• 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
Bodhisattva said:
Homosexuality is natural but not normal. Normal implies the majority.

... and of course it is instinctual that I find hot babes desirable.



Seinfeld?
Click to expand...

Yup, Seinfeld! :lol:
 
Gathomas88 said:
Consciousness can only direct what nature provided for us in the first place.

Frankly, even then, it's not like our actions are completely our own anyway. Our instincts push us towards certain behaviors and inclinations without our knowledge or consent.

Sexuality is one such instinct.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have saved other people's lives at the risk of my own and when I later thought about it I thought, "why did I do that?". When one of the times it was my daughter I understood but when the other two happened I was not so sure. Instinct.
 
Gathomas88 said:
When "overpopulation" occurs in nature, the excess individuals simply die off.
Click to expand...
When overpopulation occurs, it is quite possible for an entire population to die off. Regardless, that simply proves that there is not always a biological imperative to reproduce. You keep ignoring that key point.
 
ChrisL said:
Okay, I can agree with that. It is natural because it is not (as far as we know) caused by any external factors.
Click to expand...
That is all I was really trying to say. Glad we can end on agreement.
 
Sounds like you've sometimes wondered just that.



Bodhisattva said:
Mentally confused. Abused or molested since childhood thus altering their sense of self or worth, changing their ideas of gender identity. That is what she means and not, "gee, how did this dick end up in my mouth" :roll:
Click to expand...
 
Gathomas88 said:
It doesn't matter. The only reason you're driven to have sex in the first place is because it serves a reproductive function.

Without that, sex wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

Nope. The only reason people are driven to have sex is because it feels good. Billions of people have sex every day without the intention of reproducing.
 
Lakryte said:
As I have pointed out countless times, reproduction is not always beneficial to survival. If there aren't enough resources to sustain a larger population, and the resources are consumed before they can be replenished, the entire population will die. Overpopulation is a biological term that applies to all animals. Refer to my previous post.


Not relevant to my main point whatsoever, which is the following: Homosexuality occurs in nature and is therefore natural. The argument that reproduction is always a biological imperative is false, for in many cases reproduction may cause more harm than not producing.
Click to expand...

I never said that it wasn't "natural."

I simply pointed out that it being "natural" doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot in and of itself. A lot of genetic and developmental conditions are technically "natural" and also negative.

At the end of the day, homosexuality is a fluke, or biological anomaly. That's the point here.

Lakryte said:
When overpopulation occurs, it is quite possible for an entire population to die off. Regardless, that simply proves that there is not always a biological imperative to reproduce. You keep ignoring that key point.
Click to expand...

Such a thing is extremely unlikely to occur under any kind of natural circumstance.

Again, even if it does, it would have nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality is not any kind of deliberate counter-measure to population pressure.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
Nope. The only reason people are driven to have sex is because it feels good. Billions of people have sex every day without the intention of reproducing.
Click to expand...

And it only "feels good" because it serves a reproductive purpose, and your genes have a vested interested in making you want to do exactly that.

Again, regardless of how we may have interfered in the process, the simple fact of the matter is that without reproduction, there would be no sex. Reproduction is it's primary purpose.

Frankly, judging from our out of control STD rates, it wouldn't appear that sex divorced from reproduction has been an especially positive development in human society anyway. It's a waste of time, and a rather dangerous waste of time at that.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Nope. The only reason people are driven to have sex is because it feels good. Billions of people have sex every day without the intention of reproducing.
Click to expand...

:roll: It feels good so that you will reproduce.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I never said that it wasn't "natural."

I simply pointed out that it being "natural" doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot in and of itself. A lot of genetic and developmental conditions are "natural" and also negative.

At the end of the day, homosexuality is a fluke, or biological anomaly. That's the point here.



Such a thing is extremely unlikely to occur under any kind of natural circumstance.

Again, even if it does, it would have nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality is not any kind of deliberate counter-measure to population pressure.
Click to expand...
If you agree that homosexuality is natural, then we have no argument. I was merely responding to another poster who had argued that because reproduction is a biological imperative and homosexuals do not reproduce, homosexuality is unnatural.
 
Gathomas88 said:
And it only "feels good" because it serves a reproductive purpose, and your genes have a vested interested in making you want to do exactly that.

Again, regardless of how we may have interfered in the process, the simple fact of the matter is that without reproduction, there would be no sex. Reproduction is it's primary purpose.

Frankly, judging from out of control STD rates, it wouldn't appear that sex divorced from reproduction has been an especially positive development anyway. It's a waste of time, and a rather dangerous waste of time at that.
Click to expand...

You said it "has" been an especially positive development. :lol:

Edit: Oops, sorry, my bad, I misread that sentence. :mrgreen:
 
ChrisL said:
That's true in that no parent would want their child to have to suffer in any way. I also wonder how many people are just confused about their sexuality for whatever reasons and are not truly homosexuals. I'm quite sure that is the case in some instances.
Click to expand...

Thats a good point. I think the modern day concept of sexual orientation isnt completely accurate- the ancient world didnt have any such distinctions (in fact the Romans had a completely different view on what sex and manliness meant). Pigeonholing somebody as gay or straight or whatever doesnt work all the time. Anectdotal: I was friends with a guy for many years and he was a devoted family man with three kids and a churchgoer, I recently called up his wife because we lost touch since I moved overseas and his wife now tells me he turned gay and they divorced. Wow.
 
ChrisL said:
You said it "has" been an especially positive development. :lol:

Edit: Oops, sorry, my bad, I misread that sentence. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Don't feel too bad. I did the same thing. lol

I actually went back and edited the sentence before I realized that it was right the first time. :lol:
 
Lakryte said:
If you agree that homosexuality is natural, then we have no argument. I was merely responding to another poster who had argued that because reproduction is a biological imperative and homosexuals do not reproduce, homosexuality is unnatural.
Click to expand...

I still don't think it's "normal" though. :mrgreen: I don't think it's bad or anything, so don't get mad. I just think that it's normal for men to desire women and vice versa because all species are meant to reproduce ultimately; if not, we would die off quickly. I'm not sure about your population control theory either. It's not out of the realm of possibility, but I think what is more likely to happen is that you eventually run out of resources and a portion of the population dies from starvation, just like what does happen with many animals whenever there is an overpopulation. It is what's happening in parts of some 3rd world countries right now as we speak.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Don't feel too bad. I did the same thing. lol

I actually went back and edited the sentence before I realized that it was right the first time. :lol:
Click to expand...

:lol: It was that "wouldn't appear that" that threw me I guess. It's okay, sometimes I get stupid when I'm tired.
 
ChrisL said:
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. MOST men hunted and needed to protect themselves and their property, not only against animals but also against other predatory humans.
Click to expand...

Right. As a history major I have no idea about history. Most people did not CARRY guns. Gun fight deaths were around 5 deaths PER YEAR. Most people HAD guns though...
 
ChrisL said:
I thought it was pretty funny! :2razz:
Click to expand...

It would have been funny if I had said "tens of thousands" as opposed to just "thousands"...
 
Gathomas88 said:
And it only "feels good" because it serves a reproductive purpose, and your genes have a vested interested in making you want to do exactly that.

Again, regardless of how we may have interfered in the process, the simple fact of the matter is that without reproduction, there would be no sex. Reproduction is it's primary purpose.

Frankly, judging from our out of control STD rates, it wouldn't appear that sex divorced from reproduction has been an especially positive development in human society anyway. It's a waste of time, and a rather dangerous waste of time at that.
Click to expand...
Actually it is more about self gratification no matter how achieved. The culprit is "SELF" regardless where or how that gratification occurs with no intent of reproducing. "SELF" leads the way to any forms of gratification. Those without a moral compass entails a free for all. Period.
 
PoS said:
Thats a good point. I think the modern day concept of sexual orientation isnt completely accurate- the ancient world didnt have any such distinctions (in fact the Romans had a completely different view on what sex and manliness meant). Pigeonholing somebody as gay or straight or whatever doesnt work all the time. Anectdotal: I was friends with a guy for many years and he was a devoted family man with three kids and a churchgoer, I recently called up his wife because we lost touch since I moved overseas and his wife now tells me he turned gay and they divorced. Wow.
Click to expand...

Maybe he was always gay but just was afraid to admit that to himself, or he didn't want anyone else to know about it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Right. As a history major I have no idea about history. Most people did not CARRY guns. Gun fight deaths were around 5 deaths PER YEAR. Most people HAD guns though...
Click to expand...

Post me a link Mr. History Man.
 
ChrisL said:
:roll: It feels good so that you will reproduce.
Click to expand...

Tickling feels good too... so does a warm shower and stepping bare footed into horse crap/.
 
ChrisL said:
Post me a link Mr. History Man.
Click to expand...

I remember this from a documentary or two on History Channel and from reading books pre-Internet. I have looked some and not found much and am nearing the end of my day... maybe tomorrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom