As a humanist, how do you view homosexuality? Especially when one tries to argue that the natural desire is for humans to procreate and ensure their genes are passed on? Even when any religious influence is removed from the equation, how is the homosexual to feel “normal,” biologically? For example, in reading an anatomy and physiology book, the author takes a stance that the reproductive organs exist for the sole purpose of, well, reproducing. How is the homosexual to reconcile this?
As a gay man, I try my best to feel one with mainstream society; however, even in secular society, I still feel the norm is for traditional family. Do humanist’s generally view the same sex couple and family just as valid? I have equated and justified same sex activity, that which does not have any potential to procreate, as similiar to heterosexual activity that also has no potential of procreating (i.e. oral sex, sex using a method of birth control) to be of a similar concept. After all, most of society does not devalue the heterosexual couple that participates in sexual activity that has no chance of procreating (i.e. when they habitually use a method of birth control or engage in a sex act that does not procreate). Should same sex sexual activity be viewed any differently, given that neither (in the aforementioned situation) has the intention of procreating? Do you all agree with my reasoning? Any further insight or views would be appreciated.
I do not care about a person’s sexual orientation. I am just as comfortable with my gay/lesbian friends as with my heterosexual friends. Love is precious; too precious to get hung up on someone else’s sexual preference. I realize this is easier for me to say than it would be for a gay man, because I have not experienced the prejudice our society practices toward gay people.
As for biology, if our reproductive organs were meant solely for procreation we would not enjoy sex so much. One can argue enjoyment is an evolutionary adaptation because people who find sex fun have more offspring, but that in itself is an admission that our reproductive organs are also pleasure centers.
Besides, with seven billion people on this planet already we need more childless couples.
As a humanist, how do you view homosexuality? Especially when one tries to argue that the natural desire is for humans to procreate and ensure their genes are passed on? Even when any religious influence is removed from the equation, how is the homosexual to feel “normal,” biologically? For example, in reading an anatomy and physiology book, the author takes a stance that the reproductive organs exist for the sole purpose of, well, reproducing. How is the homosexual to reconcile this?
As a gay man, I try my best to feel one with mainstream society; however, even in secular society, I still feel the norm is for traditional family. Do humanist’s generally view the same sex couple and family just as valid? I have equated and justified same sex activity, that which does not have any potential to procreate, as similiar to heterosexual activity that also has no potential of procreating (i.e. oral sex, sex using a method of birth control) to be of a similar concept. After all, most of society does not devalue the heterosexual couple that participates in sexual activity that has no chance of procreating (i.e. when they habitually use a method of birth control or engage in a sex act that does not procreate). Should same sex sexual activity be viewed any differently, given that neither (in the aforementioned situation) has the intention of procreating? Do you all agree with my reasoning? Any further insight or views would be appreciated.
I’m not really a humanist by the Paul Kurtz definition, but I view homosexuality as a totally “natural” sexuality-just as much as hetero or bi, it is part of the living world. With regards to gay people feeling normal biologically, I think that it’s obvious(to a mature,intellegent person) that body parts can be used in many ways. Sperm and egg makes a baby, but much of the time straight couples don’t want sperm and egg to meet; essentially I think there is a drive to reproduce and a drive to have sex for recreation. The same sex couple is absolutely as valid as a different sex couple, and society should accept them -especially a science based society; American society seems to be accepting gay couples slowly but surely, however there will probably always be some people against it,and those people should simply be avoided if possible. I suppose the norm is for a traditional family because most people are biologically driven that way, but there is no “law of nature” that makes it impossible for a family headed by gay couples to exist.
FinallyDecided, I do agree with your reasoning. I also agree with the other two responses to your post. Gay persons have natural urges in precisely the same way heterosexuals have natural urges. These urges are natural in that they are expressed/determined at birth. While I am “grossed out” by the thought of sex with another man and am “turned on” by the thought of sex with an attractive woman, it is simple for me to understand the opposite feelings and how incredibly selfish I would be to expect someone with these opposite feelings to have to live as I do.
I find those who are intolerant of various sexual orientations to be very shallow and likely insecure in their own sexuality. But that’s just me.
I believe the theists and others who view sex as to be used solely for procreation are being irrational. No other animal has sex for procreation. If a species got no pleasure from sexual contact it would pretty quickly become extinct. We and all other animals are programmed to have pleasure engaging in activities leading to orgasm, including just the closeness, familiarity, etc. that often leads to orgasm. 99+/-% of the orgasms humans have do not lead to procreation, but as long as the 1+/-% does, our species survives. I feel that anything that gives us pleasure and doesn’t hurt others is of value, and there are a huge variety of methods of getting sexual pleasure, be it solitary, mechanical or with others.
In my opinion it’s stupid, neurotic and controlling to attempt to define which of those many methods are acceptable and which are not. I agree with Traveler’s view, but we even have to recognize that what one heterosexual male would consider “an attractive woman” might not be what another heterosexual male would. And that can certainly be generalized to include the attraction and attractiveness of all humans.
...but we even have to recognize that what one heterosexual male would consider “an attractive woman” might not be what another heterosexual male would. And that can certainly be generalized to include the attraction and attractiveness of all humans.
Occam
Absolutely! A person gets more/less attractive as you get to know them.
I think the science says it’s innate. So, it is what it is.
There’s a lot of variation too. Like a male who feels like a female but is sexually attracted to females, etc. It might be just variation in the genome.
Procreation is the occasional consequence of sexual activity, not its purpose. I’m bisexual, I’ve enjoyed a few threesomes and I don’t feel abnormal for it. As for homosexuals becoming parents, I have no problem with that either. The kids learn acceptance and open-mindedness early on and they develop the strength of character needed to deal with their homophobe peers.
As a humanist, how do you view homosexuality? Especially when one tries to argue that the natural desire is for humans to procreate and ensure their genes are passed on? Even when any religious influence is removed from the equation, how is the homosexual to feel “normal,” biologically? For example, in reading an anatomy and physiology book, the author takes a stance that the reproductive organs exist for the sole purpose of, well, reproducing. How is the homosexual to reconcile this?
As a gay man, I try my best to feel one with mainstream society; however, even in secular society, I still feel the norm is for traditional family. Do humanist’s generally view the same sex couple and family just as valid? I have equated and justified same sex activity, that which does not have any potential to procreate, as similiar to heterosexual activity that also has no potential of procreating (i.e. oral sex, sex using a method of birth control) to be of a similar concept. After all, most of society does not devalue the heterosexual couple that participates in sexual activity that has no chance of procreating (i.e. when they habitually use a method of birth control or engage in a sex act that does not procreate). Should same sex sexual activity be viewed any differently, given that neither (in the aforementioned situation) has the intention of procreating? Do you all agree with my reasoning? Any further insight or views would be appreciated.
I do believe that procreation was the original reason why Mother Nature gave us sexual drive but the human brain and its ability to reason has evolved far from that primitive animal state. Yes we are still animals, but far advanced from our ancient ancestors so developing new ideas about sex, sexuality and almost anything else should be considered perfectly normal today.
For what its worth, I could care less about anyone’s sexual preferences.
If we didn’t have to deal with STD, I would love to see a society based on sex as a method of societal intercourse…. The Bonobos seem to do well under that system.
If we didn’t have to deal with STD, I would love to see a society based on sex as a method of societal intercourse…. The Bonobos seem to do well under that system.
And I have been jealous of them since I hit puberty.
Procreation is the occasional consequence of sexual activity, not its purpose.
I think the problem is with different meanings of “purpose”. I meant it as function, not as moral directive.
I think it’s sort of like the purpose of pheromones in sweat to attract others of the same species. Following your reasoning, we could say that we should not wash ourselves to remove the sweat. The purpose of sight is certainly not to read or hearing to listen to music. If there were no reason or motivation to engage in sexual activites other than to procreate, most animals would have become extinct. I believe the purpose of the pleasure is to get animals to engage in sexual activities, not specifically in those that always result in procreation. Since heterosexual copulation is a relatively easy method of achieving sexual satisfaction, and it does, at times, result in procreation, then continuation of the species is the result. However, just because that happens doesn’t limit sexual activity to that particular method.
