Is homosexuality merely a sexual indulgence?

[bamf]

I think we should stop treating sex as some that should be hidden, or kept secret. Why should it matter where I, or anyone else, sticks their dick, or what any women does/doesn't put in their vagina? Sex is here to stay, be in homo-hetero-or anything in between.

Now, I personally don't feel comfortable being openly sexual with people in public, or talking about my sex life in a public way, but I could care less if other people do. I think people have the right not to like it when other people do such a thing, but I think it's something everyone should accept as a part of life. Sex is just sex, it doesn't matter who the partners are (and if anyone replies to this, I refuse to drag it out to sex between species)

Homosexuality is not any more of an indulgence than any other form of sex. Gay's and Lesbians have the same capacity to carry on strictly sexual relationships just the same as any non-Gay couple. Everyone, regardless of sexuality, also have the same capacity to carry on loving relationships that involve sex.

Sometimes a relationship is just about sex, sometimes it isn't. Regardless, it's here to stay. Everyone better just get used to it.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

Wouldn't just about any sexual act that is not specifically intended to result in procreation be considered an indulgence, regardless of sexual orientation?

 

[Satya]

I think homosexuality qua homosexuality is an indulgence. Surrounding it with other acts and desires, in my opinion, does not strip it of its fundamental character, which is sexual in nature. Suppose two men, John and Sam, have known each other since childhood and eventually find it to their benefit to live together—financial convenience, friendship, whatever. They may even take in an orphan to provide him with a home, responsibilities, and an education. But at no point could we reasonably call John and Sam homosexuals. Now suppose John and Sam’s life plays out just as I’ve just described, except for the added detail that John and Sam sodomize each other or in some other way carry out erotic acts with each other. Now we can reasonably say that they are homosexuals.

Homosexuality necessarily defines the sexual nature of a person’s erotic habits.

As I suspected what we have an issue with is definitions. The word, "homosexual" was created in the late 19th century by early psychologists to denote a mental illness whereby individuals are sexually attracted to the same sex. After homosexuality was stricken from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual in the 70's it was no longer considered a mental illness, but it was still a term meaning someone sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. So the term was redefined about 30 years ago to mean what you are identifying it as. It is being redefined once again and for the sake of this thread I will denote your 30 year old definition as "homosexual" and the new definition as "gay". The way I see it, what it means to be gay and what means to be homosexual are entirely different. To be gay is to choose to share your life with someone of the same sex, to be homosexual is simply to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. Not everyone who is homosexual is gay, and not everyone who is gay is homosexual. There are gay people who choose to be celibate, or who have a sick partner whom they cannot have sex with, or who simply have no interest in sex but are still very much in love with their partner.

Further, inasmuch as I’m fairly convinced of the moral aspect of natural teleology, I object to the modern movement to force the public to affirm the legitimacy of homosexuality as equivalent or similar to the natural coupling between men and women. However, that doesn’t mean I support violence against homosexuals, nor do I advocate that we ostracize them. I think matters of sex are private and ought to remain that way. But the homosexual movement has no intention of making homosexuality private. Like the perverse manifestations of heterosexuality (e.g., men and women who parade their sexual proclivities, ranging from run-of-the-mill pornography to BDSM, in public parades), the modern homosexual movement exposes itself to legitimate criticism by broadcasting and forcing itself into the public sphere.

How fascinating. If I were in high school and I wished to bring my same sex partner to the prom, would that be opening myself up to legitimate criticism? I can't imagine doing so would have anything to do with sex, but merely wishing to share the experience with my high school sweet heart. If I wanted to hold the hand of my same sex partner in public, or even kiss or embrace them, would that open me to legitimate criticism? Simply sharing my affection with the person I love has nothing to do with sex. These seem to be the kind of issues that social conservatives are concerning themselves with and why the gay rights movement seeks greater equality. Is their flamboyant and inappropriate expressions of sexuality from gays? Yes, but no more so than what you see from heterosexuals.

The problem that I am seeing here with your argument is that if John and Sam had been John and Samantha, then nobody would have had issue with them getting married. The question of whether or not they were having sex would not have even been brought up. Furthermore, by your logic, John and Samantha would not have been heterosexual if they had not had sex with each other. Unless of course, you are defining heterosexuality as something greater than sexual attraction between two people of the opposite sex. And then of course, you need to explain why those same qualities in that definition cannot be shared in the homosexual definition. So until you do, I have to treat John, Sam, and Samantha as asexual and consider your example irrelevant. So please help me understand how John and Samantha are different as heterosexuals than John an Sam are as homosexuals. If the only difference you can argue is sex, then you have done what you have been resisting. You have made the two equal, but you simply disagree with the sexual preferences of the latter. And that would, in essence, prove my point about your argument.

But now that its supporters have made it the object of public debate, they don’t like what they hear.

To the contrary, I want to hear it. The problem tends to be that your side wishes to preach, not to discuss.

 

[Satya]

Wouldn't just about any sexual act that is not specifically intended to result in procreation be considered an indulgence, regardless of sexual orientation?

A superb observation, and one that I am happy I did not make alone. In my previous debate with Nik on the natural teleology of homosexuality, he made it quite clear that he felt that masturbation, oral sex, non procreative sex, etc. are all just as grave sins in the eyes of nature as homosexuality. I feel that demonstrates the absurdity of sexual morality derived from natural teleology, but for some reason, Nik feels it is a valid source of reasoning. I suppose when the day comes that homosexuals are having sex in public, that they are to be ostracized, but as long as they are living with the same level of sexual discretion as heterosexuals, then they deserve no criticism that heterosexuals do not receive.

 

[under skies]

I honestly don't know what to say. I have only ever had the experience of being heterosexual, so I could never say that I fully understand being homosexual.

Freud classified homosexuality as a "sexual perversion" (along with not being able to receive sexual gratification without punishing/punishment, etc.). It's one of his many ideas that I personally don't agree with. He basically explained male homosexuality as a) a boy never growing past the stage of being afraid of having his genitalia taken away and b) not wanting to disappoint his mother by replacing her with a female romantic partner. That is my interpretation of his theory, anyway, which I read in a book of psychology I got from the library recently. And there is more to it than that. But I suppose I can understand, if Freud believed it, why others might, too.

I mean, there really is no way of being both heterosexual and homosexual and, therefore, being able to understand what it's like on both sides. But from my knowledge, I don't think it has anything to do with sexual perversion or indulgence. I see it having more to do with wiring/response to chemicals in the brain than anything that can be conditioned or can develop.

While I'm waxing semi-incoherent, I just thought I'd add that if homosexuality is an "indulgence," I'm pretty sure 99% of human sexual acts are, as well.

 

[NaeturVindur]

I see homosexual acts (along with all other forms of sexual acts that are not strictly done for the purpose of baby making) and an indulgence and (sometimes) an expression of deep romantic attraction. I see no problem with this.

 

[testing]

IWhile I'm waxing semi-incoherent, I just thought I'd add that if homosexuality is an "indulgence," I'm pretty sure 99% of human sexual acts are, as well.

Well, when it comes right down to that, an "indulgence" is simply giving way to one's desires, whatever they may be. And a desire is simply something you want/enjoy... but can live without. And since humans can actually survive without sex*, then 100% of sex is an indulgence.




*I believe I read about a case where a man in the state of Arizona actually died from not having sex but I suspect this might have been exaggerated. Most people just complain and become very unpleasant... but they survive.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

This is an honest post - not a troll:

I think homosexual sexual pairing is stupid.

Because something is possible, does not mean it is reasonable - some people have a deep, meaningful love and sexual pairing with animals, inanimate objects, etc. - in fact I remember hearing of a man who actually married his horse (in the U.S.) some years ago. Yet these things are (to me) stupid - like when one sees a dog trying to hump a teddy bear. I use the word stupid because un-reasonable is only meaningfully applied to humans. But stupid seems to work with other species as well.

The stupidity, to me is evident, in the fact that there is not such thing as a species which primarily practices homosexual pairing (among the higher species which have distinct males and females). Homosexual pairing seems more at odds with the nature of species with male and female sexes, than does the notion of carnivores going herbivorous, or herbivores going exclusively carnivorous (which would kill most ruminants anyhow). Whenever I hear of people "making love" to anything but a member of their own species, of the complimentary sex, it always sounds fundamentally absurd to me.

 

[DimensionX]

in fact I remember hearing of a man who actually married his horse (in the U.S.) some years ago. Yet these things are (to me) stupid and laughable - like when one sees a dog trying to hump a teddy bear.

Bet that guy had been dreaming of riding that horse his whole life

I'm....not entirely sure why...but for some reason I found the fact you thought you needed to specify in brackets "(in the U.S.)" quite amusing lol

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I live in Australia - and all the weird stuff I hear about is in the U.S. Perhaps, because your media products are more marketable here?

 

[under skies]

Well, when it comes right down to that, an "indulgence" is simply giving way to one's desires, whatever they may be. And a desire is simply something you want/enjoy... but can live without. And since humans can actually survive without sex*, then 100% of sex is an indulgence.




*I believe I read about a case where a man in the state of Arizona actually died from not having sex but I suspect this might have been exaggerated. Most people just complain and become very unpleasant... but they survive.

You're right. The only reason I really left it open-ended was because I was thinking of people whose main motivation is getting pregnant.

 

[Shai Gar]

for a man to date a man, is laziness because men are simple.
For a man to date a woman is a challenge because women are complicated and often bitchy.
For a woman to date a woman is masochism because they know precisely the kind of hell they are entering and do it willingly.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

This is an honest post - not a troll:

I think homosexuality is stupid.

Because something is possible, does not mean it is reasonable - some people have a deep, meaningful love and sexual attraction to animals, inanimate objects, etc. - in fact I remember hearing of a man who actually married his horse (in the U.S.) some years ago. Yet these things are (to me) stupid and laughable - like when one sees a dog trying to hump a teddy bear.

The stupidity, to me is evident, in the fact that there is not such thing as a homosexual species (among the higher species which have distinct males and females). Homosexuality seems more at odds with the nature of species with male and female sexes, than does the notion of carnivores going herbivorous, or herbivores going exclusively carnivorous (which would kill most ruminants anyhow). Whenever I hear of people "making love" to anything but a member of their own species, of the complimentary sex, it always sounds fundamentally absurd to me.

Well, even from the point of view of a heterosexual, I don't really understand this. The only way that homosexuality in the human species would seem "stupid" is if the related parties actually think that they're going to be able to conceive a child which is of course biologically impossible. I don't know any homosexuals who believe that they can conceive with their partners via sexual relations. I don't see homosexuals as willfully resisting some natural urge to have sex with a member of the opposite sex. Whatever your sexual orientation, whatever it is that makes you horny makes you horny and for some men and women the appeal comes predominantly if not exclusively from attractive potential partners of their own sex.

As far as the whole herbivore carnivore thing, humans are too diverse to compare to cows or mountain lions. We can choose to be vegetarian, vegan, carnivores or omnivores because we are able to produce whatever we want so long as resources are available.


The following is from wikipedia. Yes, I know it's wikipedia, but I included it because it is indeed backed up with references. The full article with references is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Homosexual_behaviour

Homosexual behaviour

Main article: Homosexuality in animals

Two male Mallards, Anas platyrhynchos. Mallards form male-female pairs only until the female lays eggs, at which time the male leaves the female. Mallards have rates of male-male sexual activity that are unusually high for birds, in some cases, as high as 19% of all pairs in a population.[37]


The presence of same-sex sexual behaviour was not scientifically observed on a large scale until recent times. Homosexual behaviour does occur in the animal kingdom outside humans, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behaviour has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.[38]

To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.
​

 

[Stu]

clear.

A certain member stated the premise that homosexuality is simply a sexual indulgence and nothing more.

I think homosexuality qua homosexuality is an indulgence. .... John and Sam sodomize each other or ...

I am drawn to sexual union with women. I do not think of the mindful execution of that desire as obscene or sinful. Nor do I see it as an "indulgence", it is a drive, an imperative. Homosexuals engaged in mindful sexual union do not deserve to have the unique fulfillment of their sexual drive referred to as "indulgences" or (wtf) "Sodomy" Those incapable of respecting the differences within the individuals of our society need to take a deeper look at themselves.

 

[Satya]

The stupidity, to me is evident, in the fact that there is not such thing as a homosexual species (among the higher species which have distinct males and females). Homosexuality seems more at odds with the nature of species with male and female sexes, than does the notion of carnivores going herbivorous, or herbivores going exclusively carnivorous (which would kill most ruminants anyhow). Whenever I hear of people "making love" to anything but a member of their own species, of the complimentary sex, it always sounds fundamentally absurd to me.

Actually if you want to talk about what actually occurs in nature, then let's talk about Bonobo chimps. They are our closest genetic homonid relative. And guess what? They rampantly practice homosexuality? Why? Because sex among primates is often a social bonding agent. Other primates, such as Macaque's monkeys go so far as to practice anal sex. So no, homosexuality is not restricted to humans.

[youtube]7RlTAyNI8WE[/youtube]

Frankly, I take offense to your comment. Calling a sexual orientation "stupid" is like calling someone's race or gender stupid. It's a part of who a person is, and it may not make sense to you, but it does have biological origins just like arbitrary traits like skin color.

Now if actually are an open minded person, instead the judgmental ass you seem to be making yourself out to be in this post, then have a look at this video and it might explain a few things.

[youtube]saO_RFWWVVA[/youtube]

 

[Barnabas]

Actually if you want to talk about what actually occurs in nature, then let's talk about Bonobo chimps. They are our closest genetic homonid relative. And guess what? They rampantly practice homosexuality? Why? Because sex among primates is often a social bonding agent. Other primates, such as Macaque's monkeys go so far as to practice anal sex. So no, homosexuality is not restricted to humans.

[youtube]7RlTAyNI8WE[/youtube]

correct me if I'm wrong as i didn't watch the whole of the first video but, these animals don't mate homosexualy they bond socialy, which is a bit different from a single pair of mates for life. What you propose is not social Sex but mating and even child raising as your pictures sugest. Why do think this is different between us and apes.

Take this as you like it, I'm not picking a side just making a observation and asking a question.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Just responding to the title.

No it isn't. Even if it is though, does it matter? Nope.

 

[Kavalan]

It's no more of an indulgence than the hypersexaul heterosexual marteting going on to the youth. If I had a dollar for every commercial break on comedy central after 11 that was completely about either making my junk better or hot girls I would have one less student loan.

 

[Satya]

correct me if I'm wrong as i didn't watch the whole of the first video but, these animals don't mate homosexualy they bond socialy, which is a bit different from a single pair of mates for life. What you propose is not social Sex but mating and even child raising as your pictures sugest. Why do think this is different between us and apes.

Take this as you like it, I'm not picking a side just making a observation and asking a question.

You are talking about several different topics, so let's break them down.

First off, do animals have homosexual sex? Yes. As I said in the post, Macaque monkeys go so far as to practice anal sex. Bonobo chimps practice fellatio, masturbation, and rubbing together their genitals with same sex partners.

Now comes the second part of the question you were asking. Do animals practice monogamy? Well that became a short list very quickly. Only 7% of mammals practice social monogamy, which is just the act of pair bonding. Of the 7% of pair bonding, only one species of mammals is known to practice sexual monogamy for life and that is Homosapiens. Every other mammal species, even when socially monogamous, will still take part in extra pair copulations if the opportunity presents itself.

Now let's consider how often humans, as a species, practice sexual monogamy for life. First off, you have to cross off those who practice polygamy, then you have to cross off those who practice serial monogamy which has become rather common in our culture of divorce, and of course you have to cross anyone who has practiced adultery. So in the animal kingdom, sexual monogamy for life is restricted to a select few in one mammal species.

So as you can see, your question was kind of a trick. From my knowledge of biology, the only species that practices sexual monogamy for life, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature, are human beings, and only a very few humans beings at that.

 

[Shai Gar]

swans, wolves, penguins
Sexual mongamists