• 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
opendebate said:
No. I don't.

You don't know what my sacred cow issue is.

I never said I don't ever over react.
Click to expand...


Gotcha,,,lol

At least you're honest.

Normal is subjective but it's natural for someone to follow their instincts. I'm all for freedom and non judgment. I do believe some issues are way over used as badges of righteousness, like patriotism, racism accuser, religion/atheism, ME, etc. Nothing wrong with honest debate, instead we get emotional pleas and ego bashing.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's natural, but is it normal? Is there a scientific definition for what percentage of anything is abnormal?

As one of the definitions of normal is natural, that would at least in part answer that.
 
opendebate said:
define defect
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Morality is intrinsically related to human nature.
 
This is actually pretty simple to answer. Homosexuality is both normal and natural, for homosexuals. It's really that simple. Just as writing with your left had is both normal and natural if a person is left handed.
 
grip said:
.............
Click to expand...


Gotcha,,,lol
Click to expand...
Is condesension all you've got?

At least you're honest.
Click to expand...
?

Normal is subjective but it's natural for someone to follow their instincts. I'm all for freedom and non judgment. I do believe some issues are way over used as badges of righteousness, like patriotism, racism accuser, religion/atheism, ME, etc. Nothing wrong with honest debate, instead we get emotional pleas and ego bashing
Click to expand...
so you're saying that you being irritated by their efforts to be recognized and treated equally isn't an emotional response?

Why should it bother anyone how much noise someone chooses to make over an issue they are passionate about unless it the issue it's that person finds unsettling. It makes no sense
 
Gathomas88 said:
That would depend on just how common bisexual instincts actually are in human beings on an objective basis. So far, we have no effective way of really measuring that.

We simply know that is something which only a small minority of people practice in reality.
Click to expand...
There's more than a little objective evidence. If you're interested, I suggest you read up on Kinsey.
 
Gathomas88 said:
"Other."

Statistically and biologically, it is abnormal by any standard you want to go by. That much is beyond question.

However, it is also a "naturally occurring" phenomena in a large number of cases.

The only question there is whether it occurs as a matter of design (i.e. as a phenomena which brings about some sort of evolutionary advantage), or defect (i.e. as an anomalous condition devoid of evolutionary value which has been brought about as an unintended consequence of random genetic mutation).
Click to expand...

It has been proven that some drugs given to pregnant women did cause certain physical birth defects - thalidomide as an example. Who can say with certainty that none of them might have also caused random genetic mutations to the way that the brain operates and processes information? There has to be an underlying cause for the increased number, because I believe we were hardwired to look at the opposite sex as potential lifemates.

If nature is stepping in now, because of the sheer numbers of people being born, which could soon be greater than what the planet can absorb, then what could or should be done about it? The earth has produced viruses and bacteria in the past which has killed millions of people - think Black Plague - so is this an attempt by nature to even the playing field to allow Earth to survive?

Greetings, Gathomas88. :2wave:
 
Gathomas88 said:
..............[/B]
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
so what is the harm in homosexuality in your opinion. I'm sure you've told me before and I'm not remembering. Recap please

If such conditions could be "cured" in some sense, or prevented from occurring outright, most people would support doing so
Click to expand...

I don't think this statement is true with regard to homosexuality
 
DifferentDrummr said:
There's more than a little objective evidence. If you're interested, I suggest you read up on Kinsey.
Click to expand...

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.
 
opendebate said:
Is condesension all you've got?


?


so you're saying that you being irritated by their efforts to be recognized and treated equally isn't an emotional response?

Why should it bother anyone how much noise someone chooses to make over an issue they are passionate about unless it the issue it's that person finds unsettling. It makes no sense
Click to expand...

Is condescension all I have? No, sometimes it rains...lol

I get irritated by anyone that jumps up and down in front of me all day. You would too.
 
No, thats silly. Even if homosexuality is a "defect" by your definition, the overriding value is people making their own decisions and not try to be "treated" or "prevented".


Gathomas88 said:
The ultimate goal in handling defects should be treatment and prevention, not "tolerance."
Click to expand...
 
grip said:
Is condescension all I have? No, sometimes it rains...lol

I get irritated by anyone that jumps up and down in front of me all day. You would too.
Click to expand...

You must not be a parent
 
As long as left handers don't want to get married like normal people.

Beaudreaux said:
This is actually pretty simple to answer. Homosexuality is both normal and natural, for homosexuals. It's really that simple. Just as writing with your left had is both normal and natural if a person is left handed.
Click to expand...
 
opendebate said:
so what is the harm in homosexuality in your opinion. I'm sure you've told me before and I'm not remembering. Recap please


I don't think this statement is true with regard to homosexuality
Click to expand...

Homosexuals, on an instinctual level, are driven to seek out sexual activity which is contrary to (and, in at least half of all cases, even somewhat dangerous and unsanitary to the design of) human biology, and human sexuality's evolutionary goal.

As I have already pointed out, this is certainly an "abnormality" which can be shown to not serve any readily apparent or useful purpose. Whether it is "harmful" or not, however, is something of a matter of perspective.

The "sex is always desirable, and it'd be great if we could all live in a 24/7 orgy like human Bonobos" crowd think it's just fine, and even argue that the rest of us shouldn't be afraid to get in on the action every now and then. The more practical among us think it is a bit of a waste of time and resources at best, and a rather messy one at that.

However, one could argue much the same about many other anomalous conditions.

Other than stunted physiques and poor social skills, can dwarfism or autism really be said to cause all that much immediately pressing "harm?"

Would you seek to "cure" or prevent them anyway if you had the power? I would. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Zinthaniel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gay sex is unnatural and immoral.
 
It's nobodies business what other people's sexual preference's are...ANY kind of sex between sane, consenting adults is fine.

Just as any two (or more?) sane, consenting adults should be able to marry.


As for what is considered 'normal' or 'natural'?

Couldn't give a sh!t.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are they harmful? It depends on the "condition". You'd have to ask those who have experienced them. I suspect most dwarves might tell you they wish they had been born "normal", though I bet some wouldn't. Then again I can't say I've ever known a dwarf.

Unfortunately, I doubt those with down syndrome are capable of truly understanding the meaning of the question. Probably the same for autism spectrum.

For homosexuality I think it's even less clear that it's harmful. I know many gays are content with their sexuality. Others might regret their orientation, but I would wager that's mostly a result of living in a society that, to some degree, isn't fully accepting of it. But if that's the case the solution isn't necessarily to prevent homosexuality but perhaps for society to become more accepting.
 
the_recruit said:
Are they harmful? It depends on the "condition". You'd have to ask those who have experienced them. I suspect most dwarves might tell you they wish they had been born "normal", though I bet some wouldn't. Then again I can't say I've ever known a dwarf.

Unfortunately, I doubt those with down syndrome are capable of truly understanding the meaning of the question. Probably the same for autism spectrum.

For homosexuality I think it's even less clear that it's harmful. I know many gays are content with their sexuality. Others might regret their orientation, but I would wager that's mostly a result of living in a society that, to some degree, isn't fully accepting of it. But if that's the case the solution isn't necessarily to prevent homosexuality but perhaps for society to become more accepting.
Click to expand...

To be fair here, one can rationalize just about anything to themselves after the fact, especially if there's nothing they can do to really change it.

What else is a person going to do? Wallowing in self pity simply isn't a productive way to live one's life.

That's the beauty of the human spirit. We can overcome such forms of adversity, and even adapt to them.

However, that being said, I think it's kind of hard to argue that "adversity" of this sort is intrinsically valuable or useful to either individuals or society as a whole. It simply makes things more complicated than they have to be and causes unnecessary problems.

If everyone could be born "normal," I'd say that it'd be better if they were.
 
polgara said:
It has been proven that some drugs given to pregnant women did cause certain physical birth defects - thalidomide as an example. Who can say with certainty that none of them might have also caused random genetic mutations to the way that the brain operates and processes information? There has to be an underlying cause for the increased number, because I believe we were hardwired to look at the opposite sex as potential lifemates.

If nature is stepping in now, because of the sheer numbers of people being born, which could soon be greater than what the planet can absorb, then what could or should be done about it? The earth has produced viruses and bacteria in the past which has killed millions of people - think Black Plague - so is this an attempt by nature to even the playing field to allow Earth to survive?

Greetings, Gathomas88. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Nature doesn't have much of an aim in the matter one way or another, IMO.

Diseases pop up at random. It simply happens to be the case that circumstances sometimes collude in such a manner as to make certain pathogens more virulent or deadly than most.

I also don't think that homosexuality really is becoming any more common on an objective basis. I simply think we're paying more attention to it.

Arguably, modern social attitudes are also leading a slightly larger number of people who aren't actually homosexual to experiment in behaviors which it wouldn't have occurred to them to try otherwise.
 
Gathomas88 said:
......................:
Click to expand...

Homosexuals, on an instinctual level, are driven to seek out sexual activity which is contrary to (and, in at least half of all cases, even somewhat dangerous and unsanitary to the design of) human biology, and human sexuality's evolutionary goal.
Click to expand...

-being inclined to seek out sexual activity for nothing more than pleasure is not exclusive to homosexuals
-how is it contrary to human "biology". do you mean reproductive biology. if so, lot's of sexual actions are so I really don't understand the relevance of this
-there is no "goal" in evolution only outcomes


As I have already pointed out, this is certainly an "abnormality" which can be shown to not serve any readily apparent or useful purpose. Whether it is "harmful" or not, however, is something of a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...
-lot's of human behaviors are abnormal but you are indifferent to them. it nor being the norm is irrelevant in and of itself
-it does indeed serve a "useful" purpose. It can even be called utilitarian.

The "sex is always awesome, and it'd be great if we could all live in a 24/7 orgy like human Bonobos" crowd think it's just fine, and even argue that the rest of us shouldn't be afraid to get in on the action every now and then. The more practical among us think it is a bit of a waste of time and resources at best
Click to expand...
-are you equating me with this crowd
-did you just call sex a waste of time and resources

However, one could argue much the same about many other anomalous conditions.
Click to expand...
it's sad that you see every behavior that strays from your meticulously penned list of "acceptable" behaviors is considered a "condition" by you

Other than stunted physiques and poor social skills, can dwarfism or autism really be said to cause all that much immediately pressing "harm?"
Would you seek to "cure" or prevent them anyway if you had the power? I would
Click to expand...
I'd say they are the best judge of that.
 
opendebate said:
-being inclined to seek out sexual activity for nothing more than pleasure is not exclusive to homosexuals
-how is it contrary to human "biology". do you mean reproductive biology. if so, lot's of sexual actions are so I really don't understand the relevance of this
Click to expand...

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.

Homosexuality subverts this to no productive end.

-there is no "goal" in evolution only outcomes
Click to expand...

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.

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).

Either way, describing it as being a "useful" adaptation is a bit of a stretch.

-lot's of human behaviors are abnormal but you are indifferent to them. it nor being the norm is irrelevant in and of itself
Click to expand...

That depends. What kind of behaviors are we talking about here?

-it does indeed serve a "useful" purpose. It can even be called utilitarian.
Click to expand...

Which is?

are you equating me with this crowd
Click to expand...

Yes.

it's sad that you see every behavior that strays from your meticulously penned list of "acceptable" behaviors is considered a "condition" by you
Click to expand...

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.

I'd say they are the best judge of that.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom