• 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
Gathomas88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know what makes people attracted to certain individuals or body types, but thinking of how some insist they only like certain races for example, social conditioning could be a factor. I don't know that it's as determined at birth as attraction to gender.

Gathomas88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Depends what you compare it to. Your list (dwarfism, autism) and i could add plenty others like blind or deaf, might contribute to human diversity like i argued, but those traits are what i'd call inherently harmful. They always make life more difficult and how the rest of us respond to them - no matter how kind or accepting - doesn't change that. We can work to make it less difficult, but not so it's 100% the same as being free of that condition.

From experience i can tell you being homosexual isn't like that. Whatever difficulty comes from society not accepting it, "for no reason" i would argue - thus that is what needs to change. In a hateful environment as a minor, it was difficult but again the harm comes from others being haters. In accepting environment, it's really no more difficult. The difference between the two was vast and immediately obvious. Homophobia is what needs to be cured.

Gathomas88 said:
Homosexuality is also a biological and statistical anomaly with no immediately useful function, where the other attributes you listed are not.
Click to expand...

What is the useful function to being blue eyed? It is actually statistically abnormal. How about the elderly? They are abnormal and lack function once they reach a certain point. Guess we better off them all huh

Gathomas88 said:
Sorry, but I really don't see any objective value in such a state of affairs. :shrug:
Click to expand...

If you only cared for 'objective value' like a socialist or something, that would be one thing. I doubt that all your beliefs align with what's "best" for the species as a whole. Else you'd favor aborting down syndrome fetus, sterilizing drug addict or simply poor mothers, and so on. There is a long list of human failures and inconveniences that are largely preventable and less harmful than homosexuality.
 
Bodhisattva said:
But the animals that practice it observed it and learned it from humans, making it not natural nor normal.
Click to expand...

Are you serious lol? Even flies have been exhibited same sex behavior
 
Bodhisattva said:
But the animals that practice it observed it and learned it from humans, making it not natural nor normal.
Click to expand...

That is about the most ignorant retort I have ever gotten on this subject. I don't suppose you have some evidence to back up this claim?
 
Bodhisattva said:
But the animals that practice it observed it and learned it from humans, making it not natural nor normal.
Click to expand...

Please tell me that you meant this as a joke or as sarcasm.....without the emoticon or something similar its hard to tell....
 
Ludicrous , IMO, for a man to think that homosexuality is either "normal" or natural . However, being "un-natural" does NOT mean that its a sin or evil .. or even that the individual should "seek help" or under-go any change .. That is up to him, NOT you, NOT I ... nor society ..
 
Although I really don't care much about it, I don't really think it is normal or natural. Seriously, the ultimate biological goal for all animals is to live and reproduce to carry on their species. It's a biological imperative. That is why sex feels good and why we like it. Some wires are crossed with homosexuals I think, but I also don't think they're crazy or anything, just "different."
 
earthworm said:
Ludicrous , IMO, for a man to think that homosexuality is either "normal" or natural . However, being "un-natural" does NOT mean that its a sin or evil .. or even that the individual should "seek help" or under-go any change .. That is up to him, NOT you, NOT I ... nor society ..
Click to expand...
Feels natural to me.
 
ChrisL said:
Although I really don't care much about it, I don't really think it is normal or natural. Seriously, the ultimate biological goal for all animals is to live and reproduce to carry on their species. It's a biological imperative. That is why sex feels good and why we like it. Some wires are crossed with homosexuals I think, but I also don't think they're crazy or anything, just "different."
Click to expand...
Is it really always biologically beneficial for every member of a species to reproduce? Of course not. The ultimate biological goal for all animals is not to simply live and reproduce. It is to survive. Often, survival requires a smaller population, and reproduction may be harmful. Also, because homosexuality is prevalent among countless species, it is objectively natural by definition.

As to normal, I fail to see how homosexuals are anything but. Being gay is not a psychological problem, and gay men and women function perfectly well in society. There is no physical difficulty either. Exactly what definition of normal are you using?
 
chromium said:
Are you serious lol? Even flies have been exhibited same sex behavior
Click to expand...

You know what they say about "the fly on the wall"...

earthworm said:
Ludicrous , IMO, for a man to think that homosexuality is either "normal" or natural . However, being "un-natural" does NOT mean that its a sin or evil .. or even that the individual should "seek help" or under-go any change .. That is up to him, NOT you, NOT I ... nor society ..
Click to expand...

Of course it is natural. If it was not natural then people would physically be unable to do it. It is not normal in that most people are heterosexual though...

Kal'Stang said:
Please tell me that you meant this as a joke or as sarcasm.....without the emoticon or something similar its hard to tell....
Click to expand...

I am afraid that I can not tell you how I meant it... ;)
 
TeleKat said:
That is about the most ignorant retort I have ever gotten on this subject.
Click to expand...

I wasn't making a retort... I was making a reply.

I don't suppose you have some evidence to back up this claim?
Click to expand...

Where else would they learn it?
 
earthworm said:
Ludicrous , IMO, for a man to think that homosexuality is either "normal" or natural .
Click to expand...

What about women? Why are you leaving them out? I know that watching two women together seems normal and excitingly natural to me.

Watch. You might just like it.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Feels natural to me.
Click to expand...

I have to question, when homosexuality becomes an "issue", why do people ONLY focus on male on male?
 
Lakryte said:
Is it really always biologically beneficial for every member of a species to reproduce? Of course not. The ultimate biological goal for all animals is not to simply live and reproduce. It is to survive. Often, survival requires a smaller population, and reproduction may be harmful. Also, because homosexuality is prevalent among countless species, it is objectively natural by definition.

As to normal, I fail to see how homosexuals are anything but. Being gay is not a psychological problem, and gay men and women function perfectly well in society. There is no physical difficulty either. Exactly what definition of normal are you using?
Click to expand...

I think it is a biological imperative, just like in every other animal. Of course we don't consciously have sex to reproduce, but that IS the ultimate goal I believe. The reason why it feels good and is fun is so that we will WANT to do it. Of course, there are no really conclusive reasons why a person might be a homosexual, so I would have no idea. I'm not necessarily saying that it is a psychological problem. Maybe it's just a fluke thing that happens to a small percentage of people, a combination of different factors that together may make a person be gay? I don't really know.
 
ChrisL said:
I think it is a biological imperative, just like in every other animal. Of course we don't consciously have sex to reproduce, but that IS the ultimate goal I believe. The reason why it feels good and is fun is so that we will WANT to do it. Of course, there are no really conclusive reasons why a person might be a homosexual, so I would have no idea. I'm not necessarily saying that it is a psychological problem. Maybe it's just a fluke thing that happens to a small percentage of people, a combination of different factors that together may make a person be gay? I don't really know.
Click to expand...
No. The ultimate goal of a species is to survive, not to reproduce. If overpopulation is an issue, and if scarce resources cannot support a large number of additional members, gay members would serve a vital role of limiting population growth. That is just one example of when homosexuality in fact advances the biological imperative more ultimate than reproduction--survival.
 
Lakryte said:
No. The ultimate goal of a species is to survive, not to reproduce. If overpopulation is an issue, and if scarce resources cannot support a large number of additional members, gay members would serve a vital role of limiting population growth. That is just one example of when homosexuality in fact advances the biological imperative more ultimate than reproduction--survival.
Click to expand...

Come on! :lol: There are no instances of this happening in human history, where a civilization has turned gay or even a majority of them, to cut down on population growth. Sorry, but I think that is just silly.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I have a theory but it's rather long. But aside from that. I have no clue.
Click to expand...

As do I... and it stems from the idea that a man should only penetrate a female. If it happens to a male then it personalizes it for the male imagining it thus grossing them out. I know it grosses me out but I don't let that over ride my logic that people are free to do what they want with regards to adult consenting partners.

A guy penetrating a female in the rear? GREAT!
A guy penetrating a male in the rear? Ooohh YUCK!

That kind of thing...
 
ChrisL said:
Come on! :lol: There are no instances of this happening in human history, where a civilization has turned gay or even a majority of them, to cut down on population growth. Sorry, but I think that is just silly.
Click to expand...
I was never talking only about humans, especially not modern day humans where standard evolution doesn't really work the same way due to technology. Nor did I say that a civilization ever turned gay or imply anything of the sort. Please stick to my actual arguments, not strawmen.

The fact remains that the goal of a species is to survive. Reproduction is sometimes harmful to the species' survival, something that cannot be denied, so your notion that homosexuality is not natural because reproduction is a biological imperative is complete bunk. Not reproducing may very well be a biological imperative, thus your statement that reproduction is always a biological imperative is patently false.
 
ChrisL said:
Come on! :lol: There are no instances of this happening in human history, where a civilization has turned gay or even a majority of them, to cut down on population growth. Sorry, but I think that is just silly.
Click to expand...

He didn't say that it has happened, but just that it is a scenario that would benefit the species... but of course we need not be gay to do it either, just look at population controls in China. Look at the many millions that never want to have kids. There is nothing about our species that says we have to reproduce. Lakryte is correct, or goal is to survive.
 
Lakryte said:
I was never talking only about humans, especially not modern day humans where standard evolution doesn't really work the same way due to technology. Nor did I say that a civilization ever turned gay or imply anything of the sort. Please stick to my actual arguments, not strawmen.

The fact remains that the goal of a species is to survive. Reproduction is sometimes harmful to the species' survival, something that cannot be denied, so your notion that homosexuality is not natural because reproduction is a biological imperative is complete bunk. Not reproducing may very well be a biological imperative, thus your statement that reproduction is always a biological imperative is patently false.
Click to expand...

She does that... and that said, you make a great point about it being about survival.
 
Bodhisattva said:
As do I... and it stems from the idea that a man should only penetrate a female. If it happens to a male then it personalizes it for the male imagining it thus grossing them out. I know it grosses me out but I don't let that over ride my logic that people are free to do what they want with regards to adult consenting partners.

A guy penetrating a female in the rear? GREAT!
A guy penetrating a male in the rear? Ooohh YUCK!

That kind of thing...
Click to expand...
Close. The only difference my theory has is:

First, it is masculine to penetrate and feminine to be penetrated. You see this materialise when a lady straps on and penetrates her make sex partner. This is called gay. Even though the action is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman some people see this as homosexual.

Second, for a male to penetrate another male would make the bottom feminine and the top masculine thusthe average guy views a top male as somebody who "feminizes" and objectifies males.

Men are less sexually objectified in our culture and it disturbs them deeply to think that they are objectified.
Women are sexual objects in our culture, not men.
 
Bodhisattva said:
He didn't say that it has happened, but just that it is a scenario that would benefit the species... but of course we need not be gay to do it either, just look at population controls in China. Look at the many millions that never want to have kids. There is nothing about our species that says we have to reproduce. Lakryte is correct, or goal is to survive.
Click to expand...
passing genes to the next generation insures the survival of the species. Not the survival of the individual.

And should it be a biological imperative to procreate, I sure homosexuals would.
 
Lakryte said:
I was never talking only about humans, especially not modern day humans where standard evolution doesn't really work the same way due to technology. Nor did I say that a civilization ever turned gay or imply anything of the sort. Please stick to my actual arguments, not strawmen.

The fact remains that the goal of a species is to survive. Reproduction is sometimes harmful to the species' survival, something that cannot be denied, so your notion that homosexuality is not natural because reproduction is a biological imperative is complete bunk. Not reproducing may very well be a biological imperative, thus your statement that reproduction is always a biological imperative is patently false.
Click to expand...

Give some examples of where, in ANY species, NOT reproducing has been a biological imperative. THAT is bunk.
 
Bodhisattva said:
He didn't say that it has happened, but just that it is a scenario that would benefit the species... but of course we need not be gay to do it either, just look at population controls in China. Look at the many millions that never want to have kids. There is nothing about our species that says we have to reproduce. Lakryte is correct, or goal is to survive.
Click to expand...

He made a claim that is not true. Population control in CHINA?!! You must be joking. The population in China was screwed up BY the government trying to control the population to begin with! :roll: Man oh man! ALL species have a biological imperative to reproduce. The problem is that there have been incredible medical advances that allow us to live longer and fight off diseases and complications that killed our young, therefore we have a very robust population. It is still a biological imperative in almost all animals to reproduce. THAT is the reason why you want to have sex and why sex feels good, so that you will WANT to do it to reproduce and create more of us. Just because you aren't AWARE that is biological imperative does not negate that fact. Goodness, I think this is just common sense stuff.
 
Bodhisattva said:
She does that... and that said, you make a great point about it being about survival.
Click to expand...

Good Lord, take some biology classes and human behavior classes and learn something. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom