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 12 of 58 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 574

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

  1. #111
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    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.
    What difference does this make?
    It's okay to be white

  2. #112
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,157

    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?
    Straight women don't have a standardized criteria. They differ vastly from one woman to the next, and gay men are the same way

    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.
    You need to learn not to make such bold assumptions. They are the point at which every argument you make fails.


    However, as far as attraction to key physical features are concerned, is there a major difference?
    I suppose you know this from back when you were gay.

    I was actually under the impression that gay men tended to be more critically selective in this regard on average.
    Key point of advice, don't make assumptions.
    It's okay to be white

  3. #113
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I voted that yes, homosexuality is both Normal and Natural, because from what I've been told by homosexuals, it's perfectly normal and natural for them.
    And that ids all that should matter.

    Thanks DiAnna
    It's okay to be white

  4. #114
    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

    .

    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.
    It seems inconsistent to me that you elevate us as a species when it suits you then imply that we are just like other species when it suits you. Did your god create us or not? If so, stop comparing us to apes ( or whatever lower life form you would like plug in here)
    I don't think comparison of human sexuality to those of other species really makes a lot of sense.

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

    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.
    If you can do this please take a step back for minute and look at this more objectively. So much of what you see as a "logical" or obvious conclusion is based on the first fundamental belief you've formed about the existence of a creator. Everything you say here only makes sense if there some an intelligent guiding force behind it. Without that it falls apart.

    Regardless, it is a sign that the developmental process has gone awry in a fashion contrary to normal function.
    The regardless part of your response makes me think you have dismissed my point. It's not a sign to anyone other than the person looking for the evidence to support what it is that they want to believe in

    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.
    If they don't consider it "harmful" why do we need to cure them? Because YOU think it's harmful? That sounds like a pretty dangerous precedent. BTW, I consider your faith a lot more dangerous, should we seek to cure you of it? Of whatever part of you draws you to it?

    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.
    Wow, now you're just scaring me.

    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
    Like most people you're most likely remember your interpretation of what I said. As I recall, my point was that I could understand why a person of sane mind would feel like taking their life was the best course of action for them and that I could understand also how some who've led a painful life that has left them utterly depleted and damaged may feel like the pain they've endured and see themselves being forced to continue to endure may now be a life they wish to have lived had they a choice.
    "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

  5. #115
    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 chromium View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    Straight women don't have a standardized criteria. They differ vastly from one woman to the next, and gay men are the same way

    You need to learn not to make such bold assumptions. They are the point at which every argument you make fails.

    I suppose you know this from back when you were gay.

    Key point of advice, don't make assumptions.
    Generally speaking, heterosexual women, while displaying a subtle range of variation in desired criteria, do tend to overwhelmingly go after a few definite traits when selecting male partners. All of those traits can be shown to be either consciously or subconsciously tied to reproduction and reproductive instinct.

    They either go after dominant men who show signs of having very high levels of testosterone, which is generally an indicator of virility and better genetics, more subdued men who show signs of social and functional competence which would indicate that they might be able to more effectively provide for any potential offspring which might result from a mating, or some combination of the two.

    All I was saying here is that this doesn't appear to be appreciably different among gay men. While the expression of these instincts might be a bit more confused (as I noted before, probably owning to the fact that the prospect of family and reproduction is basically a non-issue for homosexuals under most circumstances), more or less the same subconscious principles seem to apply.

    With the exception of the "twink" phenomena (which could be passed off as more masculine gay men looking for something as close as possible to a woman without having to actually find one), gay men do tend to go after classic signs of reproductive "virility" just as straight women are wont do, under most circumstances. This would seem to imply that reproductive instincts, if not necessarily function are still at play. They have simply been misdirected.

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    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?
    Again, that depends on how one defines "harm" in the first place. Being different for no reason and having to go out of one's way to adapt can be viewed as being "harmful" in a fashion, though not everyone is inclined to accept that argument.

    Homosexuality is also a biological and statistical anomaly with no immediately useful function, where the other attributes you listed are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    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.
    Which is again, simply making things more complicated than they really have to be.

    Sorry, but I really don't see any objective value in such a state of affairs.

  6. #116
    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
    It seems inconsistent to me that you elevate us as a species when it suits you then imply that we are just like other species when it suits you. Did your god create us or not? If so, stop comparing us to apes ( or whatever lower life form you would like plug in here)
    I don't think comparison of human sexuality to those of other species really makes a lot of sense.
    The body, and even the mind, to a certain extent, are biological machines. They are ultimately nothing more, and nothing less. They work according to their function and towards their purpose, as any other machine does.

    In this regard, we are no different than any other organism on this planet. We live, reproduce, die, and the cycle repeats itself again with our offspring ad infinitum.

    If we are "special" at all, it would be with regard to the soul, which is a factor difficult to quantify in the first place.

    Sometimes, yes
    Not in the least. The penis (unless the man in question has some medical condition) always shoots fluid chock full of reproductive cells at climax regardless of the context in which sex takes place. Likewise, women are pretty much always more likely to seek out sexual activity at the times of their menstrual cycle when they are most likely to conceive, and the vagina is also lubricated with fluids specifically adapted to facilitate the passage of male reproductive cells regardless of a woman's time of the month.

    As I already pointed out, the instinctual side of physical attraction tends to be rather heavily skewed towards reproductive ends as well.

    The reproductive element of human sexuality is basically omnipresent. This is true regardless of whether we choose to actively acknowledge it or not.

    If you can do this please take a step back for minute and look at this more objectively. So much of what you see as a "logical" or obvious conclusion is based on the first fundamental belief you've formed about the existence of a creator. Everything you say here only makes sense if there some an intelligent guiding force behind it. Without that it falls apart.
    The fact of the matter is that our species - and life in general, for that matter - only exists at all because of the principles I have set forward. Just because people want to pretend like they don't exist all of the sudden doesn't make this reality any less valid.

    You can attribute that to "God" or you can attribute it to simple chance, but the fact that nature does seem to be naturally inclined to drive towards certain ends is basically undeniable.

    Every organism on this planet seeks both its own survival, and (on a subconscious level) the survival of its lineage.

    The regardless part of your response makes me think you have dismissed my point. It's not a sign to anyone other than the person looking for the evidence to support what it is that they want to believe in
    Would you argue that color blindness or dwarfism were not signs of something going "awry" on either a genetic or developmental level?

    Biology is a messy and imperfect medium. It is far from "foolproof." For that exact reason, it sometimes screws up.

    I really don't see how anyone could try to deny that.

    If they don't consider it "harmful" why do we need to cure them? Because YOU think it's harmful? That sounds like a pretty dangerous precedent. BTW, I consider your faith a lot more dangerous, should we seek to cure you of it? Of whatever part of you draws you to it?
    You could certainly make the attempt, I suppose, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone actually tried it at some point in the future.

    We are off the chart now, I'm afraid. "There be monsters" here.

    However, even if you were to attempt such a thing, it wouldn't necessarily be the same as what I have suggested. Unlike homosexuality, religious devotion (or at least inclination) is the norm, not the exception.

    You would be altering the fundamental nature of humanity, not bringing certain off-shoots and anomalies back in line with the rest of the group.

    Wow, now you're just scaring me.
    It's true.

    Societies with a greater degree of homogeneity tend to function more efficiently than societies with a large degree of "diversity." Homosexuals also routinely fail to accomplish certain human biological imperatives.

    Homosexuality, as a personal trait, really does not serve any useful purpose.

    Like most people you're most likely remember your interpretation of what I said. As I recall, my point was that I could understand why a person of sane mind would feel like taking their life was the best course of action for them and that I could understand also how some who've led a painful life that has left them utterly depleted and damaged may feel like the pain they've endured and see themselves being forced to continue to endure may now be a life they wish to have lived had they a choice.
    As I recall, it was a point you raised within the context of abortion, and why a woman might feel it is better to abort her unborn child rather than give it up for adoption or some other, similar, non-lethal alternative.

    Again, within that context, I really don't see how choosing to simply alter a child's character for the "greater good" is any less acceptable than denying them a chance at life outright for the same reason.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 07-13-14 at 03:50 PM.

  7. #117
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    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.
    I believe homosexuality is natural, but not normal.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

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

    I smell a poll designed to deliberately incite negative comments about homosexuality.

  9. #119
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Generally speaking, heterosexual women, while displaying a subtle range of variation in desired criteria, do tend to overwhelmingly go after a few definite traits when selecting male partners. All of those traits can be shown to be either consciously or subconsciously tied to reproduction and reproductive instinct.

    They either go after dominant men who show signs of having very high levels of testosterone, which is generally an indicator of virility and better genetics, more subdued men who show signs of social and functional competence which would indicate that they might be able to more effectively provide for any potential offspring which might result from a mating, or some combination of the two.

    All I was saying here is that this doesn't appear to be appreciably different among gay men. While the expression of these instincts might be a bit more confused (as I noted before, probably owning to the fact that the prospect of family and reproduction is basically a non-issue for homosexuals under most circumstances), more or less the same subconscious principles seem to apply.

    With the exception of the "twink" phenomena (which could be passed off as more masculine gay men looking for something as close as possible to a woman without having to actually find one), gay men do tend to go after classic signs of reproductive "virility" just as straight women are wont do, under most circumstances. This would seem to imply that reproductive instincts, if not necessarily function are still at play. They have simply been misdirected.



    Again, that depends on how one defines "harm" in the first place. Being different for no reason and having to go out of one's way to adapt can be viewed as being "harmful" in a fashion, though not everyone is inclined to accept that argument.

    Homosexuality is also a biological and statistical anomaly with no immediately useful function, where the other attributes you listed are not.



    Which is again, simply making things more complicated than they really have to be.

    Sorry, but I really don't see any objective value in such a state of affairs.
    I call bull****.
    It's okay to be white

  10. #120
    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 CLAX1911 View Post
    I call bull****.
    "Call" whatever you want. It's not like it's going to change anything.

Page 12 of 58 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... 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
  •