I meant.

 

True, but you can dismiss a proposal that is made on the back of hand-waving and metaphysical quackery.

 

 

I wasn't aware that there was a Unified League of All Homosexuals who have vetoed criticism of anal sex. Different people have different views, and you seem to be imprinting your own reaction to some of those views onto your responses to this discussion.

 

 

Fair enough. FWIW, I agree that no group should be immune to criticism. However that comes with the caveat that if you admonish one group in particular for a certain activity, and ignore other groups taking part in the same activity, then your motives deserve scrutiny.

 

I guess we agree on that then.

 

It was not my intention to misuse statistics, nor to suggest that occurrence frequency can be used to downplay risks. What I was saying was that what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

 

 

As I said before, the only place he asks that question is in the thread title. In the O/P and subsequent posts it as almost taken as a given. He sums up his aims as "I basically just wanted to see if others would agree that there is some anatomical order that is better left respected", and characterises this unnamed agent as "some order in our universe" which he had previously described as 'not necessarily God'. Can you honestly say that does not prompt you to question his reasoning more closely?

 

 

Nothing so vague. What I am saying is that his argument must be commensurate with his claim.

 

Look at it like this: his claim is "our anatomy does indeed point to an order that is healthy and structured for us to follow."

 

In general, what is natural is something we would likely be adapted to (or in the case of creationism, designed to). In both cases, it would be likelier that the natural things are healthier. I think that is what he was trying to argue. But of course I can think of several unnatural things (like condoms, sewer systems, and MRI scans) that are healthier options than going natural. Which is why he had to back up what he was saying with actual empirical evidence, which he did.

 

I'd say that social stigma on homosexuality is probably less healthy than the difference between homosexual acts and heterosexual acts. I wonder what atomicXY would say to that?

 

My response to this claim has been to ask why it was broached and discussed in a thread which deals with anal sex (whether mm or mf) as the only act which is deemed to work against this order. I think that the question as to what this shows of the OP's motives is a significant one that needs to be asked, and it should be asked regardless of whether some people think that an over-sensitive gay activist fringe gets its own way too much.

 

I very much doubt that anal sex is the only thing he thinks is against the natural order. For example, I'm sure he thinks bestiality is also quite unnatural.

 

I hope that clarifies my position! ;)

 

It does. We all agree than no one is immune to criticism, that's fine with me. The perception that others were going for ignoring science in favor of political correctness had me stirred up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people who use the term "evolutionists," are IMO either dumb creationists or heavily influenced by them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people who complain about the use of the term "evolutionists," are IMO either dumb atheists or heavily influenced by them. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. Just to clarify, I didn't intend that as a slight against you, Mr. Skeptic. You've proven your critical thinking ability and knowledge more than enough times for me to take your posts seriously.

 

The larger point being that anyone reasonably educated in the topic doesn't say "evolutionist." That's a common buzzword in creationist arguments. Evolutionary biologists would be better, or "those who accept the scientific accuracy of evolution."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So does that mean that you are or are not okay with people trying to slip under the abuse radar using "concerned for your health" as a cover story?

 

 

By no means am I trying to slip under the abuse radar. I am not trying to throw stones, I've already stated that on a couple of occasions.

I am also against social stigma, which can often lead to horrendous events such as auschwitz. I visited that concentration camp in Poland. No words can describe the depravity that can occur when people's assumptions and responses to those assumptions are left unchecked.

 

It is for this reason that I respect your desire to know what my 'agenda' is.

As I said before I was speaking to someone on the chat site regarding which orifice was more prone to STDs. This individual encouraged me to post my findings under that title and also state my views on whether or not I believed that one could reasonably state that the differences between the anus and the vagina, their uses, and the results of their uses actually pointed towards heterosexuality as the human ideal and/or 'model' for human sexuality.

 

Whether or not heterosexuality is a type of 'order' that is better left respected is an extremely controversial issue and obviously cannot be answered solely on the basis of our anatomical structures, for many more questions exist regarding the complex nature of human sexuality.

 

All I was saying is that although one cannot make such a deduction solely on

the basis of our anatomical structure, it may actually be a piece in the puzzle of our understanding human sexuality and what is best for us.

 

Even if we did eventually find out whether or not heterosexuality is the way things are 'supposed' to be, by no means do I believe that that would make it acceptable for anyone to abuse those that felt pulled in the opposite direction.

 

I am in total agreement that the unhealthy nature of anal sex would also apply to heterosexual couples as well and that there are a variety of ways that sex is expressed among people of different sexual orientations which does not always involve anal sex. I am not seeking to single out anal sex, however, since it is in actuality viewed by some as being not that different from the vagina, I made it the focus.

 

If anyone thinks that my agenda is to abuse others that is not my intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before anyone jumps on you and tries to murder you, I'm going to make a point in the name of Hanlon's razor.

 

The posters here are taking issue at your assertion that there is a way things are "supposed" to be. You are assuming that there is a specific way that people should have sex, when in reality that is a value judgment that we should allow individuals to make. There are lots of things people do that negatively impact their health, yet they engage in these activities all the same. Smoking for example. People can choose to smoke, knowing that it is bad for them. That is their decision, and it is based on their values. You really have no right to impose your values on someone else's life.

 

If you want to debate/discuss the medicine, by all means proceed. But assertions like the above are going to get you torn apart here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The posters here are taking issue at your assertion that there is a way things are "supposed" to be. You are assuming that there is a specific way that people should have sex, when in reality that is a value judgment that we should allow individuals to make....... You really have no right to impose your values on someone else's life..

 

 

I'm not dogmatically saying that there IS a way things are supposed to be and I'm not trying to impose my value judgements on anyone. All I'm saying as I have said various times is that MAYBE our anatomy does speak for itself concerning what is best for us...MAYBE...What we decide to do with our bodies is obviously our own choice.

 

If you want to debate/discuss the medicine, by all means proceed. But assertions like the above are going to get you torn apart here.

 

 

I referenced many science based proofs of differences that MAY actually point to a way that would be better for us to physically express ourselves, sexually speaking. However, when people try to discuss such controversial topics and aren't all green lights about it they tend to get thrashed regardless of whether or not they are discussing it in a respectful manner. Of course people are going to smoke and get inebriated and do all kinds of things that aren't totally good for them, but virtually everything we do with ourselves has some sort of affect on others as well.

 

 

Science is indeed utilized from time to time to determine what is and isn't ethical for us in society. I'm not condemning anyone and I'm not telling anyone what to do, especially since I've launched missiles up my own rear. As ridiculous and corny as it may sound, I'm just thinking about what might be best for us as a whole. Some of you may doubt that and thats your right, but those are my only intentions.

 

"You really have no right to impose your values on someone else's life."

 

Even though this is not what I am trying to do, this statement in and of itself is your value judgement concerning what individuals should do with their values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What, like fingering? Or maybe auto-erotic asphyxiation. Perhaps there is a special place in this order of yours for fisting.

:rolleyes:

 

d08c67e1-ab84-4d71-a51f-b423dc48b5f8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I very much doubt that anal sex is the only thing he thinks is against the natural order. For example, I'm sure he thinks bestiality is also quite unnatural.

Yes, but which one did he choose to start a thread for? That is my worry.

 

I think we agree more than disagree on most other points, after those clarifications.

 

 

By no means am I trying to slip under the abuse radar. I am not trying to throw stones, I've already stated that on a couple of occasions.

I am glad to hear that. Part of my problem with this thread was that I asked what your agenda was very early on and you did not give a very compelling answer either way. I appreciate you denied having some kind of ulterior motive on several occasions, but that is not the same as explaining why you think this question of "natural order" need arise, or what significance you expect to derive from it. Hence my concern!

 

It is for this reason that I respect your desire to know what my 'agenda' is.

As I said before I was speaking to someone on the chat site regarding which orifice was more prone to STDs. This individual encouraged me to post my findings under that title and also state my views on whether or not I believed that one could reasonably state that the differences between the anus and the vagina, their uses, and the results of their uses actually pointed towards heterosexuality as the human ideal and/or 'model' for human sexuality.

 

Whether or not heterosexuality is a type of 'order' that is better left respected is an extremely controversial issue and obviously cannot be answered solely on the basis of our anatomical structures, for many more questions exist regarding the complex nature of human sexuality.

 

All I was saying is that although one cannot make such a deduction solely on

the basis of our anatomical structure, it may actually be a piece in the puzzle of our understanding human sexuality and what is best for us.

I would suggest that the first step in determining if there is an order to be respected, would perhaps be devising some means of objectively showing that humans should not operate in ways for which their bodies are not adapted. I'll hazard that this would be quite difficult to demonstrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but which one did he choose to start a thread for? That is my worry.

 

I think we agree more than disagree on most other points, after those clarifications.

 

I'd also agree that his motives do seem suspect, I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One simple experiment is to simulate 20,000 years ago and see what will happen in a natural environment. What this only requires is getting rid of all modern tweaks that can bias the data. That means no medicines for STD's, no condoms, not emergency visits due to this set of affects, etc. What we will do is let natural selection decide. We will see what is left standing and call that natural. With the modern prosthesis we can lose track of natural because it can make anything possible, that would not hold up under natural conditions.

 

For example, say I like to bang my head against a wall wearing a motorcycle helmet. I can do this without any ill affect. We may call this free choice and even call it natural because it does not harm. Maybe I have the head banging gene. Under the experiment above, without prosthesis, the results will come out different. Natural selection might eliminate me. With prosthesis I might start a fad and be the leader of this fad.

 

Personally, if someone is not hurting another person, it is up to them to decide what they want to do. But I see a distinction between natural (no prothesis) and what is called natural because some form of prosthesis makes this possible. It is not relative, when we remove the prosthesis. Without prosthesis it is logical.

Edited by pioneer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that all of us do have an interest, however slight, in the health of others.

1) A higher rate of sickness among others, increases the chance that I might get sick as well.

2) A higher rate of sickness among others, increases the chance that my money will be used to pay for their treatment.

3) A higher rate of sickness among others, increases the chance that my money will be used to pay for the treatment of secondary infections to others.

4) A higher rate of sickness among others, decreases the contribution they make to the economy.

 

Others' sickness will have an effect on me, however slight.

 

Just a thought -- gay marriage should reduce the rate of disease transmission, which would benefit us all as mentioned above.

 

atomXY, do you support gay marriage as a way to improve the health of gay people, via reduction of STD's (due to having less partners), and improved emotional health (via reduction of social stigma)?

Edited by Mr Skeptic
multiple post merged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who actually aws present in the original IRC Chan discussion, I have to say that the purpose of opening this thread (initially, according to what we discussed) was to review the *substantiation* to the OP's claim that the risk of getting an STD is *higher* through anal sex.

 

The context of homosexuality is irrelevant to the answer. If you start combining the two, you need to add a whole bunch of other phenomena and actions which don't benefit this argument/discussion at all, scientifically speaking.

 

Stick to the subject matter, and don't mix it with homosexuality. If you're against it (which it seems you are, judging from what you say in this post [not just the STDs] and what you said in the channel last time, and regardless of your 'many gay friends which you love') it has *NOTHING* to do with whether or not STDs are transfered more through anal sex or not. It's a COMPLETELY different argument.

 

(for that matter, if you claim that anal sex should be avoided because it holds higher risk for STD, then we should avoid going to med school, or training paramedics - specifically in 'danger' zones and in africa, and killing off any person with HIV so we won't have to put doctors to take blood tests, since the risk of infection is higher. Are you really suggesting this is what we need to do? And.. is it really relevant to whether or not STDs are higher-risk in anal sex or not..?)

 

Stick to the subject matter, and substantiate. Science isn't about opinion.

 

One simple experiment is to simulate 20,000 years ago and see what will happen in a natural environment. What this only requires is getting rid of all modern tweaks that can bias the data. That means no medicines for STD's, no condoms, not emergency visits due to this set of affects, etc. What we will do is let natural selection decide. We will see what is left standing and call that natural. With the modern prosthesis we can lose track of natural because it can make anything possible, that would not hold up under natural conditions.

 

For example, say I like to bang my head against a wall wearing a motorcycle helmet. I can do this without any ill affect. We may call this free choice and even call it natural because it does not harm. Maybe I have the head banging gene. Under the experiment above, without prosthesis, the results will come out different. Natural selection might eliminate me. With prosthesis I might start a fad and be the leader of this fad.

 

Personally, if someone is not hurting another person, it is up to them to decide what they want to do. But I see a distinction between natural (no prothesis) and what is called natural because some form of prosthesis makes this possible. It is not relative, when we remove the prosthesis. Without prosthesis it is logical.

So if homosexuality exists in other species in nature (which it does), evolving without the "external" effects *we* pose on natural selection, but rather evolving in nature (with a variety of species, some of which developed in non human populated areas of the world - hence, we [humans] didn't affect them), doesn't that prove it is natural?

 

Not that it's relevant to whether or not homosexuality is 'valid' or not, or to the OP specific question..

 

~moo

Edited by mooeypoo
multiple post merged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From another thread:

 

 

Homosexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species--particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented. This discovery constitutes a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision. For example, male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In a well-publicized story from 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.

 

The genetic basis of animal homosexuality has been studied in the fly Drosophila melanogaster. Here, multiple genes have been identified that can cause homosexual courtship and mating. These genes are thought to control behavior through pheromones as well as altering the structure of the animal's brains. These studies have also investigated the influence of environment on the likelihood of flies displaying homosexual behavior.

 

Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorized that homosexual behavior, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males. Studies indicating prenatal homosexuality in certain animal species have had social and political implications surrounding the gay rights debate.

 

Is sexual orientation a matter of choice? Mounting evidence seems to point against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a thought -- gay marriage should reduce the rate of disease transmission, which would benefit us all as mentioned above.

 

I disagree! Does marriage mean people are actually faithful? I don't think so. Marriage would have no effect on infection rates imo (in either the homo or hetero sexual community).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no marriage will not force people to be faithful but it will prevent some people from straying which would cut transmission rates at least a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine that the kind of people who get married and stay faithful would be the kind of people who would have stayed faithful without a ring on their finger/s. Gay couples would have practiced all that marriage without actually having a certificate.

 

I really don't see that would make any difference.

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  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.