• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

Is homosexuality "normak" and "natural"?

  • Total voters
    116
tacomancer said:
Exactly, its just something that happens. There is no purpose to it as there is no purpose to right or left handedness.

People anthropomorphize way too many phenomena.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the question of the OP, so that is why we are discussing it. And there most certainly is a purpose to sex, and it isn't just to feel good as some would like you to think. Maybe SOME of you would take the time to read the link I posted. :roll:
 
Gathomas88 said:
The way animals engage in homosexuality is more akin to prison rape than modern Western society's conception of the phenomena.

It is a way of establishing dominance and releasing sexual energy when females are either scarce or not in season for mating. It is very rarely an exclusivistic preference.

Even then, it's hardly as "common" as you are making out here in the first place.
Click to expand...

Ya know... This actually raises some interesting possibilities in and of itself.

If homosexual behaviors in nature are primarily a means of overcoming the "dry spells" inherent to the life-cycles of species which follow a set seasonal mating pattern, could human expressions of these characteristics simply be the result of vestigial genes we inherited from some ancestor species?

We don't mate in a set seasonal pattern. We simply settle into monogamous (or at the very least, temporarily monogamous) relationships. For that reason, we don't have any need to turn to the same sex for release.

However, at some point in the past, one of the species from which we evolved almost certainly did. There's really nothing to say that we might not still have some of that code tagging along in our genes.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
There is an instinctual drive to reproduce. Sex feels good for a reason, so that we will reproduce.

Social Basis of Human Sexual Behavior

Kind of a long snippet
Click to expand...

I'm an associate clinical professor in the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington, where I teach some of everything: advertising, broadcasting, media criticism, and speech communication. My particular area of interest is psychophysiological responses to communication messages, especially those in advertising and television. I have a BA in Speech/Theatre, a MA in Drama, and a PhD in Theatre, emphasizing Mass Media Theory and Criticism.

COURSES I TEACH
•Mass Media Criticism (Com 460/560)
•Advertising Psychology (Adv 475)
•Principles and Practices of Advertising (Adv 380)
•Advertising Media Planning (Adv 382)
•Television Scriptwriting (Bdcst 360)
•Television New and Reality (Bdcst 475)
•Television Performance (SpCom 351)
•Oral Interpretation (SpCom 251)
•Advanced Public Speaking (SpCom 302)
•Public Speaking (SpCom 102)
•Media Theory and Society (Com 101)

Richard Taflinger's Home Page

What makes this guy qualified IN ANY WAY?
 
Bodhisattva said:
I'm an associate clinical professor in the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington, where I teach some of everything: advertising, broadcasting, media criticism, and speech communication. My particular area of interest is psychophysiological responses to communication messages, especially those in advertising and television. I have a BA in Speech/Theatre, a MA in Drama, and a PhD in Theatre, emphasizing Mass Media Theory and Criticism.

COURSES I TEACH
•Mass Media Criticism (Com 460/560)
•Advertising Psychology (Adv 475)
•Principles and Practices of Advertising (Adv 380)
•Advertising Media Planning (Adv 382)
•Television Scriptwriting (Bdcst 360)
•Television New and Reality (Bdcst 475)
•Television Performance (SpCom 351)
•Oral Interpretation (SpCom 251)
•Advanced Public Speaking (SpCom 302)
•Public Speaking (SpCom 102)
•Media Theory and Society (Com 101)

Richard Taflinger's Home Page

What makes this guy qualified IN ANY WAY?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? You don't think that passing on your genes is a human instinct? :roll: I seriously can't believe it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
And if sex didn't feel good but we wanted the species to survive we would still do it...

We don't have sex to have children, we have sex to feel good.
We don't eat to taste yummy food, we eat to remain alive.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that we do both. There are homosexual individuals who will engage in sex for the purpose of having children and derive no pleasure from the act itself. For most, when the decision is made to engage in sex for procreation, they also get the pleasure along side.

ChrisL said:
I don't really think that handedness counts as an instinct.
Click to expand...

So when you write or do other activities, do you voluntary or involuntary use your right hand? Did you choose to be right handed? Is the use of your right hand a predictable and relatively fixed behavior pattern?
 
maquiscat said:
I'd argue that we do both. There are homosexual individuals who will engage in sex for the purpose of having children and derive no pleasure from the act itself. For most, when the decision is made to engage in sex for procreation, they also get the pleasure along side.



So when you write or do other activities, do you voluntary or involuntary use your right hand? Did you choose to be right handed? Is the use of your right hand a predictable and relatively fixed behavior pattern?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't think handedness counts as an instinct. :lol:

If we only had sex because it feels good, a lot of people would just probably masturbate and never get together with another person. Another reason why we have sex is to bond with other people. However, we DO have a biological imperative drive to reproduce. Without that, a species would die off. That is why it is called a biological "imperative."
 
ChrisL said:
Are you kidding me? You don't think that passing on your genes is a human instinct? :roll: I seriously can't believe it.
Click to expand...

Red Herring

The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe.

Logical Fallacies» Red Herring

I asked how he is qualified. YOU used him as a source to back up your argument. I am now challenging his authority. How is he qualified to be an authority on this issue?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Red Herring

The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe.

Logical Fallacies» Red Herring

I asked how he is qualified. YOU used him as a source to back up your argument. I am now challenging his authority. How is he qualified to be an authority on this issue?
Click to expand...

He's probably a heck of a lot more qualified than you, and guess what? I completely agree with his opinion. It makes a HELL of a lot more sense than the ideas you've been putting forth. :lol:
 
maquiscat said:
I'd argue that we do both. There are homosexual individuals who will engage in sex for the purpose of having children and derive no pleasure from the act itself. For most, when the decision is made to engage in sex for procreation, they also get the pleasure along side.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with you. You are simply seeing one aspect of my debate intended to illustrate to Chris that her argument is too simplistic, and wrong. She is saying that sex feels good so that we procreate. I am saying that we have sex because it feels good probably 99.9% of the time and that when people WANT kids, they have sex to procreate.
 
ChrisL said:
Sorry, I don't think handedness counts as an instinct. :lol:

If we only had sex because it feels good, a lot of people would just probably masturbate and never get together with another person. Another reason why we have sex is to bond with other people. However, we DO have a biological imperative drive to reproduce. Without that, a species would die off. That is why it is called a biological "imperative."
Click to expand...

And there you go again equating the imperative of the species as being part and parcel of every member of the species. When speaking of how the species acts and reacts, one looks at the overall group and notes the major trends. It is not required for all members of the species to reproduce for the species to continue. It's not even required for all members to try. There are variations in behavior among any given species of animal. Many variant behaviors would be bad if all members of the species engaged in it, but when only a few do then it is not an issue. Variations are a natural part of nature (no circular reasoning intended) and evolution. One species of frog (maybe more and more than just frogs) actually has where if there is a lack of one gender, members of the other gender will change to fill the gap. Frog Transexuals! There are many humans who have NO desire to reproduce. Or even have sex period. These are all just variations within the overall. Trying to take group characteristics and applying them to individuals universally is simply wrong.
 
ChrisL said:
He's probably a heck of a lot more qualified than you, and guess what? I completely agree with his opinion. It makes a HELL of a lot more sense than the ideas you've been putting forth. :lol:
Click to expand...

Who is more likely to have been with women and actually had sex? I would venture to say that I am the Michael Jordan of sex and he is some pimply faced 14 year old in comparison.

Rich3.jpg

IMG_4838.jpg
 
maquiscat said:
And there you go again equating the imperative of the species as being part and parcel of every member of the species. When speaking of how the species acts and reacts, one looks at the overall group and notes the major trends. It is not required for all members of the species to reproduce for the species to continue. It's not even required for all members to try. There are variations in behavior among any given species of animal. Many variant behaviors would be bad if all members of the species engaged in it, but when only a few do then it is not an issue. Variations are a natural part of nature (no circular reasoning intended) and evolution. One species of frog (maybe more and more than just frogs) actually has where if there is a lack of one gender, members of the other gender will change to fill the gap. Frog Transexuals! There are many humans who have NO desire to reproduce. Or even have sex period. These are all just variations within the overall. Trying to take group characteristics and applying them to individuals universally is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

Stop being all offended. I don't care if you're gay. My point is that I don't think it's natural, and what I think is natural is for a man and woman to be sexually attracted to one another, not brothers and sisters either. :roll: If you don't like my opinions, that is just too bad.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I 100% agree with you. You are simply seeing one aspect of my debate intended to illustrate to Chris that her argument is too simplistic, and wrong. She is saying that sex feels good so that we procreate. I am saying that we have sex because it feels good probably 99.9% of the time and that when people WANT kids, they have sex to procreate.
Click to expand...

Actually, what I think is being said here is that what we "want" is ultimately irrelevant, as reproduction is inherent to the sexual act regardless of our conscious desires.

The only reason sex is a part of the human (or biological) equation at all is because it leads to procreation. Without that, there wouldn't be any reason for it to exist.

It would simply be a waste of time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Actually, what I think is being said here is that what we "want" is ultimately irrelevant, as reproduction is inherent to the sexual act regardless of our conscious desires.

The only reason sex is a part of the human (or biological) equation at all is because it leads to procreation. Without that, there wouldn't be any reason for it to exist.

It would simply be a waste of time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Just imagine all of the things you guys could get accomplished! :lol:
 
tacomancer said:
human sexuality has never really been logical in the first place.
Click to expand...

I would say that is true for homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality, but not heterosexuality.
 
ChrisL said:
He's probably a heck of a lot more qualified than you, and guess what? I completely agree with his opinion. It makes a HELL of a lot more sense than the ideas you've been putting forth. :lol:
Click to expand...

Some people think that cult leaders are more qualified on scientific matters than actual scientists are. That doesn't mean that they are. I can disagree with a person's opinion and still acknowledge that he is qualified within a certain field. Just because you agree with him doesn't make him or you right. Many things make sense on the surface but are actually false. It makes sense that the sun goes around the earth. You can see it do that. Your logic makes sense on that superficial surface level, but falls apart once you start really looking beyond the surface.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Actually, what I think is being said here is that what we "want" is ultimately irrelevant, as reproduction is inherent to the sexual act regardless of our conscious desires.

The only reason sex is a part of the human (or biological) equation at all is because it leads to procreation. Without that, there wouldn't be any reason for it to exist.

It would simply be a waste of time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Seriously, without procreation exactly why would sexual organs exist at all? Why wouldn't you just have a pee hole or something like that?
 
ChrisL said:
Sorry, but his theory makes a heck of lot more sense and sounds much more logical than anything you've brought forth so far.
Click to expand...

He is not an authority. His input in this debate is meaningless and if you knew the first thing about a proper debate you would concede that point and withdraw his opinions. And I know that it would not take you a second to take me over him...
 
Gathomas88 said:
Actually, what I think is being said here is that what we "want" is ultimately irrelevant, as reproduction is inherent to the sexual act regardless of our conscious desires.

The only reason sex is a part of the human (or biological) equation at all is because it leads to procreation. Without that, there wouldn't be any reason for it to exist.

It would simply be a waste of time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...

And this is why I am not debating you. I agree with pretty much all of your posts on this subject. Chris decided to argue that we "wanted" sex because it lead to procreation. She is wrong. We "want" sex because it feels good.
 
ChrisL said:
Just imagine all of the things you guys could get accomplished! :lol:
Click to expand...

Exactly. Do you have any idea how liberating it would be to not have to worry about sex or relationships at all?

Hell! If everyone's really so worried about "overpopulation" as they claim, the most logical solution might be to genetically engineer the human sex drive out of our species entirely, and simply grow new people out of tubes instead.

Of course, the social Left won't support doing anything of the kind, because what they're really worried about is simply being able to get their rocks off without having to deal with any kind of guilt or responsibility. :lol:
 
Henrin said:
Seriously, without procreation exactly why would sexual organs exist at all? Why wouldn't you just have a pee hole or something like that?
Click to expand...

Fish don't have sex organs... they drop eggs and the other fertilizes them. Pleasure is obviously not a mandatory requirement to procreate.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Exactly. Do you have any idea how liberating it would be to not have to worry about sex or relationships at all?
Click to expand...

I am like this now. I have an ex-wife. With one like mine you would never want to worry about sex or relationships again, because if you made a mistake and got another like her you would blow your brains out.
 
ChrisL said:
Stop being all offended. I don't care if you're gay. My point is that I don't think it's natural, and what I think is natural is for a man and woman to be sexually attracted to one another, not brothers and sisters either. :roll: If you don't like my opinions, that is just too bad.
Click to expand...

I'm gay?!? OMG! I hope my wife doesn't find out! ;)

I've have never at any point attacked any of your opinions. Your opinions have been fine. It's the reasons and logic you use to try to justify those opinion on this site that get attacked because you end up using faulty logic in presenting them. Then when we've undermined all your logic and reasoning, you fall back on "well it's my opinion", ignoring that we are talking about the logic and the reasoning of your support and not the opinion itself.

Gathomas88 said:
The only reason sex is a part of the human (or biological) equation at all is because it leads to procreation. Without that, there wouldn't be any reason for it to exist.
Click to expand...

Wow that is the most ill thought out response that I've seen in a long time. As humans we do hundreds of things that have no reasons other then they feel good! Why would sex be any different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom