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 11 of 58 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 574

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

  1. #101
    I am the pretty one.
    TobyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,317

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

    Brother, I do not intend to speak for gays - however, your focus on physical characteristics is wrong. My educated guess is that their attraction to each other is varied and based on no rule that I can identify. The heart wants what the heart wants - and sometimes the little head does the thinking for the big head. There doesn't seem to be a difference between straight or gay in that regard.

    It should go without saying that I defer to anyone else with more knowledge in this area than I.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    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.

  2. #102
    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
    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.


    You're right it does not exist for that purpose or any other. It just exists.


    No it doesn't. That's your belief in god talking not logic, reason or science.

    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
    Look at any species on this planet you wish. You will find plenty of species who have sex only for the purposes of reproduction, with no pleasured involved at all.

    You will not find any who do so for pleasure alone, with reproductive function or instincts removed from the equation entirely.

    This should give you a pretty significant hint as to the act's purpose in and of itself.

    Do you imagine that we eat purely for the taste as well, and nutrition is simply a happy coincidence?

    The whole line of reasoning is backwards and absurd.

    Our biology is not sentient.
    Regardless, it does seem to work towards certain goals.

    Genes can be observed to have a vested interest (in de facto function, if not necessarily explicit desire) in perpetuating themselves, and it drives a great deal of our behavior.

    -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
    Regardless, it is a sign that the developmental process has gone awry in a fashion contrary to normal function.

    The mechanics of it are really no different than any other condition we generally tend to consider as being a "defect." It simply happens to be a defect that you, personally, do not consider to be harmful.

    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.
    It would arguably "streamline" the human experience considerably by removing our need to adapt to what is essentially useless behavior in the first place. It would also increase the efficiency with which human beings accomplish certain biological tasks.

    At the end of the day, the simple fact of the matter is that homosexuality (note that I did not say homosexual persons) is more or less worthless. It is an anomaly at best, and a distraction at worst.

    There is no reason why it should have to exist.

    Just because I defend it doesn't mean I practice it
    I'll take your word on that.

    No, there is no reason it should be. Things really don't need a reason to exist. They just do.
    Then they should be given a reason.

    My assumption is that you are referring to things like vaccinations?? Apples and oranges dude.
    So how about braces then?

    The rather troublesome issues raised by abortion remain conspicuously absent from your reasoning here as well.

    Not one for subtleties are you Gath? I never suggested any such thing
    I'm just about positive that you did.

    You repeatedly suggested that death was preferable to a bad upbringing or disadvantaged life circumstances in at least one abortion thread we were both involved in.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 07-13-14 at 01:25 AM.

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ask the NSA
    Last Seen
    07-24-16 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,849
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Did this about normal a few years ago, and decided it was time to try again. Was a fun and interesting thread at the time, so hopefully this will be as well. Two simple questions. Is Homosexuality "normal", and is homosexuality "natural"? If you would, please include your reasoning.

    Poll will allow multiple choices, pick a choice for the "normal" question and for the "natural" question. Poll will be up in a couple minutes.
    The tendency to be sexually attracted to another sex is both normal and natural. Just as you don't "choose" to be straight, you don't "choose" to be gay. Homosexuality has even been observed in nature indicating that it's not "just some weird human trend."

  4. #104
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    What would be the harm in correcting or preventing such a thing, if we had the power to do so?
    I suppose you want a world where everyone is the same, preferably just like you. I happen to value diversity cause it makes life more interesting. You on the other hand look at some costumes at a pride parade and act like you're throwing up and it's time to eliminate homosexuality. We're overpopulated if anything, gays can reproduce and plenty of heteros do not, and we have the technology to reproduce without sex, but you keep going on about biological imperative.

  5. #105
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,174

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Liévin View Post
    I claimed it makes one more likely to be a pedophile. Source: The proportions of heterosexual and homos... [J Sex Marital Ther. 1992] - PubMed - NCBI
    Your source does not confirm your claim, you neglected the last line.
    "This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children."

    It seems your source contradicts you. The following source contradicts you.Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
    The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
    So your link to pedophilia is completely your brain child.



    Spreading a disease that is incurable is immoral. Yes, anyone who engages in sexual activities knowing they have an incurable disease is damn immoral in my opinion. Of course maybe widespread disease doesn't concern you, I don't know.
    I agree completely, this doesn't really have any bearing on homosexuality. The link you are making isn't there.

    "In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."
    Nothing to do with morality.


    Early Onset and Deviant Sexuality in Child Molesters

    "Of our total sample, 29% reported having deviant fantasies prior to age 20, and this was most pronounced (41.1%) among those who molested the sons of other people". I advise you to read the whole thing, though.
    Nothing to do with homosexuality.



    I've posted the sources. Did you think I'd make claims without sources ?
    Your sources don't back up your claims.

    You're an apologist for sexual deviancy with enormous costs on society, both on the taxpayer, ethical conscious and moral fabric.
    What you find deviant is irrelevant. And the connections you made are shaky at best. One could use the same shaky connection to make a far better case of why heterosexuality is immoral. Allow me too demonstrate:

    All pregnancies are caused by heterosexual behavior, thus all abortions are caused by heterosexual behavior. All homeless children are caused by heterosexual behavior. This places much much heavier burdens on the fabric of our social and moral structure. Thus using your logic heterosexuality is far more immoral than homosexuality.

    We would say in France Il ne faut pas se fier aux apparences. I'm not sure of your intentions, but to place a niche of individual interests above the common good is treason.
    So why would you do such a thing?

    Placing your morality over the common good seems to be extremely selfish.
    It's okay to be white

  6. #106
    Educator SocialDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 04:30 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    922

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

    There is no reason to suggest that is not normal or natural, but even if homosexuality was "unnatural," in that it was some trend that people fully chose to do and nothing to do with biological and environmental factors that influence the individual and determine sexuality, I don't see a logical reason to discriminate based on sexuality.
    Social democrat is no longer an accurate description of my views.

  7. #107
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    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.
    There's great variety of physical attraction ("bear, twink" etc) and emotional attraction too. We are males (not straight women), which often means being rather horny for just about anything. Everyone has different preferences tho. Choosing a partner just depends. At college age, so many don't even think about long term, just who they're in love with at the time. I'm sure it will disgust you, but one major diff is two 'bottoms' don't go together. Another is that gay men are more likely to be in mixed race relationship, likely due to at some time living outside the social norm already.

  8. #108
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Defects cause some form of harm, or simple abnormality which is non-advantageous. Think of things like Autism, Down Syndrome, Bi-Polar Disorder, or Dwarfism, for instance.

    If such conditions could be "cured" in some sense, or prevented from occurring outright, most people would support doing so.
    Then homosexuality is not a defect under your 1st criteria (which is the reason for seeking a cure for defects) and the 2nd, that is debatable but using "abnormal but non-advantageous", we'd have to expand the list of 'defects' considerably. Left-handed, non brown eyes, racial minority...i think you get the idea. Do you support "curing" blue eyes using the same criteria?

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    NE WI.
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,029

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

    `
    Homosexuality and the Unnaturalness Argument - pdf

    Homosexuality and the "Unnaturalness Argument" - web

    From a legal and philosophical perspective, the unnatural and not-normal arguments concerning homosexuality are no no longer used as they were shot down down decisively in 2005. The dissertation is long. However, I can say this:
    `

    Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester and birth control are not natural.

    Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

    Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

    Straight marriage will become less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

    Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time and it hasn’t changed at all: women are property, Blacks can’t marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

    Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

    Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of the official state religion are always imposed on the entire country.

    Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

    Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

    Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

    Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars, TVs or longer life spans.

    Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always Constitutional. Separate schools for African Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will or gays and lesbians.

    `

  10. #110
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,174

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

    Is it normal? I guess that would depend on who. You asked. It's normal to me. Normal in what sense?

    Is it natural? Again I think that would depend on who you ask, it's natural to me.
    It's okay to be white

Page 11 of 58 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... 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
  •