Research article on how homosexuality and masturbation is generalised as normal human sexual behaviour but in fact is not

  • Thread starter Thread starter JABA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OraLabora said:
The acts are sterile, but the persons, biologically at least, are not (unless afflicted with a physical disorder rendering them sterile). I know a gay couple with natural children. They came through a previous marriage before one of them “came out”.
Click to expand...
Well, then, you know a gay couple. One of the members of the couple had natural children with someone of the opposite sex.

You do not know a gay couple who have natural children. Biologically impossible.
 
PaulinVA said:
Well, then, you know a gay couple. One of the members of the couple had natural children with someone of the opposite sex.

You do not know a gay couple who have natural children. Biologically impossible.
Click to expand...
True, not without one of the children being borne through surrogate motherhood or conceived from outside the couple. And the children cannot, biologically, “belong” to both in a couple.

On the other hand parenthood is not limited to biological children. I for example, was adopted as an infant. What does that make me, a bastard?
 
Genetics don’t always have to be passed on directly though. Consider something like sickle-cell syndrome. If you get the genetic marker from both sides you are in trouble, but from only one, it is ok and possibly a benefit. So it stays in the population even if those with two markers don’t live to reproduce.

However, I believe most studies suggest that homosexuality does not seem to be genetic, but that perhaps it is at least partly biological in other ways.
 
beeliner said:
I did, long before puberty.

To quote those prominent sexologists Wayne and Garth, it felt a lot like “climbing the rope in gym class.”

Plus, girls were very soft and cuddly.
Click to expand...
haha so you don’t attribute any of that to outside influence though? I think there is a difference between curiosity and sexual attraction as well
 
beeliner said:
  1. Monkeys can be seen masturbating in most any zoo. They would, I’m sure, be amused to learn that cultural influences are involved, so, since they undoubtedly find the masturbation itself amusing, they would, I guess, be amused twofold.
  2. There are people and cultures where open discussion of such matters is almost non-existant.
Click to expand...
  1. Justifying certain human behaviours because some animals do the same is not really a good comparison. Even comparing the behaviour that some children do, does not justify it in adult humans. Let alone comparing behaviour in animals to humans.
Animals don’t have cultures, trends, fashions etc, like we humans do, which greatly play and influence in our behaviour, beliefs and choices we make. Read some stuff about the sexual revolution and it’s influence on western culture, which in turn has influenced certain human sexual behaviours.
  1. True, but this based on a study and facts regarding the views of certain sexual behaviours in different cultures around the world. The whole view that masturbation and homosexuality is infuenced just from our biology is a flawed view based on euro-american(mostly from the sexual revolution) cultural views on sexual behaviour. It is unique view compared to most other cultures around the world. If it is unique view, it sure is not just a biological based behaviour, but in fact more of a behaviour brought on by the influence of culture. In some cultures masturbation and homosexuality almost don’t exist, which really points out they are not just biological based behavious, but in fact more brought on by culture.
 
I always marvel at the monkey argument. It’s ludicrous.

We look for proof and guidance down the food chain, vs. up to the Trinity.
 
Edward_H said:
I always marvel at the monkey argument. It’s ludicrous.

We look for proof and guidance down the food chain, vs. up to the Trinity.
Click to expand...
👍

A new angle on the term “lowest common denominator.” 😃
 
JABA said:
In some cultures masturbation and homosexuality almost don’t exist, which really points out they are not just biological based behavious, but in fact more brought on by culture.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time believing that.

I don’t have a closed mind on the subject, I’d be willing to accept the consensus of modern scholarship; also, I haven’t read the study referred to, if it’s a serious study, it has probably been peer reviewed, what is the consensus of the reviewers? When it’s one or two against many, the many are usually right.

As I said earlier, how openly they are studied, discussed and socially accepted obviously varies widely among cultures.
 
OraLabora said:
True, not without one of the children being borne through surrogate motherhood or conceived from outside the couple. And the children cannot, biologically, “belong” to both in a couple.

On the other hand parenthood is not limited to biological children. I for example, was adopted as an infant. What does that make me, a bastard?
Click to expand...
No, of course not. My brother was adopted. I would never imply that. I just wanted to correct the impression that natural children can issue from any gay union.
 
Edward_H said:
I always marvel at the monkey argument. It’s ludicrous.

We look for proof and guidance down the food chain, vs. up to the Trinity.
Click to expand...
It depends on what it is being used for. If it is being used to say that masturbation (or whatever) is ok, then it does not make sense to use an argument like that.

But the OP here is not about morality - it is about what is natural, in the biological sense.

In that context, the fact that the behavior is seen in nature is relevant. It doesn’t prove that it is of biological origin in humans - there are differences between humans and other animals, even those most similar to us - but it is strong circumstantial evidence, and it does show that it is possible for that behavior to be biological in origin.

I always find it ludicrous that people can’t sort out the difference between a moral claim and a biological claim, and it seems to be people on both sides that make the mistake.
 
JABA said:
They are people in the world and cultures where masturbation and homosexuality is almost non existant[sic].
Click to expand...
Evidence please? I’m really curious if you can list some cultures where masturbation is almost nonexistent.
 
@cerad2
I believe the original post for this thread has an article with such a case described in it…
 
JABA said:
The wide held belief in the western world that homosexuality and masturbation is a normal variant in human sexuality is actually very unusual when you look at human sexuality in the worlds population. They are people in the world and cultures where masturbation and homosexuality is almost non existant. These really proves that these behaviours are not natural, but the products of culture(sexual revolution, choices etc)
Click to expand...
This article is an interesting read, but it doesn’t “prove” anything.

It does say some other interesting things:
  • About the post-partum taboo, earlier research indicated that “Bala men say that no man could go for this length of time without having sexual relations, and therefore, it is reasonable to expect that he will search for other women during the post-partum sex taboo.” Correspondingly, among the Ngandu, having (or searching for) extraneous sexual relations post-partum is extremely common (90%). Does this study somehow also “prove” that extraneous affairs are natural, and therefore acceptable as well?
  • None of the Ngandu men and women were married to each other and only 37% of the Aka men and women were married to each other. Does this study somehow also “prove” that unmarried, long-term partners and families are peachy keen?
  • Both groups believe the primary purpose of coitus is to “search for a child.” With a high child mortality rate (35-45%), I suppose so. If Western countries generally have very low child mortality rates (~ 0.5%), isn’t it reasonable that those cultures would attribute other primary purposes to sex?
 
I think a good way to get some insight into this would be to find a man who had grown up in complete isolation. This would give insight into whether masturbation is a natural urge that is built into us or something that was learned over time and became common practice.
 
Birdpreacher said:
So why did the greeks have pornographic pottery?
Click to expand...
It seems that you reason with soundbytes and use atypical examples as debating methods. In this particular post, you are propagating a myth. Very few of the Greek vases, in the tens of thousands, have overt homosexual themes, just .01%. Direct homosexual behavior were performed by satyrs.

Satyrs were creatures known for their degenerated character. Thus, homosexuality was considered highly negative and has been despised and rejected in Greek law and culture.

Since you favor youtube presentations, here’s one for you: the part on Greek vases starts at 5:37.

By the way, you must have a reason to put Catholic beside or under your name, but the views you have expressed in the few threads you have participated since your very recent join date contradict Catholic teaching and position. Did you make a mistake with your self affiliation disclosure, or at the least fail to put a qualifier? Just saying, because the courtesy is expected so those who will engage you in this forum (you know this is a Catholic site, right?), we have a good starting point and you can do away with needless prefacing.

Thank you.
,
 
Ahimsa said:
Do you reject the possibility that someone may, from a very young age, feel sexual attraction to someone of the same gender? Many gays testify to that feeling, which would make their sexual attraction less likely to be due to culture, and more likely due to non-cultural factors.
Click to expand...
Until I read this post I would have rejected the possibility of a Jesus Buddhist. Wonders never cease, it seems, but, I suppose, in this day and age a self invented religious affiliation, or inclination, should not surprise. All I have to do now is work out whether Christianity or Buddhism is in trouble.

I am very surprised, however, that anyone still suggests the idea of the possible existence of a particular “gay gene”, which seems to be the conjecture contained in your post. In the mid 1990s Gene Xq28 was identified by American geneticist Dean Hamer as supposedly lnked to homosexuality. The link didn’t hold up under closer scrutiny and the same variations of gene Xq28 show up on heterosexuals. Anyway, the “gay gene” myth was set free. The story became even more convoluted in 2004 when Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua came up with statistics that showed the mothers and other female relatves of homosexuals were substantially more fertile than the mothers and female relatives of straights. The idea is that homosexuality is some quirk of nature which has as its design the increased fertility of women. Weird. We await further developments. Most geneticists now beleive that social conditioning plays a huge role in even genetic variation, with messenger RNA able to re-write DNA code within a generation according to environmental and social conditions.

Regardless of all the genetic-cultural mumbo jumbo, homosexuality is a condition of a small minority group in society, as it has been down through the ages. It beggars beleif that somehwere between 1% and 3% of a population should have so much interest shown them and why they should have developed so much political clout. Both are unwarranted. The danger is that the minority will create a sociological and environmental context in which homosexuality will be normalised and encouraged to flourish. The abnormal and the paradoxical will be given normalcy because a noisy minority are given a listening ear by political leaders who do not have the moral courage to maintain a common morality. The evidence suggests this is happening already, carried forward by an organised gay lobby.

No doubt by the time we figure out what a Jesus Buddhist is, we will have some more answers. Might take a while though.
 
Man the first time I remember masturbating I was around 3 or 4… I have heard of peoples kids masturbating even younger. I didn’t know what I was doing, just that it felt good. It happens and is a common behavior among animals and people. Same thing with same sex attraction… I am attracted to both sexes and I remember around 6 or 7 wanting to kiss girls like boys kiss girls. I didn’t know what gay or bisexual was, it happened naturally. I am not saying either is moral or not… I am just saying these things do happen naturally.
 
Young children and babies masturbate and are most likely not exposed to anything to influence them into such behavior. It’s a normal behavior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top