• 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
Tickling feels good too... so does a warm shower and stepping bare footed into horse crap/.

Not like sex though. :mrgreen: AND other things feeling good is irrelevant to the fact that sex feels good so that you will want to do it to propagate the species. As Gathomas said earlier, if there was no need to reproduce, sex would serve no purpose. Pretty much ALL of our biological functions and instincts serve a purpose.
 
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.

Yeah sure. Okay tomorrow. ;)
 
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.
Normal to me seems like a loaded term. Many people use normal to mean "moral" or something that they find socially acceptable. Normal can also mean "healthy" and it can also in a statistical sense mean "the average." In a statistical sense, homosexuality is definitely not normal--but that does not mean that homosexuality is not normal in a moral sense or a health sense, etc

The fact that homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom and has been documented throughout human history tells me that there was at some point a biological reason for homosexuality to exist. I don't know what, and I doubt anyone will ever know. Could it have to do with overpopulation, with a small segment of the population acting as a buffer? Maybe. Others suggest that families with homosexual members had more adults per child, meaning the child would have better chances of survival with an extra adult to provide food, resources, and safety. Other theories say that homosexuality exists to protect mothers who have too many children of the same sex, and the opposite sex hormones are given to the fetus during fertilization to keep the mother healthier.

The point is who knows. But I simply do not believe that something so widespread and consistently prevalent across species and throughout time is without biological purpose or cause.
 
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.

A friend of mine from another online forum did the same thing. Married, had several children, raised them, then divorced his wife for another man. He always knew, but it conflicted with what friends and family expected of him, so he tried living a straight life and was miserable. He did carry through with his commitment to raising his kids with their mother, though, and I highly respect that about him. It's really a rather sad story, but it's really nice to finally see him happy with his life.
 
Not like sex though. :mrgreen: AND other things feeling good is irrelevant to the fact that sex feels good so that you will want to do it to propagate the species. As Gathomas said earlier, if there was no need to reproduce, sex would serve no purpose. Pretty much ALL of our biological functions and instincts serve a purpose.

Argh!

NO!!! People WANT TO DO IT because IT ****ING FEELS GOOD!!! People do not WANT TO DO IT to propagate the ****ing species!!!

Propagating the species is the by-product.

...and I would rather surf, play golf or take a warm shower now-a-days than have to deal with a woman after sex.

Yeah sure. Okay tomorrow.

Well, if you are gonna be like that then do your own damn research. ;)
 
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.

True. However, this doesn't change the fact that there is still a definite biological and evolutionary logic as to why so many people turn towards activities like sex, substance abuse, and food for gratification of the "self," as opposed to say, staring into the sun for hours on end, or sticking their hands into meat grinders.

Your body wants to engage in certain behaviors, as they serve a certain purpose. It rewards you for them as such.

Likewise, it punishes you for other behaviors which might bring about obvious harm.

It simply happens to be the case that the system isn't foolproof, and really wasn't adapted to deal with today's world or life circumstances. For that reason, things can often have a tendency to get confused.

A caveman simply wouldn't have had enough food on hand to become obese, for instance. Today, a great many people do, and they wind up losing control of themselves because of it.

The same is true of sex. It is much more widely available today than in our evolutionary past, and seemingly available without consequence (of the immediate variety, anyway).

Just like with food, a lot of people lose control of themselves and wind up getting in trouble for that exact reason.
 
Last edited:
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.

I guess you understand it's far more likely he was gay all along, and didn't 'turn' gay. There is still an incredible pressure to 'be' straight, especially for someone who is religious.

I'll share my own anecdote. My brother is gay, but dated the same girl for 10 years, and married her. It didn't last long because ultimately he realized that it wasn't fair to her, or to him, but especially to their future kids, to base the marriage on a falsehood. He knew he was gay for all that time, but wanted the 'normal' life, loved his wife in many ways, and so tried for all those years to cure himself and BE straight, but ultimately decided he couldn't do it. IMO, he made the only possible moral choice by leaving his wife. The immoral choice was pretending to be straight, but that's what society expects, and it's sure what many religions would expect.
 
Normal to me seems like a loaded term. Many people use normal to mean "moral" or something that they find socially acceptable. Normal can also mean "healthy" and it can also in a statistical sense mean "the average." In a statistical sense, homosexuality is definitely not normal--but that does not mean that homosexuality is not normal in a moral sense or a health sense, etc

When I say "normal" I'm talking about what would be considered normal human behavior. Obviously if homosexuality was "normal" we would have died off a long time ago. That tells me that it is not necessarily normal. I certainly don't mean it in an moral sense or even a health sense. I know that gay people can be moral and healthy or not, just like straight people.

The fact that homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom and has been documented throughout human history tells me that there was at some point a biological reason for homosexuality to exist. I don't know what, and I doubt anyone will ever know. Could it have to do with overpopulation, with a small segment of the population acting as a buffer? Maybe. Others suggest that families with homosexual members had more adults per child, meaning the child would have better chances of survival with an extra adult to provide food, resources, and safety. Other theories say that homosexuality exists to protect mothers who have too many children of the same sex, and the opposite sex hormones are given to the fetus during fertilization to keep the mother healthier.

I cannot explain why homosexuality occurs in animals, but I still don't think that is the "norm" for animals either. I don't know if there could be another reason for it to exist or not. That would be quite difficult to figure out. You could be right about the overpopulation theory for a small number of people, but if that's the case, then it hasn't really worked so far, but I guess it could be worse. Lol.

The point is who knows. But I simply do not believe that something so widespread and consistently prevalent across species and throughout time is without biological purpose or cause.

And you are entitled to your opinion, and I can respect that since you've been so nice and civil and polite. :)
 
Argh!

NO!!! People WANT TO DO IT because IT ****ING FEELS GOOD!!! People do not WANT TO DO IT to propagate the ****ing species!!!

Propagating the species is the by-product.

...and I would rather surf, play golf or take a warm shower now-a-days than have to deal with a woman after sex.



Well, if you are gonna be like that then do your own damn research. ;)

You are looking at this in way too simple terms! :roll:
 
I don't see the point in these vague questions whose answers depend on how they're interpreted.
 
True. However, this doesn't change the fact that there is still a definite biological and evolutionary logic as to why so many people turn towards activities like sex, drugs, and food for gratification of the "self," as opposed to say, staring into the sun for hours on end, or sticking their hands into meat grinders.

Your body wants to engage in certain behaviors, as they serve a certain purpose. It rewards you for them as such.

Likewise, it punishes you for other behaviors which might bring about obvious harm.

It simply happens to be the case that the system isn't foolproof, and really wasn't adapted to deal with today's world. For that reason, things can often have a tendency to get confused.

A caveman simply wouldn't have had enough food on hand to become obese, for instance. Today, a great many people do, and they wind up losing control of themselves because of it.

Much the same is true of sex. It is much more widely available today than in our evolutionary past, and seemingly available without consequence (of the immediate variety, anyway).

Just like with food, a lot of people lose control of themselves and wind up getting in trouble for that exact reason.

Good post Gath. "Self" however is still the culprit. It has been from the beginning of time.
 
Why do you think most men want to sleep with a LOT of women? It is so that they can be guaranteed to spread their seed. It is all instinctual.

Also, men are sexually attracted to good-looking women. Why? Because good looks are an outside measure of healthiness. Again, these are instinctual behaviors.
I agree mostly. Mating is an instinct for all sexual creatures.
 
Introducing artificial chemicals into the mix doesn't change the biological purpose of the act.

You can take pills to keep you from gaining weight after eating as well. It doesn't mean that nutrition isn't still the primary reason why we eat in the first place.
I was simply pointing out guile.

And for this that wish to speak about morality associated with homosexuality.
 
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.
Born-homosexuality is not normal as only 2% of the population is gay. Likewise my left-handedness is not normal, either, as only 15% of the population is left-handed.

Born-homosexuality is natural in that it occures without conscience intervention. That being said, many birth defects are also naturaly occuring.
 
I don't see the point in these vague questions whose answers depend on how they're interpreted.
`
These kind of arguments are like rocking in a rocking chair. It gives you something to do but doesn't get you anyplace.
 
The ultimate goal in handling defects should be treatment and prevention, not "tolerance."
define defect
Use a dictionary.
Defect - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
I wasn't, since that's outside the scope of the thread's 2 questions.

I was only telling the person who needed a word defigned to consult a dictionary since thats where definitions are found.
 
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.

Well, a lot of people will insist "normal" is synonymous with "common," and homosexuality doesn't fit that criteria, but that isn't really the meaning of the word. Redheads are uncommon, and also normal. Homosexuals are the same.

It does seem to be natural, yes. We see it in all of human history regardless of culture, and in other species as well. It occurs in nature. Thus, natural.
 
As I said before, the question of "harm" can be rather subjective in this case.

I've got a few conditions myself which I would have much rather been born without if I was given the choice. For instance, I was born with mild Scoliosis, which might very well be indicative of a more mild form of undiagnosed Marfan Syndrome.

Has it ever affected my quality of life? Not really.

Is it even especially noticeable? No. Not even the Army docs noticed it during my enlisted physical (which is the only reason I got in).

However, I'd really rather not have it all the same. :shrug:

Yeah, many have conditions like these. Often the difficulty living with them is enhanced or entirely due to others being pricks about it though. My friend stuttered as a kid. Even teachers would uselessly yell "stop stuttering." I've had hand tremors since birth and while it does make some tasks difficult or impossible, the real nuisance has been the hostile reaction at times. Still, because it's made me struggle with hands on work, i've been to doctors and wish they would find a cure for it.

I know you mentioned the nuisance of adapting, but in accepting environment, there's nothing much to adapt to being gay. It's not hard to be content with and going to doctors would be absurd.


I'm not saying that Homosexuality is the "root of all evil" here. Far from it. It's basically irrelevant on the whole.

However, that being said, there's still no real reason why it should have to exist. It's just an anomaly.

It doesn't *have* to exist, but neither does blue eyes. The issue here is why not just let others to decide for themselves if they're happy with it, instead of keep coming up with reasons they can't be. I've even met a few who insisted they *wish* they were gay, mostly cause they struggled with the opposite sex dating and living with them and basically all their friends are same sex.

Fine if someone wishes they were a diff sexuality for reasons like this, not cause of homophobia or cause being gay seems "an easier life" (seriously, one told me that). But they're better off finding a way to be happy with how they are.
 
I'm simply looking at the issue from a scientific / medical standpoint. Like it or not, if it were possible to keep children from being born homosexual in the first place, I think a lot of parents would opt to do exactly that.

I know I would.

It'd simply make things easier for them, and easier for society in general.

Easier for society how? I really don't see how 5% being homosexual affects society one way or the other.
 
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.

That sounds identical to my uncle's situation. However, the idea of him "turning gay" is absurd, sorry. That's most likely his ex-wife's explanation to avoid embarrassment. Just cause he married, went to church, and had 3 kids he wasn't gay? Well so did my uncle, and he insists he was gay the entire time and took this path only cause it was (still in this state) the only means to marry and have kids, and for career purposes.
 
Back
Top Bottom