• 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

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,903
Reaction score
60,355
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
To the same degree as left-handedness, yes.

and justifying exactly the same degree of bigotry expressed against it as well.

edit -- and now that I see the poll, you will never get me to agree that homosexuality is normak.
 
The most common argument would be that it is both normal and natural:

i. Normal because it is found and accepted by many cultures in remote regions, around the world, and;

ii. Natural because it is found in many different species in nature.

Neither i nor ii imply that it is moral, however. Implying that either i or ii justifies homosexuality as an act is a large fallacy.
 
The most common argument would be that it is both normal and natural:

i. Normal because it is found and accepted by many cultures in remote regions, around the world, and;

ii. Natural because it is found in many different species in nature.

Neither i nor ii imply that it is moral, however. Implying that either i or ii justifies homosexuality as an act is a large fallacy.

Right, but the only standards by which it is immoral is via religious ones which are a pretty ridiculous standard to go by (e.g it is a sin to eat shellfish).
 
The most common argument would be that it is both normal and natural:

i. Normal because it is found and accepted by many cultures in remote regions, around the world, and;

ii. Natural because it is found in many different species in nature.

Neither i nor ii imply that it is moral, however. Implying that either i or ii justifies homosexuality as an act is a large fallacy.

The normal and natural arguments typically arise in response to anti-SSM arguments that homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural/non-normal. Nobody thinks that something being natural justifies its existence.
 
I am not asking about morality. That is a different question and one that requires a value judgement. Normal and natural should be questions that can be answered objectively.
 
The most common argument would be that it is both normal and natural:

i. Normal because it is found and accepted by many cultures in remote regions, around the world, and;

ii. Natural because it is found in many different species in nature.

Neither i nor ii imply that it is moral, however. Implying that either i or ii justifies homosexuality as an act is a large fallacy.

Homosexuality is not a moral or immoral concept. In the same way having black or white skin doesn't make one moral or immoral. It's irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is does homosexuality cause harm and that's a question that has long since been answered. No It does not.

You can be straight and immoral - you can be straight and moral. you can be gay and immoral - you can be gay and moral. Sexuality has nothing to do with morality.
 
It would be refreshing for someone to say "like me" for who I am and let my sexuality be a non issue. It gets really tiresome for the homosexual and heterosexual crowd to constantly say, "love me for being a ....sexual!"

Most people probably don't care as much about your orientation, as your quality of character. As for the poll, it's natural for people to practice their instinctual choice, regardless of how it's labeled.
 
I think homosexuality is normal when one of them wears a dress. Then its not gay. As for women, its normal, natural and beautiful. In the minds of most men, all women are only a few drinks away from being bi.
 
I am not asking about morality. That is a different question and one that requires a value judgement. Normal and natural should be questions that can be answered objectively.
I don't care if it's normal or natural because they aren't hurting anybody.
 
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.

What's a normak?? Is it something I should know about?
 
I am not asking about morality. That is a different question and one that requires a value judgement. Normal and natural should be questions that can be answered objectively.

Alright. I was just pointing out that recognising that homosexuality is 'normal' or 'natural' is not a step towards accepting it, but even a step back from that, considering it is 'normal' in many cultures we otherwise find repugnant morally, and natural only in that it is practiced in the wild. It is a usage of body parts in a way that nature did not intend, however, and it violates the biological function of intercourse, namely to reproduce.

The normal and natural arguments typically arise in response to anti-SSM arguments that homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural/non-normal. Nobody thinks that something being natural justifies its existence.

You'd be surprised i.e: the majority of the pro-homosexual lobby. It's the most common argument for homosexuality-acceptance I've seen, and yet it's built atop an (obvious) naturalistic fallacy.

All that matters is does homosexuality cause harm and that's a question that has long since been answered. No It does not.

Of course it does. Where should I start? The disproportionate share of homosexuals among pedophiles, disproportionate rate of a wide-range of diseases transmitted and held by homosexual men, disproportionate deviant and violent sexual fantasies? The uncomfortable fact is that it is positively linked with a large number of social pathologies, and the statistics are too emphatic to ignore.

When supposed "private matters" effect society at large then surely it is a matter of public morality. Homosexuality is a net-loss for society and its lifestyle, and the replication of such, is against the grounding features of civilisation and pose a threat to societal institutions.
 
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 struggle with these terms (normal and natural) as a basis for any discussion about human sexuality.

Normal because it assumes that behaviors that are not "normal" (meaning not practiced by the majority) are inherently bad or wrong. I find this to be inconsistent with reality.

As for natural, every behavior a human exhibits is natural.
 
The disproportionate share of homosexuals among pedophiles, disproportionate rate of a wide-range of diseases transmitted and held by homosexual men,

Being a homosexual does not make one a pedophile. And contracting a disease does not make one immoral. you're whole premise of morality is ridiculous. Are paramedics, heterosexuals, doctors, and nurses who contract Hiv through practice immoral?

disproportionate deviant and violent sexual fantasies?
Source?
The uncomfortable fact is that it is positively linked with a large number of social pathologies, and the statistics are too emphatic to ignore.
Source?
When supposed "private matters" effect society at large then surely it is a matter of public morality.
How are homosexuals effecting Society at large? How does a consensual adult relationship effect anybody but the parties involved in that relationship. You are trying to blame homosexuals for things that happen to all sexes and all orientations. And some of your claims are not even supported by evidence in the first place. STD are a result of unprotected sex, they are not a manifestation of immoral character. there have been great and noble people whom have died from sexually transmitted diseases - proof that sickness and a lapse in judgment does not a bad person make.
Homosexuality is a net-loss for society and its lifestyle,
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle it is a orientation. That fact that you think all homosexuals are identical to the point that you believe they all share the same lifestyle, beliefs, practices, and mannerism is a display of extreme ignorance.

and the replication of such, is against the grounding features of civilisation and pose a threat to societal institutions.
To bad that is an unfounded belief. It's steeped in your bias.
 
It would be refreshing for someone to say "like me" for who I am and let my sexuality be a non issue. It gets really tiresome for the homosexual and heterosexual crowd to constantly say, "love me for being a ....sexual!"

Most people probably don't care as much about your orientation, as your quality of character. As for the poll, it's natural for people to practice their instinctual choice, regardless of how it's labeled.

The problem here Grip and the reason there is so much noise is because of the people who don't think this way and the efforts that make at limiting the freedoms of the people who have a different orientation then them. It's like being tired of hearing people insist on an end to spousal abuse. It is no less just a cause or less worthy of attention because you "think" it shouldn't happen
 
Last edited:
Alright. I was just pointing out that recognising that homosexuality is 'normal' or 'natural' is not a step towards accepting it, but even a step back from that, considering it is 'normal' in many cultures we otherwise find repugnant morally, and natural only in that it is practiced in the wild

Another ridiculous claim. Canada? Brazil? Netherlands? France? U.K.? Argentina? Switzerland? Iceland? etc...

All countries that have legalized homosexuality on all fronts. Stables. First World. Unlike our country not surrounded by countries that want nothing else but to destroy them. Happy civilization. Lower crime. etc.

But by your standards we view these countries as "repugnant"?

And the countries that currently ban homosexuality and even exercise the death penalty as punishment for it.

Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Uganda, India, Algeria, Syria, Egypt, Brunei... Etc.

All third world countries, many wrecked by terrorism, constant civil unrest, constant threat of chaotic collapse, near non existent individual voice or freedom of expression. But in your mind I'm guessing these countries are some sort of Ideal utopia?

Look your new here. You're not dealing with a bunch dumbs dumbs, you might want to up your game.
 
Last edited:
The disproportionate share of homosexuals among pedophiles,

I am in the middle of doing housework, so if you want documentation you will have to wait till I finish, but the quoted part of your post is a myth that has been refuted by research.
 
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.

depends on what definitions you use

it happens and exists in nature, so i would call it natural, but I would not call it "normal" due to it only being found a small percentage of people ( it's not the "usual or average state of being")
 
Being a homosexual does not make one a pedophile.

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

And contracting a disease does not make one immoral. you're whole premise of morality is ridiculous. Are paramedics, heterosexuals, doctors, and nurses who contract Hiv immoral?

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.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Men Who Have Sex With Men

STI infection rates among gay men reach 'crisis' levels - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent

Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men.

"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."


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.

To bad that is an unfounded belief. It's steeped in your bias.

I've posted the sources. Did you think I'd make claims without sources ?

You're an apologist for sexual deviancy with enormous costs on society, both on the taxpayer, ethical conscious and moral fabric.

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.
 
depends on what definitions you use

it happens and exists in nature, so i would call it natural, but I would not call it "normal" due to it only being found a small percentage of people ( it's not the "usual or average state of being")

Since your post is handy I will use it: the occurs in nature argument has a problem. We know that homosexual behavior occurs in nature, but to the best of my knowledge, we have no way to know if any animals other than humans are actually homosexual. This does not mean that homosexuality is not natural, but saying some animals exhibit the behavior is not the same thing as homosexuality the orientation.
 
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



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.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Men Who Have Sex With Men

STI infection rates among gay men reach 'crisis' levels - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent

Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men.

"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."



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.



I've posted the sources. Did you think I'd make claims without sources ?

You're an apologist for sexual deviancy with enormous costs on society, both on the taxpayer, ethical conscious and moral fabric.

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.

You can also say in France or Flandres: Vous êtes plein de merdre. Nice shot gun of assertions.
 
Look your new here. You're not dealing with a bunch dumbs dumbs, you might want to up your game.

The irony is that you've resorted to this, while I've remained cordial the whole time and posted statistics.

But by your standards we view these countries as "repugnant"?

Once again you have misread and misunderstood my point, but this does not surprise me, judging by your syntax and prose in your (presumably?) home language.

I claimed that (many) cultures which accept homosexuality, are viewed with repugnance by us. The point being if many cultures accept something, it does not make what is accepted intrinsically moral. Many examples of such ; child marriage, slavery, and on and on.
 
The problem here Grip and the reason there is so much noise is because of of the people who don't think this way and the efforts that make at limiting the freedoms of the people who have a different orientation then them. It's like being tired of hearing people insist on an end to spousal abuse. It is no less just a cause or less worthy of attention because you "think" it shouldn't happen

I don't hear about spousal abuse nearly as much. There is a risk of making people insensitive to your cause if cried about too often. Never has society been more accepting of alternative sexual orientations and yet louder and louder the chant becomes. I have a neighbor who's an older gay man and whenever people start to bring up sex in conversation he disappears. I asked him, why does that bother you and he said, I'd rather be liked for my personality, not some private part of my life that I have no choice over. I asked aren't you sensitive to the acceptance of the gay community and he replied, only when there's actual discrimination, like fighting for SSM. The constant bleating of the congregation for everyone to love their gayness is asinine, as much as religious people trying to force me to love their beliefs.
 
Since your post is handy I will use it: the occurs in nature argument has a problem. We know that homosexual behavior occurs in nature, but to the best of my knowledge, we have no way to know if any animals other than humans are actually homosexual. This does not mean that homosexuality is not natural, but saying some animals exhibit the behavior is not the same thing as homosexuality the orientation.


well, as i see it " nature " doesn't necessarily hasten a comparison between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.
I see it more as a state of existence absent of "man-made" external factors or causes ( such as upbringing , living environment, socio-economic class, etc)
 
The disproportionate share of homosexuals among pedophiles, disproportionate rate of a wide-range of diseases transmitted and held by homosexual men, disproportionate deviant and violent sexual fantasies? The uncomfortable fact is that it is positively linked with a large number of social pathologies, and the statistics are too emphatic to ignore..

None of these are true.
 
Back
Top Bottom