• 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
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 productive way to live one's life.

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

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

But I think that perspective is begging the question; it's assuming these conditions are undesirable. I'll grant there are some conditions for which this is true - let's say, cerebral palsy. People who were just dealt a ****ty hand and are trying to make the most of it. If such a person says that they're perfectly happy with their life and don't regret being born the way they were, while I commend the positive attitude I don't think they're being truly honest with themselves (perhaps as a psychological defense mechanism).

But there are also "conditions" for which that's not necessarily true. For example, I wouldn't want to have been born a woman instead. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a woman, it's just that I am content with my gender and wouldn't want to be different in that regard. That doesn't mean I view women who say they are happy with being women as people who are just lying to themselves and just "making the best of a ****ty hand". I believe they are legitimately content with who they are, even if it's not the way I would want to be.

I view homosexuality as closer to the latter. I wouldn't want to be homosexual, but I think that homosexuals who are content with their orientation are genuinely so. That they aren't just "making the best out of a ****ty hand". In which case I don't view homosexuality as something that ought to be prevented any more than being a woman ought to be prevented.

If everyone could be born "normal," I'd say that it'd be better if they were.

I think the determining factor is not whether a condition is "normal" but whether it's a condition that's inherently bad. I agree that homosexuality is not "normal", but I don't agree that the experience of being homosexual necessarily be bad, even though it's not the way I would want to be.
 
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.

Define the context of normal and natural. In a statistical context homosexuality and bi sexuality are far from normal. Same for left handed-ness and many other things that we consider "normal" outside of statistical context.
 
I view homosexuality as closer to the latter. I wouldn't want to be homosexual, but I think that homosexuals who are content with their orientation are genuinely so. That they aren't just "making the best out of a ****ty hand". In which case I don't view homosexuality as something that ought to be prevented any more than being a woman ought to be prevented.

I think the determining factor is not whether a condition is "normal" but whether it's a condition that's inherently bad. I agree that homosexuality is not "normal", but I don't agree that the experience of being homosexual necessarily be bad, even though it's not the way I would want to be.

Fair enough. As I said to Opendebate, there is a certain element to this discussion which is open to interpretation where questions of "harm" and "value" are concerned.

The only issue I'd raise here is that being born as either a woman or a man is the natural order of our species. Conditions like homosexuality don't express themselves in that manner.

It's basically like the individual in question was meant to be a man or a woman like any other, but something (either involving the wrong combination of genes at conception or the wrong balance of hormones being introduced at the wrong time during gestation) wound up getting confused along the way, and so they developed many of the brain structures, sexual appetites, and inclinations of the opposite sex instead. The end result of this process is essentially a voluntary eunuch, who has been cut out of the gene pool under most normal circumstances.

If there was a method to ensure that such deviations from the normal process could not take place, would there really be any harm in making use of it?
 
Last edited:
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.
Should statistical frequency alone warrant any insinuation of something untoward, where there is no conscious intent, malice or adverse effect, we must condemn congenital disability for being similarly infrequent. As to nature, you'd be hard-pressed to conclude that orientation could be anomalous, in the face of what amounts to a culturally and historically ubiquitous feature of sexuality. Had sexuality been defined less by imperatives than a vacuum of ideals, morality might have been relevant, and it could have been merely a preference, pursued on a whim.
 
The only issue I'd raise here is that being born as either a woman or a man is the natural order of our species. Conditions like homosexuality don't express themselves in that manner.

This may not be exactly along the line of what you were saying but it made me think. Maybe, given all that we are learning about internal and external genders and such, maybe we don't have hetero and homosexuality per se'. We are male attracted or female attracted and that attraction is based off of how we view others. So regardless of whether "jenny" who was born physically male is or feels female, if a female attracted person can't see them as female then they won't be attracted. Sorry, not trying to derail, but maybe this is fodder for another thread?
 
This may not be exactly along the line of what you were saying but it made me think. Maybe, given all that we are learning about internal and external genders and such, maybe we don't have hetero and homosexuality per se'. We are male attracted or female attracted and that attraction is based off of how we view others. So regardless of whether "jenny" who was born physically male is or feels female, if a female attracted person can't see them as female then they won't be attracted. Sorry, not trying to derail, but maybe this is fodder for another thread?

Possibly. However, that would depend to a great extent upon how much of the science of attraction is "physical" as opposed to "mental."I strongly suspect that physical attraction is ultimately the stronger element at play, simply because reproduction tends to be the "end game" of human sexual activity.

Though... If we are being honest here, I will admit that dealing with gay men can be a bit strange at times, simply because many of them tend to have rather decidedly "feminine" aspects to their interpersonal style. That can be somewhat off-putting. :lol:
 
It's unnatural.
 
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.


You sound like my husband.;)
 
No clue what "normak" is?

Whatever the reason people are gay, all I know is this....people should get to be attracted to any other consenting adult without having to explain it or justify it. Not my business and I support everyone's right to love whomever they choose.
 
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.
 
I don't care if it's normal or natural because they aren't hurting anybody.

what he said

its not the normal wiring but its not abnormal either. Its a normal variation of human sexuality
 
Yes and yes. Its always been around and its perfectly natural.
 
Possibly. However, that would depend to a great extent upon how much of the science of attraction is "physical" as opposed to "mental."I strongly suspect that physical attraction is ultimately the stronger element at play, simply because reproduction tends to be the "end game" of human sexual activity.

Though... If we are being honest here, I will admit that dealing with gay men can be a bit strange at times, simply because many of them tend to have rather decidedly "feminine" aspects to their interpersonal style. That can be somewhat off-putting. :lol:

I have to question the reproduction bit unless it is so subconscious that it overrides the knowledge that one is sterile and cannot reproduce. Add to that overriding the knowledge that a woman use to once be physically a man. I dated a MtF who even pre-op hit my every sense as woman. We have one MtF in our local D/s group who is pre-op but registers rather neutral to me and another who claims to be MtF (the demeanor and the word of others in other groups makes me wonder) that hits male on my radar. Of course all of this has to do with the physical (well maybe not all of it) and is why I say that one's attraction would be based upon how the other is perceived. If one truly perceives a MtF as female and is attracted to female, then it's all good.
 
............:


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.

But your argument, which I am responding to here, attempted to condemned sexual actions that are not conducted for the purpose of reproduction and you specifically accuse homosexuals of being driven towards sex for what you consider to be the "wrong" reasons. If it doesn't matter why'd you bring it up? If it does matter then fine, but doing it has no connection with homosexuality therefore does not belong in the conversation

Homosexuality subverts this to no productive end.
The majority of sex I've had in my life, and I'll bet the majority of healthy (mentally) people in this country, has not been for the purpose of reproduction. It's because it feels good on every conceivable level. So again, it this represents a subversion to you fine, but it is not an exclusively homosexual one so again it does not belong in the conversation

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..

Again, there is no goal. That implies that a specific outcome was selected and humans were engineered in a premeditated way to achieve that outcome. This is not the case. All outcomes result from pure chance and that outcome either does or does not benefit us or facilitate our survival.

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).
So what

Either way, describing it as being a "useful" adaptation is a bit of a stretch
who described it as a "useful" adaptation?

That depends. What kind of behaviors are we talking about here?
That's a sticky mess isn't it. As long as an "abnormal" behavior isn't hurtful to anyone who is non-consenting, why should we care.

Which is?
10 Surprising Health Benefits of Sex

lol. seriously? Based on what?

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.
Life is chaos Gath. Get over yourself.

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
You said they should be cured. I suggest that judging the hardship created by whatever condition one may have is best left to person living with it.
 
I have to question the reproduction bit unless it is so subconscious that it overrides the knowledge that one is sterile and cannot reproduce. Add to that overriding the knowledge that a woman use to once be physically a man.

This would basically seem to be the case from everything I've read. On a purely instinctual level, human beings tend to be overwhelmingly "attracted" to clear indicators of fertility in the opposite sex, and our bodies even seem to be adapted in such a way as to flaunt them.

Men are usually drawn to wide, curvy hips and supple breasts and buttocks, all of which indicate either very high levels of estrogen, greater ease of childbirth, or more extensive fat stores which could be utilized in pregnancy. Likewise, women tend to be drawn towards signs of high testosterone which also indicate virility.

This seems to be true of homosexual attraction to a large extent as well (either that, or they go for a member of the same sex who displays strong tendencies towards the opposite gender's form and mannerisms). It simply happens to be the case that the person experiencing the attraction is of the same sex.

I dated a MtF who even pre-op hit my every sense as woman. We have one MtF in our local D/s group who is pre-op but registers rather neutral to me and another who claims to be MtF (the demeanor and the word of others in other groups makes me wonder) that hits male on my radar. Of course all of this has to do with the physical (well maybe not all of it) and is why I say that one's attraction would be based upon how the other is perceived. If one truly perceives a MtF as female and is attracted to female, then it's all good.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
 
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.

Nevertheless, both he and Freud were able to address certain phenomena that none of their colleagues ever came up with a better explanation for.

Although any research has elements that can be fairly criticized, to pretend that either Freud or Kinsey is universally reviled is a gross distortion.
 
Nevertheless, both he and Freud were able to address certain phenomena that none of their colleagues ever came up with a better explanation for.

Although any research has elements that can be fairly criticized, to pretend that either Freud or Kinsey is universally reviled is a gross distortion.

As dedicated and large a body of work as Freud and Kinsey did, I've never been impressed by their conclusions.

I think Turtle put it best, that it's not mainstream but it is a normal variation of human sexuality.
 
Why do I have the feeling that you're not around many gays?



This would basically seem to be the case from everything I've read. On a purely instinctual level, human beings tend to be overwhelmingly "attracted" to clear indicators of fertility in the opposite sex, and our bodies even seem to be adapted in such a way as to flaunt them.

Men are usually drawn to wide, curvy hips and supple breasts and buttocks, all of which indicate either very high levels of estrogen, greater ease of childbirth, or more extensive fat stores which could be utilized in pregnancy. Likewise, women tend to be drawn towards signs of high testosterone which also indicate virility.

This seems to be true of homosexual attraction to a large extent as well (either that, or they go for a member of the same sex who displays strong tendencies towards the opposite gender's form and mannerisms). It simply happens to be the case that the person experiencing the attraction is of the same sex.



If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
 
But your argument, which I am responding to here, attempted to condemned sexual actions that are not conducted for the purpose of reproduction and you specifically accuse homosexuals of being driven towards sex for what you consider to be the "wrong" reasons. If it doesn't matter why'd you bring it up? If it does matter then fine, but doing it has no connection with homosexuality therefore does not belong in the conversation

The majority of sex I've had in my life, and I'll bet the majority of healthy (mentally) people in this country, has not been for the purpose of reproduction. It's because it feels good on every conceivable level. So again, it this represents a subversion to you fine, but it is not an exclusively homosexual one so again it does not belong in the conversation

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.

Sex doesn't exist to occupy some hedonistic niche. It exists to propagate the species. The fact that it "feels good" is simply nature's way of incentivizing us into seeking it out, and ensuring that couples engage in it regularly enough to ensure pregnancy.

Any other benefits it might result in are ultimately secondary to that goal.

Again, there is no goal. That implies that a specific outcome was selected and humans were engineered in a premeditated way to achieve that outcome. This is not the case. All outcomes result from pure chance and that outcome either does or does not benefit us or facilitate our survival.

Okay, so if we don't have sex, and don't reproduce, we die off and go extinct. :shrug:

The fact that we haven't yet would certainly seem to indicate that our biology at least has a vested interest in driving us to ensure the species' survival.


It would seem to indicate that homosexual orientation is the result of something not functioning in the way it should on either some genetic or developmental level.

What would be the harm in correcting or preventing such a thing, if we had the power to do so?

By your own admission, it's not like it serves any useful purpose.


lol. seriously? Based on what?

The fact that you have repeatedly defended casual sex and promiscuity, perhaps? Hell, Op! I've even seen you defend bisexuality for the purposes of "experimentation" before. :lol:

Life is chaos Gath. Get over yourself.

Is there any reason it should be?

You said they should be cured. I suggest that judging the hardship created by whatever condition one may have is best left to person living with it.

Plenty of preventative medical procures are imposed upon children simply because their parents view it as being for the "greater good." How would this be any different?

For that matter, weren't you the one who argued that it was better to abort children rather than allow them to grow up poor?

I'm not suggesting anything even half that extreme here.
 
Its not *intrinsically* wrong, its just wrong. More words don't make you smarter or make you seem smarter.

Gays have many flavors and attractions. Your perception of what attracts men to men is based on stereotypes - probably from movies made from 60s or 70s. I see you're in the south so its not surprising that your ideas are bass ackward. Spend some time in a real city and if you're as smart as you think you are you'll lose the superficial and wrong ideas of many things. But quite honestly, I don't think you have the *intrinsic* ability to do so.

Feel free to tell what I said that I was intrinsically wrong.
 
Its not *intrinsically* wrong, its just wrong. More words don't make you smarter or make you seem smarter.

Gays have many flavors and attractions. Your perception of what attracts men to men is based on stereotypes - probably from movies made from 60s or 70s. I see you're in the south so its not surprising that your ideas are bass ackward. Spend some time in a real city and if you're as smart as you think you are you'll lose the superficial and wrong ideas of many things. But quite honestly, I don't think you have the *intrinsic* ability to do so.

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.
 
Plenty of preventative medical procures are imposed upon children simply because their parents view it as being for the "greater good." How would this be any different?
For that matter, weren't you the one who argued that it was better to abort children rather than allow them to grow up poor?
I'm not suggesting anything even half that extreme here.



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.
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.

Sex doesn't exist to occupy some hedonistic niche.
You're right it does not exist for that purpose or any other. It just exists.

It exists to propagate the species
No it doesn't. That's your belief in god talking not logic, reason or science.

The fact that it "feels good" is simply nature's way of incentivizing us into seeking it out, and ensuring that couples engage in it regularly enough to ensure pregnancy.
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

Okay, so if we don't have sex, and don't reproduce, we die off and go extinct. :shrug:
The fact that we haven't yet would certainly seem to indicate that our biology at least has a vested interest in driving us to ensure the species' survival.
Our biology is not sentient.

It would seem to indicate that homosexual orientation is the result of something not functioning in the way it should on either some genetic or developmental level.
-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

What would be the harm in correcting or preventing such a thing, if we had the power to do so?
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.

By your own admission, it's not like it serves any useful purpose
I am not as compelled to qualify things in the same deeply restricted way that you are and I don't believe that I ever "admitted" such a thing

The fact that you have repeatedly defended casual sex and promiscuity, perhaps? Hell, Op! I've even seen you defend bisexuality for the purposes of "experimentation" before. :lol
Just because I defend it doesn't mean I practice it

Is there any reason it should be?
No, there is no reason it should be. Things really don't need a reason to exist. They just do.

Plenty of preventative medical procures are imposed upon children simply because their parents view it as being for the "greater good." How would this be any different?.
My assumption is that you are referring to things like vaccinations?? Apples and oranges dude.

For that matter, weren't you the one who argued that it was better to abort children rather than allow them to grow up poor?
Not one for subtleties are you Gath? I never suggested any such thing
 
Back
Top Bottom