View Poll Results: Is homosexuality "normak" and "natural"?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • Homosexuality is normal

    68 47.22%
  • Homosexuality is not normal

    46 31.94%
  • Homosexuality is natural

    92 63.89%
  • Homosexuality is not natural

    19 13.19%
  • Other/unsure

    12 8.33%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 10 of 58 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 574

Thread: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

  1. #91
    Sage
    opendebate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,315

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    ............:

    It doesn't matter "why" a person may or may not seek out sexual activity in a heterosexual context. It still results in reproductive outcomes in the vast majority of circumstances, regardless of whether a person intends for it to do so or not, simply because that is the nature of the act.
    But your argument, which I am responding to here, attempted to condemned sexual actions that are not conducted for the purpose of reproduction and you specifically accuse homosexuals of being driven towards sex for what you consider to be the "wrong" reasons. If it doesn't matter why'd you bring it up? If it does matter then fine, but doing it has no connection with homosexuality therefore does not belong in the conversation

    Homosexuality subverts this to no productive end.
    The majority of sex I've had in my life, and I'll bet the majority of healthy (mentally) people in this country, has not been for the purpose of reproduction. It's because it feels good on every conceivable level. So again, it this represents a subversion to you fine, but it is not an exclusively homosexual one so again it does not belong in the conversation

    The "goal" is the survival and propagation of one's species. Individuals with adaptations which are best suited to that goal survive, thrive, reproduce, and therefore pass such adaptations on to the next generation..
    Again, there is no goal. That implies that a specific outcome was selected and humans were engineered in a premeditated way to achieve that outcome. This is not the case. All outcomes result from pure chance and that outcome either does or does not benefit us or facilitate our survival.

    At best, homosexuality would appear to be a recessive trait, which essentially "piggy backs" onto some combination of genes possessed by the homosexual individual's parents. At worst, it might very well be a birth defect caused by something going wrong during gestation (a fetus of one developmental sex being exposed to an overabundance of opposite sex hormones while still in the womb, for instance).
    So what

    Either way, describing it as being a "useful" adaptation is a bit of a stretch
    who described it as a "useful" adaptation?

    That depends. What kind of behaviors are we talking about here?
    That's a sticky mess isn't it. As long as an "abnormal" behavior isn't hurtful to anyone who is non-consenting, why should we care.

    Which is?
    10 Surprising Health Benefits of Sex

    Yes.
    lol. seriously? Based on what?

    I see no intrinsic value in "diversity" which cannot be shown to serve a useful purpose. In this case, it only causes unnecessary problems and personal hardship.
    Life is chaos Gath. Get over yourself.

    How are you going to "judge" the way you were born after the fact?

    It's a bit late in the game for complaint at that point. :lol
    You said they should be cured. I suggest that judging the hardship created by whatever condition one may have is best left to person living with it.
    "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers" - Voltaire
    "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self" -Hemingway

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    I have to question the reproduction bit unless it is so subconscious that it overrides the knowledge that one is sterile and cannot reproduce. Add to that overriding the knowledge that a woman use to once be physically a man.
    This would basically seem to be the case from everything I've read. On a purely instinctual level, human beings tend to be overwhelmingly "attracted" to clear indicators of fertility in the opposite sex, and our bodies even seem to be adapted in such a way as to flaunt them.

    Men are usually drawn to wide, curvy hips and supple breasts and buttocks, all of which indicate either very high levels of estrogen, greater ease of childbirth, or more extensive fat stores which could be utilized in pregnancy. Likewise, women tend to be drawn towards signs of high testosterone which also indicate virility.

    This seems to be true of homosexual attraction to a large extent as well (either that, or they go for a member of the same sex who displays strong tendencies towards the opposite gender's form and mannerisms). It simply happens to be the case that the person experiencing the attraction is of the same sex.

    I dated a MtF who even pre-op hit my every sense as woman. We have one MtF in our local D/s group who is pre-op but registers rather neutral to me and another who claims to be MtF (the demeanor and the word of others in other groups makes me wonder) that hits male on my radar. Of course all of this has to do with the physical (well maybe not all of it) and is why I say that one's attraction would be based upon how the other is perceived. If one truly perceives a MtF as female and is attracted to female, then it's all good.
    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

  3. #93
    Why so un**great?
    DifferentDrummr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Facepalm Beach
    Last Seen
    06-04-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,818
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Kinsey's "research" is considered to be about as credible these days as that of Sigmund Freud (which is to say, not at all).

    His methodology was questionable at best, and actively biased at worst.
    Nevertheless, both he and Freud were able to address certain phenomena that none of their colleagues ever came up with a better explanation for.

    Although any research has elements that can be fairly criticized, to pretend that either Freud or Kinsey is universally reviled is a gross distortion.
    I fight against the ignorant, irresponsible, and/or closed-minded.
    This group is the worst enemy of America and its freedoms. It includes, but is not limited to, all Trump supporters.

  4. #94
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by DifferentDrummr View Post
    Nevertheless, both he and Freud were able to address certain phenomena that none of their colleagues ever came up with a better explanation for.

    Although any research has elements that can be fairly criticized, to pretend that either Freud or Kinsey is universally reviled is a gross distortion.
    As dedicated and large a body of work as Freud and Kinsey did, I've never been impressed by their conclusions.

    I think Turtle put it best, that it's not mainstream but it is a normal variation of human sexuality.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  5. #95
    I am the pretty one.
    TobyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:30 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,320

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Why do I have the feeling that you're not around many gays?



    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    This would basically seem to be the case from everything I've read. On a purely instinctual level, human beings tend to be overwhelmingly "attracted" to clear indicators of fertility in the opposite sex, and our bodies even seem to be adapted in such a way as to flaunt them.

    Men are usually drawn to wide, curvy hips and supple breasts and buttocks, all of which indicate either very high levels of estrogen, greater ease of childbirth, or more extensive fat stores which could be utilized in pregnancy. Likewise, women tend to be drawn towards signs of high testosterone which also indicate virility.

    This seems to be true of homosexual attraction to a large extent as well (either that, or they go for a member of the same sex who displays strong tendencies towards the opposite gender's form and mannerisms). It simply happens to be the case that the person experiencing the attraction is of the same sex.



    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by opendebate View Post
    But your argument, which I am responding to here, attempted to condemned sexual actions that are not conducted for the purpose of reproduction and you specifically accuse homosexuals of being driven towards sex for what you consider to be the "wrong" reasons. If it doesn't matter why'd you bring it up? If it does matter then fine, but doing it has no connection with homosexuality therefore does not belong in the conversation

    The majority of sex I've had in my life, and I'll bet the majority of healthy (mentally) people in this country, has not been for the purpose of reproduction. It's because it feels good on every conceivable level. So again, it this represents a subversion to you fine, but it is not an exclusively homosexual one so again it does not belong in the conversation
    All heterosexual sex ultimately feeds into the purposes of reproduction regardless of whether we are aware of the fact, or even actively fight against it, or not. It is simply the nature of the act.

    Sex doesn't exist to occupy some hedonistic niche. It exists to propagate the species. The fact that it "feels good" is simply nature's way of incentivizing us into seeking it out, and ensuring that couples engage in it regularly enough to ensure pregnancy.

    Any other benefits it might result in are ultimately secondary to that goal.

    Again, there is no goal. That implies that a specific outcome was selected and humans were engineered in a premeditated way to achieve that outcome. This is not the case. All outcomes result from pure chance and that outcome either does or does not benefit us or facilitate our survival.
    Okay, so if we don't have sex, and don't reproduce, we die off and go extinct.

    The fact that we haven't yet would certainly seem to indicate that our biology at least has a vested interest in driving us to ensure the species' survival.

    So what
    It would seem to indicate that homosexual orientation is the result of something not functioning in the way it should on either some genetic or developmental level.

    What would be the harm in correcting or preventing such a thing, if we had the power to do so?

    By your own admission, it's not like it serves any useful purpose.


    lol. seriously? Based on what?
    The fact that you have repeatedly defended casual sex and promiscuity, perhaps? Hell, Op! I've even seen you defend bisexuality for the purposes of "experimentation" before.

    Life is chaos Gath. Get over yourself.
    Is there any reason it should be?

    You said they should be cured. I suggest that judging the hardship created by whatever condition one may have is best left to person living with it.
    Plenty of preventative medical procures are imposed upon children simply because their parents view it as being for the "greater good." How would this be any different?

    For that matter, weren't you the one who argued that it was better to abort children rather than allow them to grow up poor?

    I'm not suggesting anything even half that extreme here.

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by TobyOne View Post
    Why do I have the feeling that you're not around many gays?
    Feel free to tell what I said that I was intrinsically wrong.

  8. #98
    I am the pretty one.
    TobyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:30 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,320

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Its not *intrinsically* wrong, its just wrong. More words don't make you smarter or make you seem smarter.

    Gays have many flavors and attractions. Your perception of what attracts men to men is based on stereotypes - probably from movies made from 60s or 70s. I see you're in the south so its not surprising that your ideas are bass ackward. Spend some time in a real city and if you're as smart as you think you are you'll lose the superficial and wrong ideas of many things. But quite honestly, I don't think you have the *intrinsic* ability to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Feel free to tell what I said that I was intrinsically wrong.

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by TobyOne View Post
    Its not *intrinsically* wrong, its just wrong. More words don't make you smarter or make you seem smarter.

    Gays have many flavors and attractions. Your perception of what attracts men to men is based on stereotypes - probably from movies made from 60s or 70s. I see you're in the south so its not surprising that your ideas are bass ackward. Spend some time in a real city and if you're as smart as you think you are you'll lose the superficial and wrong ideas of many things. But quite honestly, I don't think you have the *intrinsic* ability to do so.
    Do the variety of criteria gay men use to select partners significantly differ from the variety of criteria utilized by straight women?

    I'd wager that they are less likely to seek out the "stable, boring, and reliable" type, simply because supporting a family isn't something a gay man is liable to have to worry about. However, as far as attraction to key physical features are concerned, is there a major difference?

    I was actually under the impression that gay men tended to be more critically selective in this regard on average.

  10. #100
    Sage
    opendebate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,315

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post




    Plenty of preventative medical procures are imposed upon children simply because their parents view it as being for the "greater good." How would this be any different?
    For that matter, weren't you the one who argued that it was better to abort children rather than allow them to grow up poor?
    I'm not suggesting anything even half that extreme here.


    All heterosexual sex ultimately feeds into the purposes of reproduction regardless of whether we are aware of the fact, or even actively fight against it, or not. It is simply the nature of the act.
    If by this you mean if you have sex enough someone is gonna end up pregnant then yeah, probably, but that does not support your assertion that sex for purposes other than procreation is not useful.

    Sex doesn't exist to occupy some hedonistic niche.
    You're right it does not exist for that purpose or any other. It just exists.

    It exists to propagate the species
    No it doesn't. That's your belief in god talking not logic, reason or science.

    The fact that it "feels good" is simply nature's way of incentivizing us into seeking it out, and ensuring that couples engage in it regularly enough to ensure pregnancy.
    this only makes sense if there is intelligent design. Sex happens to have evolved in a way that feels good and happens to occasionally result in pregnancy neither of those were premeditated or engineered so that a desired outcome would arrive

    Okay, so if we don't have sex, and don't reproduce, we die off and go extinct.
    The fact that we haven't yet would certainly seem to indicate that our biology at least has a vested interest in driving us to ensure the species' survival.
    Our biology is not sentient.

    It would seem to indicate that homosexual orientation is the result of something not functioning in the way it should on either some genetic or developmental level.
    -not to me. There is no "should". The most you can say is that in the very specific area of sexual development it does not function or develop the way the majority do

    What would be the harm in correcting or preventing such a thing, if we had the power to do so?
    A better question is why would you want to? It's self serving Gath. All it accomplishes is making you more comfortable with the world you are surrounded by. If the person "afflicted" with the "condition" of homosexuality has no discomfort with it and it does not inhibit their ability to fully evolve and enjoy a productive life it is very likely they would not choose to change it. Even the suggestion of the necessity to do so implies that there is something inadequate about that person living the version of themselves they were born as. How cruel of anyone to impose that on someone who's life.

    By your own admission, it's not like it serves any useful purpose
    I am not as compelled to qualify things in the same deeply restricted way that you are and I don't believe that I ever "admitted" such a thing

    The fact that you have repeatedly defended casual sex and promiscuity, perhaps? Hell, Op! I've even seen you defend bisexuality for the purposes of "experimentation" before. :lol
    Just because I defend it doesn't mean I practice it

    Is there any reason it should be?
    No, there is no reason it should be. Things really don't need a reason to exist. They just do.

    Plenty of preventative medical procures are imposed upon children simply because their parents view it as being for the "greater good." How would this be any different?.
    My assumption is that you are referring to things like vaccinations?? Apples and oranges dude.

    For that matter, weren't you the one who argued that it was better to abort children rather than allow them to grow up poor?
    Not one for subtleties are you Gath? I never suggested any such thing
    "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers" - Voltaire
    "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self" -Hemingway

Page 10 of 58 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •