• 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:
Exactly. Do you have any idea how liberating it would be to not have to worry about sex or relationships at all?

Hell! If everyone's really so worried about "overpopulation" as they claim, the most logical solution might be to genetically engineer the human sex drive out of our species entirely, and simply grow new people out of tubes instead.

Of course, the social Left won't support doing anything of the kind, because what they're really worried about is simply being able to get their rocks off without having to deal with any kind of guilt or responsibility. :lol:
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, I actually really enjoy sex. :mrgreen:
 
Bodhisattva said:
And this is why I am not debating you. I agree with pretty much all of your posts on this subject. Chris decided to argue that we "wanted" sex because it lead to procreation. She is wrong. We "want" sex because it feels good.
Click to expand...

Okay. I can see where you're coming from with that.

We want sex, because our bodies want sex. Our bodies want sex because it feels good.

The only caveat I'd add there is that the primary reason why it feels good in the first place is because it is a way of ensuring that reproduction takes place.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Fish don't have sex organs... they drop eggs and the other fertilizes them. Pleasure is obviously not a mandatory requirement to procreate.
Click to expand...

It is for PEOPLE though, because of the fact that we can think and are more intelligent. It HAS to feel good or we would not want to do it, and then we would not reproduce. This is really easy stuff. ;)
 
Gathomas88 said:
Hell! If everyone's really so worried about "overpopulation" as they claim, the most logical solution might be to genetically engineer the human sex drive out of our species entirely, and simply grow new people out of tubes instead.
Click to expand...

Hasn't been suggested that homosexuality is nature's counter to overpopulation?
 
Gathomas88 said:
Okay. I can see where you're coming from with that.

We want sex, because our bodies want sex. Our bodies want sex because it feels good.

The only caveat I'd add there is that the primary reason why it feels good in the first place is because it is a way of ensuring that reproduction takes place.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I have been trying to say for pages and pages now! :lol:
 
I don't believe that there is an instinct to procreate. Rather, it feels good and we are inclined to pursue things that bring us pleasure so we do it. Pregnancy is one of many potential outcomes.
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
Wow that is the most ill thought out response that I've seen in a long time. As humans we do hundreds of things that have no reasons other then they feel good! Why would sex be any different?
Click to expand...

He didn't speak towards peoples motivations. Pleasure exists to make people want to engage in sex and in case you didn't know unplanned pregnancies are necessary to meet replacement rates.
 
ChrisL said:
It is for PEOPLE though, because of the fact that we can think and are more intelligent. It HAS to feel good or we would not want to do it, and then we would not reproduce. This is really easy stuff. ;)
Click to expand...

What do you mean... feels good for dogs and they aren't that intelligent. Intelligence has nothing to do with it feeling good. An intelligent person would think that a woman laying an egg and me squirting fertilizer on it would be far easier. Neither would have to be impregnated or die of child birth complications (the #1 leading cause of death for women until the 1940's, I believe).
 
Bodhisattva said:
Fish don't have sex organs... they drop eggs and the other fertilizes them. Pleasure is obviously not a mandatory requirement to procreate.
Click to expand...

Too much suckage! I get your point though.
 
ChrisL said:
This is exactly what I have been trying to say for pages and pages now! :lol:
Click to expand...

Nope. You have been saying that people sex feels good so that people want to have sex in order to procreate. Go back and read a few pages ago or more... you and he are clearly NOT saying the same exact thing.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What do you mean... feels good for dogs and they aren't that intelligent. Intelligence has nothing to do with it feeling good. An intelligent person would think that a woman laying an egg and me squirting fertilizer on it would be far easier. Neither would have to be impregnated or die of child birth complications (the #1 leading cause of death for women until the 1940's, I believe).
Click to expand...

I mean we are too intelligent to have sex if it didn't feel good. Why would we want to do it otherwise? To have children? :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am like this now. I have an ex-wife. With one like mine you would never want to worry about sex or relationships again, because if you made a mistake and got another like her you would blow your brains out.
Click to expand...

That's basically the way I am now as well, though I plan on making a go at it once I get a bit better situated.

maquiscat said:
Wow that is the most ill thought out response that I've seen in a long time. As humans we do hundreds of things that have no reasons other then they feel good! Why would sex be any different?
Click to expand...

If something "feels good" there is generally a reason for it.

maquiscat said:
Hasn't been suggested that homosexuality is nature's counter to overpopulation?
Click to expand...

And the claim was refuted, as I recall. Homosexuals simply aren't nearly numerous enough to have any impact on population whatsoever.

For that matter, homosexual behavior tends to be rather risky anyway from a health and wellness perspective.

Complete asexuality would ultimately be preferable to homosexuality as a means of combating population growth.

ChrisL said:
Well, to be honest, I actually really enjoy sex. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

You're supposed to. Don't worry, however, we can fix that.

mad_scientist.gif


:lol:
 
maquiscat said:
Wow that is the most ill thought out response that I've seen in a long time. As humans we do hundreds of things that have no reasons other then they feel good! Why would sex be any different?
Click to expand...

What Henrin says:

Henrin said:
He didn't speak towards peoples motivations. Pleasure exists to make people want to engage in sex and in case you didn't know unplanned pregnancies are necessary to meet replacement rates.
Click to expand...
 
Gathomas88 said:
That's basically the way I am now as well, though I plan on making a go at it once I get a bit better situated.
Click to expand...

I might, but then again, a relationship will take time away from golfing, surfing, soccer, sleeping, reading and basically being happy and content. I just thought about it and I haven't had sex in over five years. Crazy. Never would have thought I would have been in this situation when I was younger. :lol:
 
opendebate said:
I don't believe that there is an instinct to procreate. Rather it feels good and we are inclined to pursue things that bring us pleasure so we do it. Pregnancy is one of many potential outcomes.
Click to expand...

Do you really imagine that we evolved to develop special (in some cases, quite vulnerable) organs, and devote probably a quarter or more of our waking lives to either thinking about or chasing down members of the opposite sex, simply so we could get 5-20 seconds worth of endorphins after expending God only knows how many precious calories awkwardly slamming against one another?

I'm sorry, but within any kind of biological or evolutionary context, it simply doesn't add up. It's too significant of an expenditure to be purely set towards something so pointless.
 
Gathomas88 said:
If something "feels good" there is generally a reason for it.
Click to expand...

OK then why does scratching a itch feel so good when doing so in many circumstances will actually make a problem such as poison ivy or chicken pox worse? What's the reason for skydiving making all those people who do it for fun feel good? Leave paratroopers out of that one. That's their job, and they don't necessarily feel good when they do it.

Complete asexuality would ultimately be preferable to homosexuality as a means of combating population growth.
Click to expand...

We have those types of people too.
 
Henrin said:
He didn't speak towards peoples motivations. Pleasure exists to make people want to engage in sex and in case you didn't know unplanned pregnancies are necessary to meet replacement rates.
Click to expand...

So then why do homosexual individuals engage in heterosexual activities when they want kids. In order to have kids! Not for pleasure.

Replacement rates? What we have population quotas now?

ChrisL said:
I mean we are too intelligent to have sex if it didn't feel good. Why would we want to do it otherwise? To have children? :lol:
Click to expand...

Again, if that was the case then why do some homosexuals engage in heterosexual sex. It doesn't feel good to them and yet they are intelligent enough to engage in to the activity to get what they want.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Do you really imagine that we evolved to develop special (in some cases, quite vulnerable) organs, and devote probably a quarter or more of our waking lives to either thinking about or chasing down members of the opposite sex, simply so we could get 5-20 seconds worth of endorphins after expending God only knows how many precious calories awkwardly slamming against one another?

I'm sorry, but within any kind of biological or evolutionary context, it simply doesn't add up. It's too significant of an expenditure to be purely set towards something so pointless.
Click to expand...

Yes. In order to understand my point you have to remove the element of intent; so no intelligence designing things for a particular outcome.
 
maquiscat said:
So then why do homosexual individuals engage in heterosexual activities when they want kids. In order to have kids! Not for pleasure.

Replacement rates? What we have population quotas now?



Again, if that was the case then why do some homosexuals engage in heterosexual sex. It doesn't feel good to them and yet they are intelligent enough to engage in to the activity to get what they want.
Click to expand...

It doesn't feel good for them? :confused: Why doesn't it feel good for them? I'm quite sure that it physically still feels good. It's still sex with a penis and a hole or holes, to put it bluntly. :lol:
 
maquiscat said:
So then why do homosexual individuals engage in heterosexual activities when they want kids. In order to have kids! Not for pleasure.
Click to expand...

Your point? Did I say anywhere that people will never want to have kids?

Replacement rates? What we have population quotas now?
Click to expand...

Do you really think the human race was supposed to continually fail at replacing their population? Does that make sense to you? If so, how?

Again, if that was the case then why do some homosexuals engage in heterosexual sex. It doesn't feel good to them and yet they are intelligent enough to engage in to the activity to get what they want.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea it doesn't feel good? You are aware pleasure still happens even if you don't want sex or you're not attracted to the other person, right? I mean it's pretty common knowledge that rape victims feel pleasure from the experience.
 
ChrisL said:
It doesn't feel good for them? :confused: Why doesn't it feel good for them? I'm quite sure that it physically still feels good. It's still sex with a penis and a hole or holes, to put it bluntly. :lol:
Click to expand...

Google the male G spot. You'll find your answer.
 
maquiscat said:
OK then why does scratching a itch feel so good when doing so in many circumstances will actually make a problem such as poison ivy or chicken pox worse?
Click to expand...

Because those conditions are the result of hostile organisms which have explicitly adapted to work against your body's natural instincts for their own ends.

Frankly, even then, it's not like the scratching does nothing. It releases hormones which can serve as a pain killing element.

That's why we have an instinctual need to touch "wounded" areas of our bodies in the first place.

What's the reason for skydiving making all those people who do it for fun feel good? Leave paratroopers out of that one. That's their job, and they don't necessarily feel good when they do it.
Click to expand...

The release of hormones triggered by fear, which can have an intoxicating effect that some people become addicted to.

It's screwy to be sure, but not uncommon. Wires get "crossed" in that way fairly commonly with regard to behavior.

Our consciousness simply makes us more apt to seek it out.

maquiscat said:
So then why do homosexual individuals engage in heterosexual activities when they want kids. In order to have kids! Not for pleasure.
Click to expand...

Okay, but so what? How does that refute anything we've said?

A person can will themselves to do a lot of things, even if the flesh isn't necessarily willing.

Replacement rates? What we have population quotas now?
Click to expand...

Nature certainly does. It is the only reason we have survived.

Lineages which weren't able to reproduce themselves often enough to stay competitive eventually died off, and left only the more productive lineages behind.
 
Last edited:
No, homosexuality is not normal. A very small portion of the populace currently practices it.

It is probably natural - human sexuality can be bent in lots of different directions, and it certainly doesn't seem to require artificial imposition.
 
opendebate said:
Yes. In order to understand my point you have to remove the element of intent; so no intelligence designing things for a particular outcome.
Click to expand...

You're not getting it. On no level whatsoever does what you're suggesting work if the reproductive element is removed.

People didn't start rubbing up against one another for no reason just because it felt good, and then magically discover that babies came afterwards.

What almost certainly happened was that some species way back when was pleasurelessly having sex, and some members of the species simply happened to adapt in such a way that it felt "good" as well. Those individuals were more likely to pass on their genes than the ones who reproduced without pleasure, and so their lineage survived where the others did not.

This is basic cause and effect here. You've simply got the order backwards.
 
opendebate said:
Google the male G spot. You'll find your answer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so? That doesn't mean that don't like other stimulation as well. They probably still like blow jobs. Some women enjoy anal sex too. Some people like all kinds of sex. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom