Homosexuality selected because of societal function

[glassjester]

Why don't we "marry" men and pigs?

After all, it's prevalent among animals, so it must serve a legitimate purpose!

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals#Cross_species_sex

Male sea otters have been observed forcibly copulating with seals,[55][56] and male seals have been observed forcibly copulating with penguins.[57] Male grasshoppers of the species Tetrix ceperoi often mount other species of either sex and even flies, but are normally repelled by the larger females.[53] Males of the spider mite species Panonychus citri copulate with female Panonychus mori mites almost as often as with their own species, even though it does not result in reproduction.

Same for pedophilia:

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals#Sex_involving_juveniles

In one reported observation, a male spotted hyena attempted to mate with a female hyena, but she succeeded in driving him off. He eventually turned to her ten-month-old cub, repeatedly mounting and ejaculating on it. The cub sometimes ignored this and sometimes struggled 'slightly as if in play'. The mother did not intervene.[59][60]
It appears to be common in the Adélie penguin.[61]
Among insects, there have been reports of immature females being forcibly copulated with.[62]
Juvenile male chimpanzees have been recorded mounting and copulating with immature chimps. Infants in bonobo societies are often involved in sexual behaviour.[63] Immature male bonobos have been recorded initiating genital play with both adolescent and mature female bonobos. Copulation-like contact between immature bonobo males and mature female bonobos increases with age and continues until the male bonobo has reached juvenile age.

And necrophilia (too long to quote here)
Tons of examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia#Other_animals


You see, to cite animal behavior as proof that homosexuality "has a purpose," you'd have to also acknowledge the "purpose" of necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia.

OR, we can come to the conclusion that...

Not every deranged act an animal engages in has legitimate purpose.
Rather, these examples are more than likely disordered animal behavior.
Or are we to believe that animals are not capable of having disorders?

 

[patrick jane]

Homosexuality is not prevalent, not natural and it's morally reprehensible -

 

[Tambora]

The original post was a reply to someone who claimed homosexual was immoral because it was unnatural, did not lead to reproduction and thus failed the achieve the goal of sex.

And just what goal is accomplished by your sperm being pumped into another man's poop chute????????

 

[glassjester]

And just what goal is accomplished by your sperm being pumped into another man's poop chute????????

Oh goodness. This thread's going to be closed!

 

[Tambora]

You see, to cite animal behavior as proof that homosexuality "has a purpose," you'd have to also acknowledge the "purpose" of necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia.

OR, we can come to the conclusion that...

Not every deranged act an animal engages in has legitimate purpose.
Rather, these examples are more than likely disordered animal behavior.
Or are we to believe that animals are not capable of having disorders?

Good point.

 

[Selaphiel]

And I have yet to see a good moral argument in support of a man poking his pee-pee in another man's feces chute.(Sorry, but there is just no way to say it without being a tad graphic.)
Whether moral or immoral, natural or unnatural, it's just downright filthy.

I don't quite see the moral relevance of "I think it is disgusting". Seems to me that that is their business.

And it (homo butt poking) is useless when considering the survival continuation of the species.
Other than a perverted and filthy way of self gratification, what use is it for the species?

That is a question for biology to determine. It seems highly unlikely that it serves no purpose when it exists species ranging from dragonflies to giraffes.
And you cannot reduce homosexuality to one particular sexual act, that is one sexual expression of homosexual relationships. That act might be useless in and of itself, but it may indirectly serve a function by being the sexual expression of a relationship that serves a beneficial function in the perpetuation of the species in social animals.

Other than a perverted and filthy way of self gratification, what use is it for the species?

Unknown. I just think that it is unlikely that it serves no function given that it exists in so many species. There are of course theories on this, you can read that if you want.

But nothing of what you have said suggests that it is immoral.

Homosexuality is not prevalent, not natural -

That is simply false. Whether it is moral or immoral is another question. I have yet to see a single good moral argument against here. "It is icky" is not a moral argument.

 

[Tambora]

Oh goodness. This thread's going to be closed!

It's hard to focus when the subject is so vile.
But that is what we are discussing as to whether this act has any useful purpose for the species to survive.

 

[theophilus]

what use is it for the species?

James 1:12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

Lust. Period.

Romans 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Desire. Period.

It is sin.

 

[Selaphiel]

After all, it's prevalent among animals, so it must serve a legitimate purpose!

Ironically it was you who argued that homosexuality is immoral because of a supposed teleology of sex. So if anyone is arguing morals from nature, it is you, not me. So you do admit that arguing morality based on arbitrarily assigning a telos to natural acts is problematic then? It is equally fallacious to argue that something is immoral because it is or is not "natural".

 

[Rusha]

Oh goodness. This thread's going to be closed!

I highly doubt it ... though irrelevant questions and comments will be ignored. It's odd that that there are no threads which focus on "sodomy" in the marriages of heterosexual couples. Same action, different partner. IF an act between consenting adults is morally wrong and *disgusting*, the participants of the act shouldn't make a difference.

 

[Selaphiel]

And just what goal is accomplished by your sperm being pumped into another man's poop chute????????

Why are you referring to me? I'm not a homosexual.

Secondly, and more importantly, not all homosexuals even engage in such acts.

 

[Rusha]

Secondly, and more importantly, not all homosexuals even engage in such acts.

And many heterosexuals do ...

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

And I have yet to see a good moral argument in support of a man poking his pee-pee in another man's feces chute.(Sorry, but there is just no way to say it without being a tad graphic.)
Whether moral or immoral, natural or unnatural, it's just downright filthy.
And it (homo butt poking) is useless when considering the survival continuation of the species.
Other than a perverted and filthy way of self gratification, what use is it for the species?

That's not at all too graphic, as it is what it is, in our faces, something that should be categorized in some Star Trek vocabulary for its vulgarity, "Where no man's privy member has gone before." They put it in your face, and just the thought of it takes my appetite.

Did you see that movie “Spinal Tap?” They have this joke how one of the deceased drummers choked on vomit, go on to explain he choked on somebody else’s vomit That’s considered beyond the pale, absurd, surreal, yet we’re to find sweetness and light in the concept of anal intercourse?

But that’s the tip of the iceberg. Supposing the “Christian nation” humor the Christians, and one must imagine Jews of scripture faith, for a minute. Supposing the Bible is true, that the wrath of God came down on Sodom and Gomorrah. (We know it’s true!) Even Franklin Roosevelt invoked prayer. Are these modern, liberal perverts and meatheads willing to stake their national survival, their childrens’ futures, to institutionalize the sin and filthy habits of a noisy minority, spit in the eyes of God, calling it marriage? What if there’s an Elephant in the room, that is, the wrath of Almighty God? Would that be a national security issue? And do you really want to kick God out of the military? Are twisted morons like Mikey Weinstein good for America? Tell you what, fools, you want to go into battle, without God?

Romans 1

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

 

[Tambora]

I don't quite see the moral relevance of "I think it is disgusting". Seems to me that that is their business.

Pedos would like to use that excuse.

That is a question for biology to determine.

Should we let biology determine pedos?

It seems highly unlikely that it serves no purpose when it exists species ranging from dragonflies to giraffes

"Highly unlikely" is no more of an argument that saying it's icky.

And you cannot reduce homosexuality to one particular sexual act, that is one sexual expression of homosexual relationships.

Can't eliminate it, it's the main one.

That act might be useless in and of itself,

It's going to remain useless until you can come up a reason it helps with the survival of the species.

but it may indirectly serve a function by being the sexual expression of a relationship that serves a beneficial function in the perpetuation of the species in social animals.

Or it may not, and no purpose can or will be found.

But nothing of what you have said suggests that it is immoral.

Nothing you have said suggest that it is moral.

"It is icky" is not a moral argument.

Neither is "I THINK it MIGHT prove to have a purpose someday.

 

[Tambora]

And many heterosexuals do ...

Just as filthy and does nothing for the survival of the species.

 

[glassjester]

I highly doubt it ... though irrelevant questions and comments will be ignored. It's odd that that there are no threads which focus on "sodomy" in the marriages of heterosexual couples.

I agree.

Same action, different partner. IF an act between consenting adults is morally wrong and *disgusting*, the participants of the act shouldn't make a difference.

Not true. You could defend incest with that logic.

 

[Tambora]

Why are you referring to me? I'm not a homosexual.

It was hypothetical.
I could have said "me" instead of "you", but I don't have one those things.

Secondly, and more importantly, not all homosexuals even engage in such acts.

Good for them!
Maybe they restrain from that particular act because they realize how filthy it is.

 

[patrick jane]

Maybe they restrain from that particular act because they realize how filthy it is.

And immoral

 

[glassjester]

Ironically it was you who argued that homosexuality is immoral because of a supposed teleology of sex. So if anyone is arguing morals from nature, it is you, not me. So you do admit that arguing morality based on arbitrarily assigning a telos to natural acts is problematic then? It is equally fallacious to argue that something is immoral because it is or is not "natural".

My argument stands.

The purpose of sex is reproduction.
The other byproducts of sex (physical pleasure, increased affection, commitment), exist to encourage reproduction, and to ensure the survival of the offspring.


Many people engage in sexual activity that is intentionally and intrinsically divorced from its true purpose.


Many animals do, too!

 

[Tambora]

I highly doubt it ... though irrelevant questions and comments will be ignored. It's odd that that there are no threads which focus on "sodomy" in the marriages of heterosexual couples. Same action, different partner. IF an act between consenting adults is morally wrong and *disgusting*, the participants of the act shouldn't make a difference.

It usually comes up in any kind of sodomy thread.
And I always answer that it's just as filthy, and just as useless for the survival of the species.