Seems this guy has already made up his mind, and is just looking for a place to disparage homosexuals.
You said "Man and man coming together is Unnatural by definition because it goes against how nature intended things to go." So by your own definition masturbation would be unnatural too, since you cannot reproduce that way and it's against how nature intended things to go. Might be time for a new definition.
So, Man has the ability to remove a cap from the top of a McDonalds cup. The drink is intended to be consumed with a straw, one can come to the conclusion of that because of the hole where the straw is sopposed to be placed. Also the cup comes with a straw. Instead man intends to drink the beverage without the cap on and without the straw. Like I said, the drink is intended to be consumed with the straw because the straw is given to him Aswell as the hole in the cup where the hole is sopposed to go in. Man has no knowledge of why it's this way, but he can come to the conclusion of that because the evidence that he has acquired.
Ask McDonald's how they intend their sodas to be consumed. I guarantee you they will say "however our customers want to." They give out straws so that if people want to use them (and many do) they can. Well, no, in most cases it's somewhat rare (although not in all cases.) In such cases it is natural but not normal.
It would be wierd for me to disparage homosexuals because they have made huge contributions to the better of society. Im here to acquire a better understanding as to why homosexuals exist. Currently I am getting more knowledge, and it is quite satisfying.
McDonalds gives you the capability to drink with the straw or without it - your choice. Nature gives you the capability to hook up with either males or females - your choice. Same thing. Are you honestly interested in why we have that choice or are you just going to keep repeating your unsubstantiated opinion?
If it is natural, then why isnt all beings homosexuals? Something happened unnaturally as a result of mistakes which broke from the norm and became not normal. One could not possibly say this was intended.
Because "natural" does not mean "all." Black skin is natural for some people. It would be silly to say "if black skin natural, then why isn't everyone black?" Nothing happened unnaturally. Nature created homosexuality in penguins, hawks, dogs, humans etc etc.
Maybe sex with the same gender is a way for organisms to relax sexual arousal and satisfy themselves but social taboos prevent it. Mistake? Stuck in the brain? Listen there are too many people in the world as it is, limits on reproduction are going to required at some point so homosexuals are probably extending our freedom to reproduce - THANKS GUYS, AND GALS! Why would you give two hoots and a holler who someone is attracted to anyway. I am pretty sure even God almighty said in Levitation or Coronation that he doesn't give a shit if man lies with man.
You keep harping on intentions. Whose intentions? Nature has no intentions. Evolution has no direction. It just runs wild and whatever survives survives. If humans (and other species) have survived with homosexuality then it must be beneficial or at least neutral.
Nature made a mistake in penguins, hawks, dogs and humans ect ect. Instead of taking the appropriate course of action in the creation of those beings, it made some mistake that resulted in the sexual orientation of that animal towards its gender instead of the one of the opposite. Like I said, instead of taking the typical course of action it made a fault, an error. Now , if anyone could give me an explanation as to how a homosexual comes to identify himself as one, that would be helpful.
"Scientists may have finally solved the puzzle of what makes a person gay, and how it is passed from parents to their children. A group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuals get that trait from their opposite-sex parents: A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother. The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities. Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link. Long thought to have some sort of hereditary link, a group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuality is linked to epi-marks — extra layers of information that control how certain genes are expressed. These epi-marks are usually, but not always, "erased" between generations. In homosexuals, these epi-marks aren't erased — they're passed from father-to-daughter or mother-to-son, explains William Rice, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Santa Barbara and lead author of the study.] "There is compelling evidence that epi-marks contribute to both the similarity and dissimilarity of family members, and can therefore feasibly contribute to the observed familial inheritance of homosexuality and its low concordance between [identical] twins," Rice notes. Rice and his team created a mathematical model that explains why homosexuality is passed through epi-marks, not genetics. Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce. But because these epi-marks provide an evolutionary advantage for the parents of homosexuals: They protect fathers of homosexuals from underexposure to testosterone and mothers of homosexuals from overexposure to testosterone while they are in gestation. "These epi-marks protect fathers and mothers from excess or underexposure to testosterone — when they carry over to opposite-sex offspring, it can cause the masculinization of females or the feminization of males," Rice says, which can lead to a child becoming gay. Rice notes that these markers are "highly variable" and that only strong epi-marks will result in a homosexual offspring. Though scientists have long suspected some sort of genetic link, Rice says studies attempting to explain why people are gay have been few and far between. "Most mainstream biologists have shied away from studying it because of the social stigma," he says. "It's been swept under the rug, people are still stuck on this idea that it's unnatural. Well there are many examples of homosexuality in nature, it's very common." Homosexual behavior has been observed in black swans, penguins, sheep, and other animals, he says. Rice's model still needs to be tested on real-life parent-offspring pairs, but he says this epigenetic link makes more sense than any other explanation, and that his team has mapped out a way for other scientists to test their work. "We've found a story that looks really good," he says. "There's more verification needed, but we point out how we can easily do epigenetic profiles genome-wide. We predict where the epi-marks occur, we just need other studies to look at it empirically. This can be tested and proven within six months. It's easy to test. If it's a bad idea, we can throw it away in short order."---
A mistake would be defined as some random mutation that only appears rarely without any known cause or consistency. Homosexuality is nothing like that. For humans it appears in offspring roughly 5% of the time regardless of location or culture. It is correlated both genetically and epigenetically to traits passed down from the parents. For twins it occurs roughly 50% of the time, WAY above the average 5% frequency. It is even observed to confer a reproductive advantage on families, the sisters of gay brothers tending to be more fertile than average. So it obviously has a structural etiology from our DNA as well as a survival function in our evolution. That's hardly a mistake by any stretch.
Yes, much knowledge. Good. Heck, homosexuality could possibly be a population controlling technique. I have acquired enough knowledge for today on the subject. Goodbye and thank you fellow man for your contributions.
No, nature doesn't make mistakes. Mistakes implies there is a right way and a wrong way to do things - and in nature there is no such thing. Homosexuality is as much a natural part of us as our appendixes, our little toes, our skin color, our eye color, old age, intelligence etc. Now, YOU can decide that you think homosexuals are a mistake, an aberration, a sin etc - but that is your judgment, not nature's. They are attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex.
MR, you seem to be referencing : "Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development", by William R. Rice, Urban Friberg, and Sergey Gavrilets. The following is a "quote" of the "abstract" of that "publication : - the ^^above quoted^^, as well as the full publication is available for viewing, absolutely free, at this Link : http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167 , Copyright © 2012 by The University of Chicago Press. All rights reserved. Magical Realist, it is a very well researched and evidenced study and should probably be mandatory reading for "Man"(the Poster of the OP) and anyone else who is seriously interested in this issue.
"Intended"? What is that supposed to mean? As others have already pointed out, the universe is not conscious. It has no "intentions." It is what it is, and it is the way it is. It's our job as scientists to figure out how it got that way, not to ask why? Why is the sky blue? Why do people die? Why is the sun programmed to become a red giant in another five billion years, making Earth uninhabitable? The relatively common sight of a male dog humping another one is not homosexuality. The dog's body is not very extensively articulated. There are very few movements it can perform, compared to a primate, especially our species with our wrists, shoulders, hips and other joints that can move in almost any direction, not to mention our grasping fingers. There aren't very many motions that a dog can make. Humping is one of them, since it's necessary for procreation. So it is also simply their way of asserting dominance. Among domestic dogs, who happily grant pack leadership to a biped who drags home a dead cow twice a month, dominance is nothing more than play. As a dog breeder I've seen females humping males, and each other. It has nothing at all to do with sexuality. It's just one of the few things they can do! I lived in Hollywood for many years so I got to know quite a few gays. Basically, it works the same way for them as it does for us. As human children approach adolescence they feel the first stirrings of their hormones and find themselves attracted sexually to others. We heterosexuals feel that attraction for people of the opposite sex. Gay people feel it for people of the same sex. Duh? And BTW, now that sexuality is not a tabu subject, and also since homosexuals feel safer talking about it candidly, research has determined that roughly 90% of humans are heterosexual, and the other 10% are homosexual. (These are round numbers. Even in today's more open culture you can't count on getting honest answers from people about something so personal, which can always backfire on them.) That dividing line is not actually a line. Straight people close to it identify themselves as heterosexual, yet find it enjoyable occasionally to have a liaison with a person of the same sex. Gay people on the other side of the line feel the same way about having a heterosexual fling once in a while. Those who are right on the line are true bisexuals, who feel equal attraction for both men and women. The studies obviously cannot come up with accurate counts of these people, but the researchers suggest that they make up no more than 2% of the population. These are the people who may manifest homosexual tendencies but can be pushed in the direction of straightness by family, culture, church, etc. And, unfortunately, these are the ones that the Religious Redneck Retards parade for us, as evidence that homosexuality can be "cured."
Agreed, that's a dominance display, and is separate from true homosexuality in dogs (which also occurs, albeit at a much lower rate.)
